The problem with doing your own research is that itâs generally a time-intensive process thatâs also error-prone, which adds time, both in finding out the errors, and then sorting them out.
Iâm currently going through a similar but unrelated research process and itâs just taking me weeks over weeks, first to find stuff, then to read, to figure out what kind of content is in there, and then cross-referencing to make sure the information contained wherein can be trusted, which is in itself a lengthy process because typically your average good information source does contain invalid information for a number of different reasons, ranging from the benign, like undetected biases or simply information having become outdated, to stuff like writers having more or less vested interests, in some cases non-obvious (you might not know unless you research the researcher), feuds with other schools of thought, and so on.
Some information sources need to be extricated because they present an approach or system and it can take a considerable amount of time to figure out what parts are integral to the approach or system, which ones can be discarded or replaced, and when itâs safe or practical to do so, which may depend on the extent of your knowledge, skill or whatever, and what are the consequences.
In short, this is why when starting out using a coherently presented manual can save some time, even though in the process Iâve just described Iâm dealing with sources that are themselves coherently presented manualsâŚ
There is a wealth of different engines (take a looksee, likely incomplete) and I honestly have no idea which one is better for the specific scenario, so itâs really crucial to glean this kind of early direction from a community or source that deals specifically with solving the same kind of problem, IMO.
