If you can allow users a choice of capping frame rates themselves or not it would be a good idea I think to allow that and give freedom of choice to level designers to decide how to use the engine to best advantage given their particular circumstances.
Though I have some under standing of the reasons, hard coded limitations and prevention of use, or removal of existing features hold back game designers and have done so with FPSC.
In the case of FPS - low fps itself has always impacted badly on stability in levels and during gameplay in game engines and particularly in FPSC.
I understand these are complex issues with many factors involved and I speak in general terms where giving the actual game makers anything you can to help them improve their game making has to be a good thing. Yes they will then always push the boundaries of what they do with what they are given and thats a good thing not a bad thing even if they break what they have by pushing those limits too far. Its then the creators choice to use the tools sensibly.
Without the choice then the boundaries of what can be achieved are always limited by whats available.
Personally I found the uncapped fps and the choice of having it the best thing by far thats happened to FPSC for many years and more important to the developer than any other update or feature thats been included since EA and V1.
SC and TGC has done a terrific job here in enhancing FPSC performance and the uncapping of the Frame Rate was a bold and long overdue step. To be highly commended and something we should all thank them for. "Thanks"
I have some glitches and issues in the latest versions, none of which I could attribute to Frame Rates being too high, however I have a lot of benefits from the uncapped frame rates. I have scope to actually do more creatively and physically with more stable levels and gameplay than since EA version of FPSC. I still have levels created in FPSC in the EA and V1 versions which had to be cut in half in later versions as the engine has never since been able handle them performance wise as they are just to large and complex for it even today with the uncapped Frame Rates, largely because other added features drain the engine of resources.
I have quite an acceptably powerful computer now and had to manage with a (getting older) low spec machine for some years, still I need every fps I can get to even achieve the same content and performance overall in levels and gameplay of FPSC of years ago.
However the Frame Rate is set its the lowest fps in a game that matters and not the highest, thus its the minimum average that can be maintained that matters at the lowest points of gameplay fps. To that end the higher the better to start off with as FPSC will quickly drain away that as your level complexity builds and during actual gameplay.
There are lots of issues. The FPSC engine, performance, stability, gameplay.
I could write a book but in the case of FPSC as with most engines, simply put generally speaking Low FPS is bad, High FPS is good and freedom of the game designer to use resources wisely and "creatively" can only be a good thing for any game engine.
On the question of FPSC World, Grid Size of 40 x 40. How nice it would be if one could have the 100 x 100 grid originally envisaged even if it could be as an extension to the world boundary outside of the current 40 x 40 where perhaps active character entities could not enter, rather so as to provide a more realistic view in outside levels toward the level boundary if nothing else which in and of itself would improve games "visually" made with FPSC dramatically.
Not sure that this would ever be possible considering issues which I am sure I do not fully understand. Again if a choice was possible without affecting performance it might be a good idea to allow that choice. I don't see how that would be possible but would not know. As always I am sure if it was you would already have it.
I think one may have to be happy with what has been achieved recently with the increased performance and again I thank SC and anyone else involved in the development of FPSC for the marked improvement which is most welcome.
