What's the production cost of this per key?

Does communication work well and feel snappy with a full set of keys? How is the structural integrity of a full one? Can it be easily moved around? That type of questions could easily make this unusable at scale.

I like Unreal because it's really quite intuitive and ergonomic for larger productions, fairly well documented, and has some of the coolest tech in the industry. Their rendering pipelines are beautiful and a joy to work with and I could rant all day about my love for Nanite and Lumen. It is light years ahead of Unity and much easier to understand and modify than Frostbite.

I will say that Unity has better support out of the box for custom shaders and compute than Unreal (and Frostbite).

Now, you mentioned performance. Funny thing: performance has been my primary professional concern for the last six years of my career. Unreal itself performs very well if you use it correctly and has really good documentation for best practices as well as amazing tools for measuring performance and indicating what is wrong. The tools in Frostbite were very lackluster. Unity has some fairly good stuff. Unreal feels so far ahead.

I believe the reason there are more visible Unreal games with performance issues is because there are a lot more noteworthy ambitious productions in Unreal. That means games which push what they can deliver, and often don't quite get there. And for smaller productions it's likely just a matter of less experienced teams not following the best practices or cranking settings up to 11 without proper performance budgeting.

There are some issues with workflow and it is true that the UI definitely was, as many at EA said, "by programmers for programmers". But it's a very capable engine in the right hands.

That said, I'd pick Unreal any day for a AAA project and Unity or Unreal for smaller projects.

However, The Veilguard to me was amazing. I loved that game and it's my favorite Dragon Age.

A private key is a tiny number you don't need to share publicly because it is easy enough to guess.

The narrative makes it sound like boundless RSI but the actual content is only about training agents to collaborate efficiently by improving communication. That seems like a dimension and approach with limited potential for improvement. I also find it very suspicious that a paper on RSI would stop after just two rounds.

https://gegell.github.io/posts/factorio-rng/

My comment was mainly a joke. Since my work is primarily with performance and graphics, I rarely use any proper RNG and usually only need cheap things which look random enough at first glance.

But, I make games.

https://www.makonea.com/en-US/blog/Pokemon-Red-and-the-Evolu...

Looking through it I learned some cool stuff - I had no idea about this.

However, there's one piece of advice which seems applicable to most technical writing I saw on this blog, especially the Pokémon FSM one:

You need to work on pacing and length. The core issue is very broad scope. Think carefully about your target audience and the key insight you want to communicate. Then narrow your scope to communicating only what is necessary for that idea, skipping things your target audience can be assumed to already understand. The writing will automatically get snappier and more engaging.

If you want to explain the FSM script engine in Pokémon you have to assume the reader is somewhat familiar with programming and won't need a primer on registers. Otherwise you're writing a low-level programming primer, not an article about a clever technique in a video game.

It's also interesting to see how much of the developer only systems and documentation has been recreated via reverse engineering. For some consoles I've worked with professionally it's a lot more than I would have thought.

This whole system feels so quirky and fiddly to work with compared to modern dev kits.

It's some of the best sci-fi I've read. Very interesting depiction of technology and I love how the different types of tech and societal structures are not explained, just showcased and talked about like it's obvious until you get it. It reminds me of Philip K. Dick but with a lot more scientifically grounded yet far out technology.

The real challenge with porting is, as I mentioned, porting modern games to constrained hardware. Specifically, porting demanding new PC games to current-gen consoles.

This is absolutely mind-blowing. And at the same time definitely overblown.

This stuff is impressive, but reversing is specifically what these models seems best at and porting new games to weaker hardware is way tougher than this. Not to mention making new games.