heady marlin
hi guys. Which do you think is more performing for update method?
update(){
if(shouldIRunTheFunction)
theFunction();
}
or
List<Action> functions = new List<Action>();
update(){
foreach (Action func in functions)
func();
}
//when i need to run function in every frame
functions.Add(theFunction);
//when the function is not necessary
functions.remove(theFunction);
or i can use the for loop at the "action list" codes
plucky ridge
put a stopwatch around it or use https://github.com/dotnet/BenchmarkDotNet to get a quanitative answer
pseudo wigeon
hi guys. Which do you think is more performing for update method?
```
update(){
...
keeping a variable for every method call is not gonna be fun
plucky ridge
theoretically the list method will be faster as it has to do less work (fewer pipeline flushes / cache misses)
heady marlin
i wonder if there is a more performing way to run a function in every frames when want and don't run when i don't want but don't check it so don't make effort
it's like put something in update method and remove when i want
plucky ridge
if you enable disable the component the engine will probably remove it from its internal update stack... in any case it won't have update called anymore
unless you are very deep into optimising a very large number of gameobjects that update every frame, i would not worry about such checks.
enabled components with an update method are the limiting factor more so than the check whether the update should do something... if you manage those update calls yourself in a more cache/pipeline friendly way you can get significanly more objects into a scene... those just can't be active GameObjects as that would negate your optimisations again.
deep down in low-level unsafe, unmanaged, pointer-based C# you can squeeze a lot of performance out of your CPU...
heady marlin
no i'll control them in a varaible. u know get and set functions. if a bool varaible get true, run the update, if not close the update. btw yea enabling and disabling a component is more logical.
(sory for my english)
so with varaibles, the checking system doesn't take so much cpu performance