Thorsten,
Heiko and Vivian, please try the following version and let me know if this
improves anything. If possible, do all tests with the weather tile type
'Test'
(that has no randomness in the cloud configuration selection, so it
delivers a
fairly reproducable situation in terms of cloud
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 13:00 -0700, Andy Ross wrote:
I was lucky enough to notice this come by. I wouldn't hold your
breath. :)
Hi Andy, how's life?
I did already search for a new release of Nasal on your site but I
believe flightgear already uses the latest version.
Erik
On Tuesday 22 May 2012 13:04:24 Andy Ross wrote:
On 05/20/2012 11:37 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
Generational garbage collection is not that difficult. When you have a
working mark sweep GC, extending it to be generational is rather
straight forward and can greatly reduce GC runtime
On 05/23/2012 12:04 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
Hi Andy, how's life?
I did already search for a new release of Nasal on your site but I
believe flightgear already uses the latest version.
The most recent code (except for a few modules that were never imported)
is in SimGear. I threw my copy up on
On Wed, 23 May 2012, Stefan Seifert wrote:
Maybe even simpler: run the GC in a separate thread. Threaded GC usually is
quite tricky but in this case it may not be that much of a problem. Is there
any time during processing a new frame when no Nasal is run but something else
which is time
Thorsten
(Even if this works fine, please do not commit yet, I am not 100% sure
that I didn't create an instability somewhere).
Turns out I broke at least the visibility interpolation - to restore it,
uncomment line 726 in Nasal/local_weather/local_weather.nas
if (vis 0.0)
I have tested using only the test tile so far. The time spent in events
is dramatically reduced to around 70ms vice 210ms. There remains some odd
cyclical frames coming in, but the results are broadly in line with Basic
Weather.
Okay, that's good news. I'll continue working along these
On 05/20/2012 10:17 AM, James Turner wrote:
This is interesting - as far as I know, the current GC does not
include a maximum delay and restart facility. If it did, that would
entirely satisfy the current issues. At least by my understanding.
Equally, I've looked at the current GC code and
On 05/20/2012 11:37 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
Generational garbage collection is not that difficult. When you have a working
mark sweep GC, extending it to be generational is rather straight forward
and can greatly reduce GC runtime
Runtime, yes, but not latency bounds. You still have to
Thorsten
I have tested using only the test tile so far. The time spent in
events is dramatically reduced to around 70ms vice 210ms. There
remains some odd cyclical frames coming in, but the results are
broadly in line with Basic Weather.
Okay, that's good news. I'll continue working
Not that we're there yet
Heiko and Vivian, please try the following version and let me know if this
improves anything. If possible, do all tests with the weather tile type 'Test'
(that has no randomness in the cloud configuration selection, so it delivers a
fairly reproducable situation in
Thorsten
Not that we're there yet
Heiko and Vivian, please try the following version and let me know if this
improves anything. If possible, do all tests with the weather tile type
'Test'
(that has no randomness in the cloud configuration selection, so it
delivers a
fairly reproducable
(Even if this works fine, please do not commit yet, I am not 100% sure
that I didn't create an instability somewhere).
Turns out I broke at least the visibility interpolation - to restore it,
uncomment line 726 in Nasal/local_weather/local_weather.nas
if (vis 0.0)
88 declared but unused variables
47 declarations of the same or similar variables
427 instances of else if instead of elsif
100 instances of I = I + 1 instead of i+=1
Numerous examples of variables declared inside for loops, and some of those
are inside other for loops
Variables declared
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 10:43 +, Renk Thorsten wrote:
Advanced Weather doesn't burn any significant performance inside Nasal - it
burns the performance by calling hard-coded C++ functionality from Nasal.
I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
Erik
Erik Hofman e...@ehofman.com writes:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 10:43 +, Renk Thorsten wrote:
Advanced Weather doesn't burn any significant performance inside
Nasal - it burns the performance by calling hard-coded C++
functionality from Nasal.
I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always
So, just to get this out of the way, some benchmark tests. As you have
probably discovered by now, elseif isn't valid syntax and leads to a parse
error, so my 427 instances of using it are trivial to justify :-)
just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
its elsif in nasal , not
just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
its elsif in nasal , not elseif ... no e
Thanks. That would explain it ;-)
I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
Pascal summarized it nicely - we already have ported the important stuff to
C++, so what remains
Thorsten
just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
its elsif in nasal , not elseif ... no e
Thanks. That would explain it ;-)
I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
Pascal summarized it nicely - we already have ported the important stuff
to
On 20 May 2012, at 17:59, Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote:
The current implementation is a simple mark/sweep collector, which should
be acceptable for most applications. Future enhancements will include a
return early capability for latency-critical applications. The collector
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 13:58 +, Renk Thorsten wrote:
just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
its elsif in nasal , not elseif ... no e
Thanks. That would explain it ;-)
I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
Pascal summarized it nicely - we
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 19:17 +0200, James Turner wrote:
This is interesting - as far as I know, the current GC does not
include a maximum delay and restart facility. If it did, that would
entirely satisfy the current issues. At least by my understanding.
Equally, I've looked at the
On Sunday 20 May 2012 16:59:40 Vivian Meazza wrote:
Andy also says of GC:
Fancy items like generational collectors fail the small and simple
criteria and are not likely to be included.
Generational garbage collection is not that difficult. When you have a working
mark sweep GC, extending
23 matches
Mail list logo
