We Keep Coding

Most efficient way, Tags or List<GameObject>?

In my game I can use a list of game objects or tags to iterate but i prefer knows what is the most efficient way.
Save more memory using tags or unity requires many resources to do a search by tag?
public List<City> _Citys = new List<City>();
or
foreach(GameObject go in GameObject.FindGameObjectsWithTag("City"))

You're better of using a List of City objects and doing a standard for loop to iterate over the 'City' objects. The List just simply holds references to the 'City' objects, so impact on memory should be minimal - you could use an array of GameObjects[] instead of a List (which is what FindGameObjectsWithTag returns).
It's better for performance to use a populated List/Array rather than searching by Tags and of course you're explicitly pointing to an object rather than using 'magic' strings -- if you change the tag name later on then the FindGameObjectsWithTag method will silently break, as it will no longer find any objects.
Also, avoid using a foreach loop in Unity as this unfortunately creates a lot of garbage (the garbage collector in Unity isn't great so it's best to create as little garbage as possbile), instead just use a standard for loop:
Replace the “foreach” loops with simple “for” loops. For some reason, every iteration of every “foreach” loop generated 24 Bytes of garbage memory. A simple loop iterating 10 times left 240 Bytes of memory ready to be collected which was just unacceptable
EDIT: As mentioned in pid's answer - measure. You can use the built-in Unity profiler to inspect memory usage: http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/ProfilerMemory.html

Per Microsoft's C# API rules, verbs such as Find* or Count* denote active code while terms such as Length stand for actual values that require no code execution.
Now, if the Unity3D folks respected those guidelines is a matter of debate, but from the name of the method I can already tell that it has a cost and should not be taken too lightly.
On the other side, your question is about performance, not correctness. Both ways are correct per se, but one is supposed to have better performance.
So, the main rule of refactoring for performance is: MEASURE.
It depends on memory allocation and garbage collection, it is impossible to tell which really is faster without measuring.
So the best advice I could give you is pretty general. Whenever you feel the need to enhance performance of code you have to actually measure what you are about to improve, before and after.

Your code examples are 2 distinctly different things. One is instantiating a list, and one is enumerating over an IEnumerable returned from a function call.
I assume you mean the difference between iterating over your declared list vs iterating over the return value from GameObject.FindObjectsWithTag() in which case;
Storing a List as a member variable in your class, populating it once and then iterating over it several times is more efficient than iterating over GameObject.FindObjectsWithTag several times.
This is because you keep your List and your references to the objects in your list at all times without having to repopulate it.
GameObject.FindObjectsWithTag will search your entire object hierarchy and compile a list of all the objects that it finds that matches your search criteria. This is done every time you call the function, so there is additional overhead even if the amount of objects it finds is the same as it still searches your hierarchy.
To be honest, you could just cache your results with a List object using GameObject.FindObjectWithTag providing the amount of objects returned will not change. (As in to say you are not instantiating or destroying any of those objects)

How to effectively discard an array and fill it with new values?

I've got a few global arrays I use in a simple WinForms game. The arrays are initialized when a new game starts. When a player is in the middle of the game (the arrays are filled with data) he clicks on the StartNewGame() button (restarts the game). What to do next?
Is it ok to reinitialize the whole array for the new game or should I just set every array item to null and use the already initialized array (which would be slower)?
I mean is it okay to do something like this?
MyClass[,] gameObjects;
public Form1()
{
StartNewGame();
// game flow .. simplified here .. normally devided in functions and events..
StartNewGame();
// other game flow
}
public StartNewGame()
{
gameObjects = new MyClass[10,10];
// some work with gameObjects
}

This almost entirely depends upon MyClass, specifically how many data members it contains, how much processing does its constructor (and members' constructors) require and whether it is a relatively simply operation to (re)set an object of this class to "initialized" state. A more objective answer can be obtained through benchmarking.

From you question, I understand that there are not so many array's - in that case I would say, reinitialize the whole array
In cases you have a lot of work that can take 30 sec to set up maybe you do clean up instead of reinitializing everything.
If you choose to place null, you can jet some ugly exception , so I think you rather clean the object inside the array rather then set them to null

If there are only 100 elements as in your example, then there shouldn't really be a noticeable performance hit.
If you reinitialize the array, you will perform n constructions for n objects. The garbage collector will come clean up the old array and de-allocate those old n objects at some later time. (So you have n allocations upfront, and n deallocations by the GC).
If you set each pointer in the array to null, the garbage collector will still do the same amount of work and come clean up those n objects at some later time. The only difference is you're not deallocating the array here, but that single deallocation is negligible.
From my point of view, the best way to achieve performance in this case is to not reallocate the objects at all, but to use the same ones. Add a valid bit to mark whether or not an object is valid (in use), and to reinitialize you simply set all the valid bits to false. In a similar fashion, programs don't go through and write 0's to all your memory when it's not in use. They just leave it as garbage and overwrite data as necessary.
But again, if your number of objects isn't going into the thousands, I'd say you really won't notice the performance hit.

gameObjects = new MyClass[10,10];
... is the way to go. This is definitely faster than looping through the array and setting the items to null. It is also simpler to code and to understand. But both variants are very fast in anyway, unless you have tens of millions of entries! '[10, 10]' is very small, so forget about performance and do what seems more appropriate and more understandable to you. A clean coding is more important than performance in most cases.

XNA VertexBuffer for Terrain Editor

I'm working on a personal project that, like many XNA projects, started with a terrain displacement map which is used to generate a collection of vertices which are rendered in a Device.DrawIndexedPrimitives() call.
I've updated to a custom VertexDeclaration, but I don't have access to that code right now, so I will post the slightly older, but paradigmatically identical (?) code.
I'm defining a VertexBuffer as:
VertexBuffer = new VertexBuffer(device, VertexPositionNormalTexture.VertexDeclaration, vertices.Length, BufferUsage.WriteOnly);
VertexBuffer.SetData(vertices);
where 'vertices' is defined as:
VertexPositionNormalTexture[] vertices
I've also got two index buffers that are swapped on each Update() iteration. In the Draw() call, I set the GraphicsDevice buffers:
Device.SetVertexBuffer(_buffers.VertexBuffer);
Device.Indices = _buffers.IndexBuffer;
Ignoring what I hope are irrelevant lines of code, I've got a method that checks within a bounding shape to determine whether a vertex is within a certain radius of the mouse cursor and raises or lowers those vertex positions depending upon which key is pressed. My problem is that the VertexBuffer.SetData() is only called once at initialization of the container class.
Modifying the VertexPositionNormalTexture[] array's vertex positions doesn't get reflected to the screen, though the values of the vertex positions are changed. I believe this to be tied to the VertexBuffer.SetData() call, but you can't simply call SetData() with the vertex array after modifying it.
After re-examining how the IndexBuffer is handled (2 buffers, swapped and passed into SetData() at Update() time), I'm thinking this should be the way to handle VertexBuffer manipulations, but does this work? Is there a more appropriate way? I saw another reference to a similar question on here, but the link to source was on MegaUpload, so...
I'll try my VertexBuffer.Swap() idea out, but I have also seen references to DynamicVertexBuffer and wonder what the gain there is? Performance supposedly suffers, but for a terrain editor, I don't see that as being too huge a trade-off if I can manipulate the vertex data dynamically.
I can post more code, but I think this is probably a lack of understanding of how the device buffers are set or data is streamed to them.
EDIT: The solution proposed below is correct. I will post my code shortly.

First: I am assuming you are not adding or subtracting vertices from the terrain. If you aren't, you won't need to alter the indexbuffer at all.
Second: you are correct in recognizing that simply editing your array of vertices will not change what is displayed on screen. A VertexBuffer is entirely separate from the vertices it is created from and does not keep a reference to the original array of them. It is a 'snapshot' of your vertices when you set the data.
I'm not sure about some of what seem to be assumptions you have made. You can, as far as I am aware, call VertexBuffer.SetData() at any time. If you are not changing the number of vertices in your terrain, only their positions, this is good. Simply re-set the data in the buffer every time you change the position of a vertex. [Note: if I am wrong and you can only set the data on a buffer once, then just replace the old instance of the buffer with a new one and set the data on that. I don't think you need to, though, unless you've changed the number of vertices]
Calling SetData is fairly expensive for a large buffer, though. You may consider 'chunking' your terrain into many smaller buffers to avoid the overhead required to set the data upon changing the terrain.
I do not know much about the DynamicVertexBuffer class, but I don't think it's optimal for this situation (even if it sounds like it is). I think it's more used for particle vertices. I could be wrong, though. Definitely research it.
Out of curiosity, why do you need two index buffers? If your vertices are the same, why would you use different indices per frame?
Edit: Your code for creating the VertexBuffer uses BufferUsage.WriteOnly. Good practice is to make the BufferUsage match that of the GraphicsDevice. If you haven't set the BufferUsage of the device, you probably just want to use BufferUsage.None. Try both and check performance differences if you like.

C# optimization - arrays / lists of value types and the stack (gaming)

I'm working on a game and am in the middle of a bit of AI number crunching and I want to optimize the code as much as I can. I have several structs in my code like Circle, Vector, etc. I want to reduce to a minimum the load on the GC as a result of this code since it will run many times a second and in each invocation will generate several large arrays and perform a lot of computations.
My question is, if I have a small method that can "return" multiple value types (i.e intersection of circle and vector, etc), what is the most performant way to transfer its result back to the main method?
I can think of a few ways to do it:
Return an array of the results i.e Vector[ ]
Return a List<Vector>
Pass in a List<Vector>
Any other way..?
What would be the best strategy to avoid a lot of small unnecessary objects / arrays on the heap that the GC then has to collect?

If you're in a situation where:
You're calling this method very frequently
You'll always be dealing with the same size of collection (or similar, at least)
You don't need the previous results by the time you next call it
... then you may be able to improve performance by repeatedly passing in the same array (or List<T>) and modifying it. On the other hand, you should absolutely measure performance before making any changes. You should also determine what's going to be "good enough" so you don't bend your code away from the most natural design any more than you have to.

This depends a lot of the type of your data passed, most times games use structs for vectors, intersection-data, etc...
When the data are structs you should avoid List<T> and passing per value because the data is copied then. But this depends a lot on the code, sometimes passing per value might be faster, sometimes not. I would make some performance tests. You can use this method for simple tests without a profiler:
public static Int64 MeasureTime(Action myAction)
{
var stopWatch = new Stopwatch();
stopWatch.Start();
myAction();
stopWatch.Stop();
return stopWatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
}
When dealing with structs it might be always a good way to use out or ref.
More informations
All this situations may not cause a performance issue, they are just to explain best practices i learned when working with structs. To determine if ref and out are useful in each case you should make a performance test.
ref is used to avoid such situations:
Vector input = new Vector(x, y, z);
input = ModifyVector(input); // This line causes copies of the input vector and it's slow
The performance hit here depends a lot of the size of the Vector class, it's not a good practice to use the following method everytime. When returning a simple Int32 it's not necessary and should not be used to keep the code readable.
Right way:
Vector input = new Vector(x, y, z);
ModifyVector(ref input);
Of course the ref keyword could be used to make methods faster which return nothing, but this methods must take care about the data passed to them and should avoid modifing them. The speed benefit could be more than 50% in some situations ( I have a high-performance vector library and i tested many cases ).
out is used to avoid such situations:
Ray ray = ...;
CollisionData data = CastRay(ref ray); // Note the ref here to pass the Ray which contains 6 floats
CollisionData contains at least the point where it hits the ground and a normal. When using out here to get the result it should be much faster.
Right way:
Ray ray = ...;
CollisionData data;
CastRay(ref ray, out data);
When using arrays..
..you should know that a array is already a reference and you don't need the ref or out keyword to handle them. But when working with structs you should know that you are not holding references of the structs in your array. So when modifing a value of a array you can use ref myArray[0] to pass the value to a method and modify the struct at index zero in place without copying it. Also avoid to create new instances of them.

Don't know what is your platform/framework (XNA?), but I have encountered a problem with GC under Windows Phone 7 (7.5 got generational GC, but haven't test it). To avoid so called freezes of GC I made a collection where I pre-load all necessary data into Dictionary.
but first measure measure measure.

How to handle many updating objects efficiently in C#?

I'm developing a 2D overhead shooter game using C# and XNA. I have a class that I'll call "bullet" and need to update many of these instances every fraction of a second.
My first way to do this was to have a generic List of bullets and simply remove and add new bullets as needed. But in doing so the GC kicks in often and my game had some periodic jerky lag. (Alot of code cut out, but just wanted to show a simple snippet)
if (triggerButton)
{
bullets.Add(new bullet());
}
if (bulletDestroyed)
{
bullets.Remove(bullet);
}
My second and current attempt is to have a separate generic Stack of bullets that I push to when I'm done with a bullet, and pop off a bullet when I need a new one if there's anything in the stack. If there's nothing in the stack then I add a new bullet to the list. It seems to cut the jerky lag but then again, sometimes there's still some jerky lag springing up (though I don't know if it's related).
if (triggerButton)
{
if (bulletStack.Count > 0)
{
bullet temp = bulletStack.Pop();
temp.resetPosition();
bullets.Add(temp);
}
else
{
bullets.Add(new bullet());
}
}
if (bulletDestroyed)
{
bulletStack.Push(bullet);
bullets.Remove(bullet);
}
So, I know premature optimization is the root of all evil, but this was very noticeable inefficiency that I could catch early (and this was before even having to worry about enemy bullets filling the screen). So my questions are: Will pushing unused objects to a stack invoke the garbage collection? Will the references by kept alive or are objects still being destroyed? Is there a better way to handle updating many different objects? For instance, am I getting too fancy? Would it be fine to just iterate through the list and find an unused bullet that way?

There are a lot of issues here, and it's tricky to tell.
First off, is bullet a struct or a class? If bullet is a class, any time you construct one, then unroot it (let it go out of scope or set it to null), you're going to be adding something the GC needs to collection.
If you're going to be making many of these, and updating them every frame, you may want to consider using a List<bullet> with bullet being a struct, and the List being pre-allocated (generate it with a size large enough to hold all of your bullets, so it's not being recreated as you call List.Add). This will help dramatically with the GC pressure.
Also, just because I need to rant:
So, I know premature optimization is the root of all evil, but this was very noticeable inefficiency
Never, ever, be afraid to optimize a routine that you know is causing problems. If you're seeing a performance issue (ie: your lags), this is no longer premature optimization. Yes, you don't want to be optimizing every line of code, but you do need to optimize code, especially when you see a real performance issue. Optimizing it as soon as you see it's a problem is much easier than trying to optimize it later, as any design changes required will be much more easily implemented before you've added a lot of other code that uses your bullet class.

You may find the flyweight design pattern useful. There need be only one bullet object, but multiple flyweights may specify different positions and velocities for it. The flyweights can be stored in a preallocated array (say, 100) and flagged as active or not.
That should eliminate garbage-collection completely, and may reduce the space necessary for tracking each bullet's malleable properties.

I will admit that I don't have any experience in this per se, but I would consider using a traditional array. Initialize the array to a size that is more then you need, and would be the theoretical maximum number of bullets, say 100. Then starting at 0 assign the bullets at the beginning of the array, leaving the last element as a null. So if you had four active bullets your array would look like:
0 B
1 B
2 B
3 B
4 null
...
99 null
The benefit is that the array would always be allocated and therefore you are not dealing with the overhead of a more complex data structure. This is actually fairly similar to how strings work, since they are actually char[] with a null terminator.
Might be worth a shot. One downside, you'll have to do some manual manipulation when removing a bullet, probably move everything after that bullet up a slot. But you are just moving pointers at that point, so I don't think it would have a high penalty like allocating memory or a GC.

You are correct in assuming that by keeping the unused Bullets in a Stack prevents them from being Garbage Collected.
As for the cause of the Lag, have you tried any profiling tools? Just to find where the problem is.

Your stack based solution is pretty close to a class I wrote to generically do this sort of resource pooling:
http://codecube.net/2010/01/xna-resource-pool/
You mentioned that this makes the problem mostly go away, but it still crops up here and there. What's happening is that with this stack/queue based method of pooling, the system will reach a point of stability once you are no longer requesting more new objects than the pool can supply. But if the requests go higher than your previous max # of requested items, it will cause you to have to create a new instance to service the request (thus invoking GC from time to time).
One way you can side-step this is to go through and pre-allocate as many instances as you think you might need at the peak. That way, you won't have any new allocations (at least from the pooled objects), and the GC won't be triggered :-)

List actually has a built in capacity to prevent allocation for every add/remove. Once you exceed the capacity, it adds more ( I think I doubles every time ). The problem may be more on remove than add. Add will just drop on at the first open spot which is tracked by size. To remove, the list has to be condensed to fill in the now empty slot. If you are always removing for the front of the list, then every element needs to slide down.
A Stack still uses an array as its internal storage mechanism. So you are still bound by the add/remove properties of an array.
To make the array work, you need to create all the bullets up from with an Active property for each. When you need a new one, filled the Active flag to true and set all of the new bullets properties. Once complete, flip the Active flag false.
If you wanted to try to eliminate the need to iterate the list ( which could be very large depending on what you are going to allow ) for each repaint, you could try to implement a double linked list within the array. When a new bullet is needed, asked the array for the first available free entry. Go to the last active bullet ( a variable ) and add the new bullet array position into its next active bullet property. When it is time to remove it, go to the previous bullet and change its active bullet property to the removed next active.
//I am using public fields for demonstration. You will want to make them properties
public class Bullet {
public bool Active;
public int thisPosition;
public int PrevBullet = -1;
public int NextBullet = -1;
public List<Bullet> list;
public void Activate(Bullet lastBullet) {
this.Active = true;
this.PrevBullet = lastBullet.thisPosition;
list[this.PrevBullet].NextBullet = this.thisPosition;
}
public void Deactivate() {
this.Active = false;
list[PrevBullet].NextBullet = this.NextBullet;
list[NextBullet].PrevBullet= this.PrevBullet;
}
}
That way, you have a prebuilt array with all the needed bullets but the paint only hits the bullets that are active regardless of their position within the array. You just need to maintain a link to the first active bullet to start the paint and the last active bullet to know where list starts anew.
Now you are just worried about the memory to hold the entire list instead of when the GC is going to clean up.