← back to drive

PAXAL

devlog

Notes on building. For one-line "what shipped" entries see /changelog; for "what's next" see /roadmap. Both are short. The pieces below are the longer "why."

  1. 2026-05-20

    HLS for point clouds — why splat streaming looks like video streaming

    Captures got too big to ship as one file. The fix wasn't a new compressor — it was borrowing the delivery protocol that already solved this problem for video.

    read on →
  2. 2026-05-18

    What the unit tests caught

    The spike-track tooling ships with 98 pure-logic tests, 5 seconds wall-clock for the whole suite. Most of them just pin behaviour that's already correct. Two of them found bugs nobody had noticed.

    read on →
  3. 2026-05-18

    Reading the trainer's source before writing the runbook

    We had a recipe for validating PUP-3DGS pruning on our own captures. Building the harness to support the recipe revealed the recipe was wrong about which trainer to use.

    read on →
  4. 2026-05-16

    Engineering quality as feature velocity

    The §12 gates landed as guardrails, not chores. Each one bought more feature time than it spent. Here is the bookkeeping.

    read on →
  5. 2026-05-16

    Photoreal-first in practice — what we said no to

    The photoreal-first stance is easy to state. It only matters at the points where we said no to a feature that would have shipped in another engine. Here are the concrete ones.

    read on →
  6. 2026-05-16

    The three-channel rewrite — heard, seen, felt

    A game is heard, seen, and felt. v3 shipped one of those. v4 ships all three deliberately — and the pairings between them are where most of the headroom lived.

    read on →
  7. 2026-05-16

    Why splats — the photoreal-first stance

    Gaussian splats are the moat. Everything else (post-process, audio, mode-design) is in service of not getting between the capture and the eye.

    read on →
  8. 2026-05-14

    Three workers, one main thread

    The streaming pipeline is the engineering proof of concept. Why three workers, and why not one or seven.

    read on →