On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:45:19PM +, Ian Molton wrote:
What's the point of trying to display 120 Hz if you monitor can only
do 85 Hz?
the faster you render, the lower your latency. its pointless for 3D
modelling / artwork, but very nice for 3D games.
Then you are taking
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:42:06 +0100
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you are taking about a single frame taking 1/120 seconds to
render, and not about pushing 120 frames per second to the user.
Which, if you think about it, is what I said previously.
ok, fair enough. but
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 04:44:34PM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote:
But this way you waste lots of CPU cycles on frames which are never
displayed. Wouldn't be waiting (IRQ) for the pageflip to occur before
you render the 3rd frame in the above example a better approach?
What's the point of
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:14:20 +0100
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the point of trying to display 120 Hz if you monitor can only
do 85 Hz?
the faster you render, the lower your latency. its pointless for 3D
modelling / artwork, but very nice for 3D games.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:34:35 -0700
Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time step 1:
cut
Er. surely you would render lkike this
1: Display 0 Render 1
2: Display 0.n Render 2
Now, if still displaying 0, swap 1 and 2 (surely a pointer swap) and
re-render in 1 else switch to 1.
in
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:38:41 +0100
Ian Molton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:34:35 -0700
Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time step 1:
cut
Er. surely you would render lkike this
1: Display 0 Render 1
2: Display 0.n Render 2
Now, if still displaying
Keith,
I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details. Is the primary
motivation for a 3rd buffer to aliviate delays associated with vertical
refresh? Using a page swapping method, I would guess the pointers for
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details. Is the primary
motivation for a 3rd buffer to aliviate delays associated with vertical
refresh? Using a
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details. Is the primary
motivation for a 3rd buffer to aliviate delays associated with vertical
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
Time step 1:
- Buffer 0 is being displayed (front buffer / display buffer).
- Buffer 1 is the render buffer (back buffer).
...
Time step 3:
- Finish rendering to buffer 2, and queue it to be displayed on the next
frame (front
Keith, Ian,
Thanks for educating me on the issues.
--
/\
Jens Owen/ \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the
12 matches
Mail list logo
