Make the resolution of the game HD.
-
I know this will take some work however this would be a good idea. Make sure it is avalible to any resolution, including 480,720, and 1080. Maybe 4k(if possible)?
-
I don't even know if a 1080p TPT would really run on anything ... you probably wouldn't even get 60fps on an empty screen.
Anyway, a game with only pixels doesn't really need to care about if it is HD or not. You can use double screen size mode or fullscreen mode if it is small on your computer. -
They could possibly add Multi-Thread physics for Multi-CPU core people like me to help smoothen it. If you have a quad core like me, TPT would run better on multi-thread. It would run better in 1080p more than 480p since quad cores can handle 4x the amount of physics on a Multi-thread simulation, rather than using one CPU. Even on triple cores it would work better. It would also add better and more realistic particle simulation. TPT could run in 1080p cause it is not a batch file or anything like that. It is made in lua(i believe) and lua is supposed to be a lightweight coding language on CPU's since Lua is very simple and specific to the computer, with it's scripts and directory findings.
Edited once by ChrisTheCreator. Last: 3rd Jul 2015 -
@ChrisTheCreator (View Post)
TPT is programmed in C / C++. Lua is a scripting language not suited for something as advanced and CPU-intensive as TPT, but Lua is nice for adding your own elements with scripts :P.
Multithreading some stuff would be nice, I could totally see the user interface, air simulation, or rendering being put in another thread. Maybe heat simulation too. I think the only one of those that would give a noticeable difference is multithreading the renderer though.
Multithreading the simulation itself would be a lot tougher and there are many issues involved in doing that. Previous attempts by users were filled with particle update glitches. -
@ChrisTheCreator (View Post)
Even with multithreading, 1920x1080 is 9 times larger than 612x384 (current resolution). If you want to have a comparable FPS you'd have to have 9 cores.
As jacob1 already mentioned, multithreaded particle simulation has a lot of issues. Behavior of a particle depends a lot on its surroundings, and if everything is multithreaded, we can't confidently say whether the surroundings have updated yet, or not. It could even happen (and would be much worse) that a surrounding particle is currently in the middle of the process of being updated. This is exactly where the glitches arise from. -
Multithreading the simulation can be easy, even with update glitches. Remember, users that attempt multithread the simulation on there own might not be coding the necessary scripts to sync up all of the threads. If the devs put work into this they could possibly sync up all of the simulation. Also, the type of CPU you have is important. The highest FPS that the game shows is 60. If you allow the game to go up to 120 or 240 FPS then it might go up to that. There is no way of telling if the CPU can handle things better than 60 fps if the max FPS is 60 frames
Edited 2 times by ChrisTheCreator. Last: 3rd Jul 2015 -
ChrisTheCreator:
Multithreading the simulation can be easy, even with update glitches. Remember, users that attempt multithread the simulation on there own might not be coding the necessary scripts to sync up all of the threads. If the devs put work into this they could possibly sync up all of the simulation. Also, the type of CPU you have is important. The highest FPS that the game shows is 60. If you allow the game to go up to 120 or 240 FPS then it might go up to that. There is no way of telling if the CPU can handle things better than 60 fps if the max FPS is 60 frames
Open the console and do tpt.setfpscap(2) and you'll see how fast it can run.
-
@ChrisTheCreator (View Post)
Did you actually read my post? I explained why it is *hard* (nearly impractically hard) to implement multithreaded simulation. No matter how much work you put into it.
