This is exactly the issue. And its not as if RS discourages people from
writing 3D Apps in RB. It provides plenty of framework and 3D libraries as
if to encourage people to go down that path.
Out of interest, just how much of that RB 3D app ends up being written into
C++ RB plugins just to get the performance you require ?
On 29/9/07 20:02, "Frank Condello" <developer at chaoticbox dot com> wrote:
> ---
> On 29-Sep-07, at 1:02 PM, Charles Yeomans wrote:
>
>> On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Norman Palardy wrote:
>>>
>>> What about getting rid of the bitshift ?
>>>
>>> i = &h5f375a86 - (i/2)
>>
>> I tried this (actually i\2). It saved a few ms, but that's it.
>
> Similar results here - it's definitely faster but still slower than
> the built-in sqrt wrapper.
>
> ---
> On 29-Sep-07, at 1:46 PM, Marco Bambini wrote:
>
>> What is fast for you?
>> I mean, how many Microseconds it should take the FastSqrt function in
>> order to be "fast enough"?
>
> I'm not measuring a single call. In a real-world 3D app I have to
> normalize several thousand 3D vectors (among many other things) plus
> draw everything at (ideally) 60Hz. Normalizing the vectors in C code
> (loop and all) using an inlined sqrt approximation is far and beyond
> faster than anything I can muster in RB code - something in the range
> of 20-30 times faster - no exaggeration. In this case "fast enough"
> is literally the difference between getting interactive framerates
> and watching a slideshow.
>
> Frank.
> <http://developer.chaoticbox.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
> <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
>
> Search the archives:
> <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
>
Cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|