5,502
edits
Project:General Discussions: Difference between revisions
→Performance Addition to Game Wiki Pages
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::Honestly I don't really see much point... Games that need DSP LLE are marked as such, those that need EFB to Ram are marked as such, so saying "this game is fine with EFB to Texture" is just redundant. This is why we removed config entries that recommended EFB to Texture and created the best accuracy rule in the first place. Well, that and people filling out a page with their favorite settings irregardless of how it broke things! The accuracy rule gave us a standard of objectivity that kept favorite settings and things that can be reproduced away from the wiki, and helped it be as useful as it is. Games that are ok without EFB is a valid point... if users could disable efb copies anymore! Most of the dumb settings like that have been removed. :P And if antialiasing or AF or something breaks something or is needed, it's already mentioned (see skyward sword). "Camouflaged" it may be, but all of the information is there, so honestly I think all of this is covered already by existing conventions. If a game needs something that's intensive, it's mentioned, and if it doesn't, use what runs fastest (which is already the default...) - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 02:51, 3 May 2015 (CEST) | ::Honestly I don't really see much point... Games that need DSP LLE are marked as such, those that need EFB to Ram are marked as such, so saying "this game is fine with EFB to Texture" is just redundant. This is why we removed config entries that recommended EFB to Texture and created the best accuracy rule in the first place. Well, that and people filling out a page with their favorite settings irregardless of how it broke things! The accuracy rule gave us a standard of objectivity that kept favorite settings and things that can be reproduced away from the wiki, and helped it be as useful as it is. Games that are ok without EFB is a valid point... if users could disable efb copies anymore! Most of the dumb settings like that have been removed. :P And if antialiasing or AF or something breaks something or is needed, it's already mentioned (see skyward sword). "Camouflaged" it may be, but all of the information is there, so honestly I think all of this is covered already by existing conventions. If a game needs something that's intensive, it's mentioned, and if it doesn't, use what runs fastest (which is already the default...) - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 02:51, 3 May 2015 (CEST) | ||
:::On a final note, any performance additions to this wiki should follow the objectivity rule: they would have to measurable and reproducible. Part of my resistance to this idea is just how badly things were with performance in the past, because people would put things up saying it's "faster" and then we'd kill it for being dumb and they'd put it back '''insisting''' it is better and must be on the page! We were only able to clean that up by implementing the accuracy and objectivity concepts. So I'm definitely scared by all of this performance talk, as it is trying to bring back some of the things that let crap enter this wiki. While I am not very open to it, at the very least it would need to follow objectivity standards, and have a plan prepared ahead of time for dealing with "but these are the best settings!" people. ...and there is also the fact that we can't test every game and every post that comes through, and this performance thing could let users sneak more weird settings in since it's harder to understand performance impacts since it varies so much with hardware. Ok yea I'm still against it. But my point is, objectivity rules and preparations against ignorant users must be involved in this! - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 02:58, 3 May 2015 (CEST) | |||
=== Game .ini Documentation? === | === Game .ini Documentation? === | ||