I don't know, support can't hurt anybody. And better to much performance than to less performance. Right?
I admit I indirectly questioned your programming skills. But at the same time, you admit that your scripts could use optimisation. Isn't it a little early then to ask for 'multi-core support' then?
And what do I have to loose?
But that's not the point.
Your 'argument' for the case is simply stating it is useful while you ignore my arguments that it doesn't have a point because it would make Game Maker very complex and unfriendly to use, that there are some built-in alternatives and, most important of all, there doesn't seem to be be much room for it's implementation because threads run at machine code level rather than GML script level.
I didn't ignore your agruments in my vision but okay.
So GM would be to complex if it supports dualcore?
That's kinda strange because I thought there is a way so let the executable work on both cores.
Windows automatically balances it to the cores if the support is there.
But if you say so, I guess you're right. You're the Smarty and closest to Gamemaker itself.
Hmmm... couldn't hurt... but okay, what do you expect from me then?
If you wish to uphold the argument for multi-core support, then I would appreciate it if you address the points I made.
At home we have 2 of the 5 PC's with dualcore.
Give me a percentage of how many home players have multiple-core processors or systems. 'Many' isn't a valid qualification. It's not even an argument. Just because it's there, doesn't mean it's useful or that it has to be used.
My upcoming laptop get's dualcore.
My friends have all dual and quadcore's.
At this moment, I don't know many people who still have singlecore (no joke).
But I guess that i'm in the range of hardcore gamers.
Most people still have singlecore but because Intel's Core 2 Duo processors it will get higher and higher. The future looks bright for the multicore.
Any way, thanks for the answers Smarty!
Edited by krejic, 18 December 2007 - 12:11 PM.