Competitor VS PureSim: Speed

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Competitor VS PureSim: Speed

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Competitor VS PureSim: Speed

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 1:13:27 AM

Abev

Posts: 228
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline

This is probably mostly for Shauin: I am speaking of one competitor specifically. How is their processing so much faster than PureSims? Is there anything that can be done to greatly improve speed without overhauling the entire code? i havnt tried their new realese but the old one was very fast.

I tried the other demo once and it seemed like the day's simming was done in a couple seconds, but yet it stored the same amount of data as PS .

As PS adds more and more features, something will need to be done to keep up the speed. e.g the thread in "Support" about off season processing 45 mins.

Post #: 1

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 1:27:46 AM

puresimmer

Posts: 2299
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

Believe me PureSim stores more than any competitor stats-wise.

Obviously speed is always a concern, and I have continued to improve performance. Additionally, I have added an option to the next patch to allow skipping the creation of the HTML almanac in the off season, which does require significant processing time.

I will continue to try and improve the speed -- primarily the off season processing. I do not think the game simulation speed is horrible, on my laptop I sim at a rate of 3 games a second.

Besides the Almanac processing in the off season, each release of PureSim has been faster than the previous. I guess its a question of play styles, if you prefer to simply let the computer sim games continually you should probably go with the competition.

_____________________________

Developer, PureSim Baseball

(in reply to Abev)

Post #: 2

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 1:44:34 AM

DandricSturm

Posts: 492
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: puresimmer

I guess its a question of play styles, if you prefer to simply let the computer sim games continually you should probably go with the competition.

Yikes! I hope you're not serious.

This might be a good place for me to interject something I've been thinking. Reading the PC Gamer review, it seems one thing he liked most about PureSim was it's ease of use. One thing he didn't like was sim speed.

In skimming the PureSim 2008 thread it seems there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of new features people want added. Some are minor, some fairly major. I hope PureSim doesn't go the route of trying to be all things to all people as, as "the competitor" has shown, that usually results in disaster. I don't have any problem with the time it takes to sim a season but the off season is becoming a killer. Breaking it into segments, like taking out the forced Almanac update as has already been done may help.

Be judicious in adding any new features, too many will spoil the, well, broth.

_____________________________

"The Guns, Thank God, The Guns..." - Rudyard Kipling
http://www.bluemax-ara-assoc.com/

(in reply to puresimmer)

Post #: 3

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 2:14:45 AM

rowech

Posts: 215
Joined: 6/9/2005
Status: offline

Agreed. I've watched too many games get ruined by adding too much. I do want to see the sim speed improved but if we choose not to create the almanac will we ever get to see it? Will it create the pages only when we go to look at them or will they not be created at all?

(in reply to DandricSturm)

Post #: 4

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 2:16:23 AM

DandricSturm

Posts: 492
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

You can create or update the Almanac anytime, removing the process from the off season.

_____________________________

"The Guns, Thank God, The Guns..." - Rudyard Kipling
http://www.bluemax-ara-assoc.com/

(in reply to rowech)

Post #: 5

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 2:24:18 AM

rasnell

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: puresimmer

Additionally, I have added an option to the next patch to allow skipping the creation of the HTML almanac in the off season, which does require significant processing time.

Thanks for listening. That's a big deal and something I figured we would have to wait for until PureSim 2008. The ball flight, sounds, ease of customizing stadiums and wonderful view in game of both team's rosters and all essential data just blow the doors off the competitors.

(in reply to puresimmer)

Post #: 6

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 2:41:25 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abev

I tried the other demo once and it seemed like the day's simming was done in a couple seconds, but yet it stored the same amount of data as PS .

Uh-huh.... Let me throw something out here - how quickly could I code something to fictionalize statistics so something seems quick? OTOH, if I build an elaborate physics model that takes a bit more time to process, but generates relevant statistics, how much time does that take?

I'll be straight up here - FPS Baseball had two modes - quick sim and slow sim. The slow sim followed the coding of the particular physics model (which you could tweak with what we'll call a pre-xml file). The quick or fast sim mode just threw out some stats based on less variables.

Which would you prefer?

Thus, in my mind, the entire sim time thing is a joke. Now if we talk off-season processing, well that is another story entirely.

Here's the thing - in the effort to get the processing time of an entire season down (and this is my opinion), much has been cut from the game that many, many of the oldtimers enjoyed. Gone are the scouts and managers and other aspects such as spring training. To me, that bites. I would have enjoyed if those things were left in as an 'association option'. And that's another thing to add to the PS2008 queue.

I absolutely don't want to see the integrity of PSBB's simulating accuracy be compromised. And I know Shaun has stated how important accurate simulation is to him, and his post above expresses that.

And I really don't want to see this thing pared down any farther from the standpoint of losing options. The sim speed is absolutely perfect, IMO. Offseason, ehhhhhh..... But I think Shaun is working on all of that.

And there is always 'the competition' if PSBB doesn't run fast enough for someone.

< Message edited by SittingDuck -- 8/3/2006 2:44:10 AM >

(in reply to Abev)

Post #: 7

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 2:56:22 AM

rowech

Posts: 215
Joined: 6/9/2005
Status: offline

I think the sim speed of the game is excellent. The off season almanac building though is a problem.

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 8

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 2:59:09 AM

rpommier

Posts: 71
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline

Lemme get in here too. As far as the sim time goes I'm fine with it, yes it's slower than BBMogul and OOTP but the universe is so much more alive than those. I would like to see more attention paid to fleshing out off-season and the contract model. It would be cool to trade draft picks, pay bonuses or add incentives to contracts.

As it stands now, I belive PureSim is feature complete, there's not much more I could ask for beyond the things I've brought up.

vr,
Rod

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 9

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 3:04:21 AM

puresimmer

Posts: 2299
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

I do agree that off season needs improvement. The 1.30 patch adds the ability to skip the almanac, so that will help some folks.

That said, PureSim 2008 will have some pretty big re-designs coming.

_____________________________

Developer, PureSim Baseball

(in reply to rpommier)

Post #: 10

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 3:29:11 AM

Nomo Ootp

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/27/2006
Status: offline

I really don't mind the sim speed. Yes, OOTP is much faster but if you add the fact that if you are using OOTP 6.5 that you would probably want to have CATOBASE then you will find that PureSim is not such a bad option after all. After about 20 or so seasons CATOBASE will take HOURS to build the pages (for some stupid reason all pages are rebuilt each year). I had a 140 season dynasty that I don't play for this reason. I had to move CATOBASE to a second machine and copy the files over to run the CATOBASE program which took between 2-3 DAYS to process. It appears that PureSim does not require a rebuild after each season of ALL previous seasons.

(in reply to puresimmer)

Post #: 11

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 3:57:04 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rpommier
It would be cool to trade draft picks, pay bonuses or add incentives to contracts.

I saw some HTML pages for that, so not sure if they was tried in the past. But from what I understand, ammy draft picks cannot be traded IRL. Now if we want is as an option in our own universe, that would be cool.

I actually wish they did allow trading of draft picks...

(in reply to rpommier)

Post #: 12

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 4:14:33 AM

Abev

Posts: 228
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline

A bit of a touchy subject I guess.

I have been with PS since 00-ish and have taken to task many of the trolls who were 'OOTP or bust'. I have always gone out of my way to quiet a PS basher. I dont think "look elsewhere" is the answer.

All I was asking was: HOW can it be sped up? Not "PS stinks cuz its too slow". No disrespect was meant.

The Almanac feature is a huge +, I dont think that 45 minutes (for some as claimed) is reasonable. Having it turned off, while a good stop gap, is no fun. I bet most want the almanac. Puresim will have more features. I want more features. I realize theres alot of data being written in the background.

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 13

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 4:34:16 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

Sorry, Abev. Didn't mean to step on your toes. I know where you were going. I guess I was sending that out as more of a quash for any who wanted lightning fast stuff at the expense of everything else. I should have worded it better.

I like the Almanac, but want it as a long-term reference (as I guess it was meant to be). I'd prefer updating it every few years (if it is all-inclusive). I have no probs setting it to update when I head to the sack. If that could be an option, like the option that you could initiate at some point (not necessarily during the offseason flow, but right after it, when the game has come to a 'pause' point), that would be fantastic.

(in reply to Abev)

Post #: 14

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 5:00:57 AM

verizon32

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/23/2006
Status: offline

This is great for people that like to sim so many years for history first.

This should now speed up the process with the almanac off.

Then later you can update the almanac.

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 15

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 3:55:15 PM

torque561

Posts: 61
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline

Puresim works just fine. Please don't overdo, I like the look and feel of the game. I've played many games over the years, I think this is the best.

(in reply to verizon32)

Post #: 16

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/3/2006 3:57:08 PM

Nomo Ootp

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: verizon32

This is great for people that like to sim so many years for history first.

This should now speed up the process with the almanac off.

Then later you can update the almanac.

I would believe that the data is not saved for every player in detail if the almanac feature is off. Another game just transfers data to the almanac and then cleans out the tables to be used for the next season. I hope this is not the case with Puresim, but I just can't see 20 years of data saved in the tables - hopefully I am wrong on this. If the game is like a competitors then the player ID's will be reused also.

Someone with a lot of seasons played can test this by moving the almanac out of their almanac folder and saving it in another folder on the pc and then just run the almanac at the end of the year as usual and see if all the historical pages are re-created.

(in reply to verizon32)

Post #: 17

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/4/2006 6:15:54 PM

henry296

Posts: 418
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomo Ootp

quote:

ORIGINAL: verizon32

This is great for people that like to sim so many years for history first.

This should now speed up the process with the almanac off.

Then later you can update the almanac.

With the new feature to not build the almanac after each season, Shaun said you can build it whenever and not lose any history.

Also, I had to reformat my hard drive and moved my .psa file but not the almanac and didn't lose any data when the almanac was built for the first time on the new machine.

I would believe that the data is not saved for every player in detail if the almanac feature is off. Another game just transfers data to the almanac and then cleans out the tables to be used for the next season. I hope this is not the case with Puresim, but I just can't see 20 years of data saved in the tables - hopefully I am wrong on this. If the game is like a competitors then the player ID's will be reused also.

Someone with a lot of seasons played can test this by moving the almanac out of their almanac folder and saving it in another folder on the pc and then just run the almanac at the end of the year as usual and see if all the historical pages are re-created.

(in reply to Nomo Ootp)

Post #: 18

RE: Competitor VS PureSim: Speed - 8/4/2006 6:48:51 PM

Nomo Ootp

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/27/2006
Status: offline

This is good news!!!� That at least shows that Shaun does not recycle id numbers for players, which was really dumb in the competitors game.�

< Message edited by Nomo Ootp -- 8/4/2006 6:49:26 PM >

(in reply to henry296)

Post #: 19