If you already went through the trouble of collecting facts and have the nerves, go for it. There are too many idiots filling the comment sections of most social media platforms. Don't let them be the only ones who are being heard / read. We need more of those usually silent people speaking up.
It depends on a lot of factors though. Creating your own engine is by far not an easy task. The more feature rich it shall become, the more work it will need. Especially if it should have high 3D graphics quality while also running performant. That alone can cost a good team at least 2 to 5 years.
Switching engines also depends on how portable your work from the old engine is with regard to the new engine. It may not be impossible but can still be a lot of work. The earlier that decision is made, the better.
If the devs are determined enough they can surely do a switch. But they might sweat a lot. And especially for smaller studios, or studios without sufficient funding, this quickly becomes a matter of financial survival.
So it's not impossible, yes. But don't take that lightly as well.
Germans would say "Tja", shrug and then drive with their unnecessarily big car to the bakery which is around the corner to buy some Mettwurstbrötchen. Sitting then with their friends at a Stammtisch over a beer and talk angrily about how people need to change something before they fall into bed and forget about it.
I don't want a pat on the head. I want to overthrow capitalism in its current form and revolutionize our society for the benefit of all and not only a few.
To continue dissecting this, since I don't have anything better to do right now:
What you do in that time depends. If you drive a faster car, sure, you'll travel a further distance in less time than a slower car. If you use the same car however, the distance is as meaningful as the time for a symbol of progress. Since technological and scientific advancements in general don't depend on people driving around in cars, but on people investing a lot of time and effort, I would prefer time as a measurement.
Usually, if we think about scientific, technological or cultural progress, we tend to judge based on time and not on distance. For example, consider some indigenous cultures which live their lifes isolated from the rest of the world. They are often compared to primitive "stoneage"-like cultures. We specifically use time as a measure.
However, I am not completely opposed to agreeing with you. I think it depends on what you want to emphasize. A distance can be useful for reflecting some aspects in which, e.g., a software, takes the lead compared to alternatives. Then again, time would be better suited to highlight very innovative features or significant futuristic advancements which may have groundbreaking qualities.
And if someone is already using "lightyears" as a measure, I think that's already an amount of improvement which deserves a time-based phrasing.
Anyway, I see good points for both and I am no longer interested in this. Take it or leave it. I don't care anymore.
Good point. I guess it depends on the interpretation. If you consider that developments take time, be it developments in software, technology, research or whatever, then saying something like "this software is years ahead of its time" sounds appropriate.
That's how I read the comment. Additionally, given that it's a common misconception that a lightyear describes a timespan, I felt the urge to be a smartass.
Most of the time it's just meaningless gibberish in my experience.