I’m using Voyager and the search function is awesome. I stopped using Jerboa a long time ago and I don’t remember exactly why.

Where are you searching?

!playstation@lemmy.world

On Saturday, competing couples did not have to be married, nor did they have to be a man and a woman.

Awesome. Looks like a lot of fun!

In terms of the overall point, I was talking about Unreal specifically. If it makes you understand better that all engines are geared toward specific game features, great, read it that way. However, you still don’t seem to understand that UE5 isn’t the right engine out-of-the-box for every game. So even if I buried that, and now it’s clear, you’re still in denial.

You keep saying it, but at the scale of games Bethesda makes it isn’t simply a fact that switching engines will be faster or easier. Even switching a code base from UE3 to UE4, or UE4 to UE5 wasn’t/isn’t a simple task (I’ve done it, I know.) Completely switching engines means you’re losing almost everything. You simply don’t seem to understand the scale of work entailed with moving major features from one engine to another. Or for maintaining features in an engine you don’t have full control of. I’ve done that too.

You’ve already said that you can’t be convinced otherwise though, so clearly you think you’re smarter than them, despite their deep knowledge of what they’re making.

I’m not saying they made all the best choices (or that they will going forward), but being flippant about the obviousness of the choice, and saying it is simply faster to switch engines demonstrates serious lack of knowledge and experience in the matter.

“Las Malvinas” tensions… FTFY

They don’t make the engine to make that game.

They shouldn’t, if they’re going to be an engine company. But anything that isn’t for keeping Fortnite pulling in billions of dollars is secondary.

It has gained features over a long period of time that would fit common use cases from other developers, regardless of what Epic has built.

Gained and lost. Very basic things necessary to make all the new features work with anything “not Fortnite” were missing when UE5 was released. It absolutely released as an engine for making Fortnite type games and everything else was/is an afterthought. You either had to make atrocious work arounds, engine changes, or wait for stuff to be fixed/added, delaying your project.

Meanwhile, nothing will convince me that Bethesda’s tech stack is worth keeping.

Do you have inside knowledge? UE5 isn’t the be-all end-all of game engines. Not everyone should switch to it. And frankly, as gamers and devs, we desperately need a good competitor to show up soon. Epic is gaining way too much control over our experiences.

The problem with Unreal Engine is (and always has been) that Epic makes the engine to make the game they’re currently working on. So right now it is a Fortnite engine. Previously it was a Gears of War engine. (Maybe throw Paragon in between.) It started out as the engine for Unreal Tournament.

So if you want to take that engine and start making a different type of game, it’s not necessarily going to have the tools you need. It’s not necessarily even going to do what you need it to do at the base engine level. Not that it couldn’t, but Epic doesn’t give a shit. So they give you all the source code and support for building your own version of the engine so you can add the features you need.

You want to make a vast, persistent, open world with vast dungeons you can enter and explore? Yeah you’re going to have to build support for that in the engine yourself. You want to do it without loading screens? Better get deep into that engine code. You want to have vehicles or mounts? NPCs, companions, AI enemies? When they hadn’t added them to Fortnite yet, totally up to you to figure out, and probably through modifying the engine. Need to make major rendering improvements? Better dig in. Problems with the art pipeline lacking features you need

Every time you touch engine code, that’s new tech debt. If a new version of the engine comes out, you have to integrate the changes. The longer the project goes on, the harder that becomes. Then Epic finally comes out with the feature you built yourself (say vehicles) but its only partly the way you did it. Now you’re fucked and you have to decide right there: strip out your changes, switch to theirs and redo most of your work, or, stop taking engine upgrades and integrate new features piecemeal. Now you’re in tech debt hell.

Almost every developer starts off with saying, “we’ll use the engine as is, no engine changes allowed!” Three months later the cynical director is having a high level meeting about allowing a major feature get implemented in engine code. But it will be alright, they tell themselves. 3-5 years later they’re up to their eyeballs in tech debt of engine changes, and realizing Amazing Game 2 either needs to be built using the old version of the engine they’re stuck on from 2-4 years ago, or built from the ground up on a new version of the engine.

I’d be thinking long and hard before switching to UE5 if I were Bethesda. And they have the advantage of having access to some of the best Unreal Engine developers in the world (Obsidian, The Coalition) now that they’re part of Microsoft. They’re also probably getting a bunch of pressure to make the change as the studios create a corps of experts.

If I were them I would be very tempted to make the necessary changes to Creation Engine, and stay far, far away from Unreal. Sacrifice a year or two and your top engine devs to overhaul the pain points of Creation Engine, keep full control of your pipelines and versioning, and make the game you want to make, not the one Epic wants you to make. You can even make awesome DLC or a smaller sequel game on the old branched engine while the overhaul takes place, and just have a small core team working out the kinks on the new system.

I guess my point is, tech debt is not the point, because there will always be tech debt. It’s a much bigger decision than that.

Archive: https://archive.is/WA68z

They have an “attack flow” diagram that seems to indicate a hacker installing it directly through a known vulnerability.

Good point! If vehicles are communicating like that, which I’ve always thought would be the ultimate for efficiency, you’d have to protect against poison pills. That would be even more difficult with disparate systems cooperating.

Reminds me of the car “chase” scene in I, Robot.

I wonder if this could be a step in the direction of forcing manufacturers to allow custom/open source/audited software in all vehicles. If it can be done in some foreign-made vehicles, it can be done in domestically made ones too.

Also note that it says “connected and autonomous vehicles”. If that means two categories, “connected vehicles” and “autonomous vehicles”, it could be quite broadly applied to vehicles that download updates over the air. If it means “autonomous vehicles that are connected” it could be somewhat narrow and an easy work around is to leave the autonomous vehicles disconnected from the internet. I’m not sure how much self-driving abilities are run on servers?

I’m not saying biometrics should replace all usernames. I’m saying that they should be used as usernames/identification at best.

What if you want to have more than one account with a provider, but you have only one face?

Are you serious or are you being pedantic and trolling? That doesn’t change my point, your face shouldn’t be the password to both accounts. It’s pretty easy to add another step for multiple accounts.

Biometrics should be usernames, not passwords. Fingerprints, irises, faces, vocal patterns, all of it, no matter how good it is, only identifies the person trying to enter/use something and is somewhat easy to steal without their knowledge.

If you want true security you still need to ask for a passcode that only the now-identified user will know.

And yes, it is still possible to intercept the passcode at the moment that the user interacts with the locking mechanism, but that is completely different from grabbing it when they’re randomly walking down the street, etc.

(Edit to add: I didn’t think this needed to be explained, but I’m not saying biometrics should replace usernames, I’m saying they shouldn’t have replaced passwords. And yes, you can still use biometrics in the authentication process to identify that it’s you, i.e. your username, but you still need a password.)

Won’t upvote because I can’t believe this is unpopular!

Perhaps, but the point was to indicate OP’s odd assumptions about this community vs the videos one.

Maybe you need flair for the technology community?

I would not want my settings affected by the servers I connect to. That would piss me off.

Where do you imagine setting the default?