Beta 11j discussion

[Nicki]

Definitely need to hear from Jim. I won't be able to test on the other laptop until later tonight anyway. Have to cook dinner etc.

[Ralph]

I don't know if Jim has replaced the "zipped" file but it extracted just fine with my Winzip 12

[Jim Sachs]

Zip file- As some of you may know, I had to switch computers. This meant re-installing everything, including Winzip. The version I downloaded and installed is proabably different from the one I had been previously using. I'll look into it.

Lack of FPS readout when "Limit" is not used - You're right, my mistake. The frame counter is inside the Limit loop, so if that doesn't get exectuted, neither does the readout. Will fix.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

Zip file- As some of you may know, I had to switch computers. This meant re-installing everything, including Winzip. The version I downloaded and installed is proabably different from the one I had been previously using. I'll look into it.  

Or, perhaps the settings you are using with the version that you did download.

http://kb.winzip.com/kb/entry/36/

Try using "Legacy" settings, if available.

Windows XP says "Did not recognize Compression Method".

[Ralph]

Jim.. in Winzip 12 under options > configuration > miscellaneous there is a setting for "Optimize for best compression instead of Legacy" There is also a setting under Cameras; Compression where you can check Legacy compression (Zip 2.0 compatible). Perhaps one of those need to be tweaked....?

[Nicki]

Test results from second laptop aren't really relevant now, the problem has been diagnosed. Hopefully the fraps figures helped narrow it down a bit. Mission accomplished it seems on tightening up the frame limit. A couple of people have noted the increased CPU. I'm getting about 50% usage at 50fps. Higher than I remember getting before but okay.

[Jim Sachs]

I just checked my new copy of Winzip. It's Winzip 14, and the settings it was using were for max compression and minimum compatibility. I'll switch it to max compatibility.

I'm pleased that you all seem to be able to maintain within about 1 fps of the target frame rates. There's another technique I came up with that cuts it slightly closer, but at 100% CPU usage.

Trying to maintain a certain FPS is kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. By checking something, you change it. I'm using the High-Resolution Clock, but its heartbeat is so fast that just the command to check it uses about 30,000 "ticks". Any commands that I put in to check the timing drastically alters the timing. So now I'm getting pretty close with a Sleep() command, and then fine-tuning with a loop that basically asks, "Is it time yet? How about now? How about now?..."

Fixed version soon.

[cjmaddy]

Originally posted by henemly:

The crystal analog numbers look centered better now, but the hands might be
where they were before....  

Its position was correct before, it is now off-centre.
The clock hands look reasonable, but the hour and minute markers need moving back down to the 11i position.
Here is a before and after shot taken at the mid-point of the crystal's total lateral movement.... Which do you think looks best ?

[harris]

Originally posted by cjmaddy:

.... Which do you think looks best ?  

My vote goes to the one on the left (with the Yellow Tang).

[JohnWho]

It would help if both showed the same time.

Suggest 12:33 to match what henemly used, which shows the minute hand extending beyond the dial in 11j, but not in previous versions.

[henemly]

Your right JohnWho. Seems Jim moved the number marker frame up and to the right, as per my 1st suggestion, but the hands stayed the same, so of course the minute hand only extends beyond the markers when it's is in the downward position.

[cjmaddy]

Whatever the time shown, it's the position of the hour and minute markers that are now off-centre in 11j.
The analog clock has not changed, so why change this one? - It was correct before.... See the above picture!

[Jim Sachs]

I'm putting it back the way it was.

[cjmaddy]

Good.

[Jav400]

I hate to tell you this, but I have some serious tearing in mine now. Limit frame rate makes no difference and wait for sync doesn't either.

[Jim Sachs]

Hmmm, the Limit Frame Rate would be affected if your system had no High-Resolution Clock, but none of the new code should involve VSync at all.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

I'm pleased that you all seem to be able to maintain within about 1 fps of the target frame rates. There's another technique I came up with that cuts it slightly closer, but at 100% CPU usage..  

I'm trying to understand a couple of aspects of this frame rate situation:

A. Why is it important for the frame rate to be constant? Wouldn't +/- 15% or 20% be unnoticeable?

B. You say "target" frame rate. I understood (I thought) limit frame rate.

[henemly]

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

I'm putting it back the way it was.  

Great.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Jim Sachs:

I just checked my new copy of Winzip. It's Winzip 14, and the settings it was using were for max compression and minimum compatibility. I'll switch it to max compatibility.

...

Fixed version soon.  

Will that be a re-zipped 11j, or 11k? Approximately when, please?

[Jim Sachs]

11k. when I can put two minutes together. Definitely within the current decade, probably this year (but don't hold me to it).