Quote: "so if you leave lightmapping till the end (or test it before you put in enemies and such) then you should still be able to test games at a fair speed."
And there you have the whole problem..... I've been doing that since V1 and it always worked fine. But no more since 104RC7, since levels that work fine without lightmapping, suddenly don't work anymore with lightmapping.
The new DarkLight lightmapping system puts a drain on my system that the old lightmapper never used to do. For me putting it in the end has left me with several unusable levels. So, I need to incorporate lights at an earlier stage now, to ensure the levels do work.
I do own a pc that meets the recommended requirements, easily, but it sure isn't good enough for running FPSC anymore.
I'm still debating if I should go back to RC6 and drop DArklights or if I should make my levels even smaller then they are.
BUT.... the worst of all of the latest developments will come when people with 'n'core systems have designed there games and will try to sell them.... the majority will not be able to really enjoy the games at all, but experience slow games with long loading times.
I've made up my mind already due to all of the latest developments FPSC will NOT be my main tool for creating games anymore. It's more and more geared at high end machines and it's clear by now that Lee cannot solve the speed issues at all, so he recommends using a high end machine instead. That is not solving the problem at all. I do want my games to be played by the average Joe and games created with FPSC will either have small boring levels to allow him to play or cannot be played because the large levels do demand a high end system which he doesn't own.
It's clear by the announcement that FPSC will never run comfortably without a high end system, so it's time for me to look for alternatives that will allow me to create games that can be played.... or drop game design alltogether.
FPSC may still be used for my teaching projects, but even that is under debate.
