And what does the Compute Efficiency show? As much as I read the documentation for it, I can’t understand where the graph gets it’s values from. Is it tied to the CPU Time and Server Memory?
What is bad and what isn’t?
Which is the target goal for the CPU Time and Server Memory?
When should I feel it’s ok to leave it like it is?
What is happening with physics taking most in it, does it include AnimationTrack played on Server?
Are Constraints too expensive on performance for physics? Are they constantly applying force?
I anchor all moving objects and stop scripts in my game when players are far away, I am unable to know what is going on still. What’s the limit that physics really have?
I need directions at this point, some guide that really goes deep into performance, on a public server in my game there are:
300+ Awake Parts on a normal public server.
1.3K Parts are not grounded.
800 of those Parts are player characters.
500 of those Parts are from animals in my game, they all have network ownership set to Auto.
When players join the game on StreamingEnabled many parts become active all at once during the spike lags according to GetNumAwakeParts.
This is not a feature request at all, I just need answers…
I definitely miss being able to view the “concurrent users” graph in the server tab as it showed the difference from the previous period - a metric I frequently use to see where my game is headed.
I have read those already, the issue is with others Roblox experiences that crash quickly on 3GB memory android phone. I would guess it is due to weak cpu/gpu, but I wouldn’t expect a better performance from a <2GB memory phone.
This is great but even in a default baseplate, there are still memory leaks within Roblox scripts mostly when a character dies even with the new PlayerCharacterDestroyBehaviour enabled
Could you name them? Would love to see an example of what to do right! I’m also interested if these games “settle” on certain features or design choices to accommodate for said devices- a bit worried that the only games that can run on low end devices are games without a need for a dense map or high detail.
I can’t give out the names of Experiences which are doing well, you’ll have to trust me on this one.
I think < 10% of Experiences are seeing the < 2 GB Android insight… so… and this isn’t all the small Experiences, these are the largest ones too that are at the top of the charts.
Is it really worth it though? Optimization is great and everyone should consider low-end devices for sure (especially Android devices), however, optimizing an experience for an Android device that has <2GB RAM? Eh… doesn’t sound too beneficial IMO.
My options will be minimal even with streaming enabled if I want to add more features to my experience, sure, some experiences are generally small and may run well even on Android devices with <2GB RAM, but considering the general amount of players who play on these devices, will my experience even face a significant player count increase if I do support them?
I think Roblox is losing new Players unintentionally, but there is a Fix.
A large majority of phones out there are a low end devices, which are hand-me-downs from parents upgrading their hand sets, and given to their kids.
So instead of only assisting Devs on how to cater for low end devices… it would be helpful to direct new players to experiences that DO cater for their phones/tablets.
Just like you would search for experiences of different types, they should also be able to search via low end devices that would work on their devices.
Not all Devs are going to go back and optimize their games for low end devices, but as you said, there are plenty of games that are available (though can’t publicly name them), but they should be searchable.
ADD some description to all games (min requirement?), that inform the lowest possible memory per experience, or some other way help the newer or poorer customers pick games that help them know what is available for them to play - instead of just deserting the Roblox platform forever.
I believe you will increase your player base even more with such an “add-on”.
And maybe it will also entice DEV’s to cater for them as well, as they could be a large group of players.
I would disagree with that. From experience… iPhone has a longer usable life than Androids.
If that was the case, I wouldn’t be sitting with an iPhone right now - annoying entrapment.
This one will run on 1.5GB of RAM, it normally needs 5GB to run. It’s more about game design and building in memory and speed monitoring that take low end devices into account more than trying to force a big game on a device that it can never really work on at full RAM usage.
. It makes it so easy to quickly dispatch fixes.
It’s more about game design and building in memory and speed monitoring that take low end devices into account more than trying to force a big game on a device that it can never really work on at full RAM usage.