kai-martin knaak wrote:
I set up a git repository of pidpeltier and made it available
via gitweb:
http://bibo.iqo.uni-hannover.de/gitweb/?p=PIDpeltier.git;a=tree
No cloning yet, because I forgot to set the export-option of the
git-daemon. But access via http with the link above should work.
Hi Peter.
Bad news from the local_customisation_no_pours branch:
I switched to the open source radeon driver rather than the closed
fglrx for my ATI HD4670 card. With this driver X freezes on start-up of
the no_pours version of pcb. The screen does not change anymore except
for a slowly
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 04:05 +0100, kai-martin knaak wrote:
Hi Peter.
Bad news from the local_customisation_no_pours branch:
I switched to the open source radeon driver rather than the closed
fglrx for my ATI HD4670 card. With this driver X freezes on start-up of
the no_pours version of
Am 11.11.2010 00:13, schrieb Peter Clifton:
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 21:34 +0100, Frank Bergmann wrote:
You find the backtrace at
http://www.frajasalo.de/frank/projekt/pcb/gdb-pcb.local_customisation_no_pours-backtrace-20101110-1.txt
I hope it will help, even without the debugging symbols in
Peter Clifton wrote:
If you fancied sending me any of the boards off-list, I'll have
a play and see if I can make PCB+GL faster with them ;)
I set up a git repository of pidpeltier and made it available
via gitweb:
http://bibo.iqo.uni-hannover.de/gitweb/?p=PIDpeltier.git;a=tree
No cloning
On 11.11.2010 00:13, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 21:34 +0100, Frank Bergmann wrote:
And on my Intel system I have disturbances comming like rays from the
middle of the viewport/drawing area, see:
On 11.11.2010 00:58, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 23:13 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On my AMD Mobility Radeon HD3450 (driver: radeonhd) system (debian,
stable but old!) and your local_customisation_no_pours branch (without
the recent patches) the line ends look wrong
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 23:47 +, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:08:15 +, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Try again now.. it is possible that I didn't have the correct patches
pushed at that point. I was just pushing something out just now for
someone at Intel to
Am 10.11.2010 00:08, schrieb Peter Clifton:
Try again now..
Ok I did, but with no luck - seg. faults again with all options you
mentioned.
PS. If you see crashes, I'm interested in the full backtrace. It might
be that the driver doesn't appreciate that I still have some buffer
mapped
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 21:34 +0100, Frank Bergmann wrote:
You find the backtrace at
http://www.frajasalo.de/frank/projekt/pcb/gdb-pcb.local_customisation_no_pours-backtrace-20101110-1.txt
I hope it will help, even without the debugging symbols in the system
stuff.
To really dig into it,
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 23:13 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On my AMD Mobility Radeon HD3450 (driver: radeonhd) system (debian,
stable but old!) and your local_customisation_no_pours branch (without
the recent patches) the line ends look wrong
Am 09.11.2010 01:16, schrieb Peter Clifton:
Tweakable options are:
Uncommenting
// buffer-use_vbo = false;
or
removing / commenting:
buffer-use_map = false;
from hid/common/hidgl.c's hidgl_init_triangle_array()
use_vbo = false; will give you arrays (always)
Removing use_map = false; will
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 22:39 +0100, Frank Bergmann wrote:
Am 09.11.2010 01:16, schrieb Peter Clifton:
Tweakable options are:
Uncommenting
// buffer-use_vbo = false;
or
removing / commenting:
buffer-use_map = false;
from hid/common/hidgl.c's hidgl_init_triangle_array()
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:08:15 +, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Try again now.. it is possible that I didn't have the correct patches
pushed at that point. I was just pushing something out just now for
someone at Intel to test (looking at a driver bug), so we might have
collided.
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 21:42 +0100, Frank Bergmann wrote:
Segmentation fault happens in hidgl_clean_unassigned_stencil()
(hid/common/hidgl.c:1069) and backtrace goes into
/usr/lib/dri/r300_dri.so, so maybe its a problem in the driver.
Can you try again with the latest code (I just pushed it
Hi Peter,
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Peter Clifton
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:51 AM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: PCB+GL Testers (please test)
On Wed, 2010-11-03
Hi,
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 14:35 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote:
I tried the above and ran into trouble with the requirement of gtkglext-1.0:
there seems to be no such RPM package available for Fedora 13 ;-(
I'm running Fedora 13 and had no problems. Installing the gtkglext-devel
package provides
Hi Rchard,
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barlow
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 2:49 PM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: PCB+GL Testers (please test)
Hi,
On Sat
Hi Peter,
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Bert Timmerman
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 2:35 PM
To: 'gEDA user mailing list'
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: PCB+GL Testers (please test)
Hi Peter
On 04.11.2010 02:50, Richard Barlow wrote:
I've run the benchmark on the most complex board that I've currently
designed in PCB.
...
Design available at: git://srobo.org/boards/power-hw.git
I used that and have (benchmark performed 5 times and averages):
1. AMD Phenom 9550 Quad
AMD
On local customisiations withthe robo board, with the polygon holes removed.
17 Macbook Pro
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro6,1
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
with GPU
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M:
Chipset Model:NVIDIA
Peter TB Brett wrote:
Kai-Martin, could you please try:
git clone git://repo.or.cz/geda-pcb/pcjc2.git
cd pcjc2
git checkout -t origin/local_customisation_no_pours
to get your source tree?
I just did and there is a difference - unfortunately in the wrong direction.
Here are the
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 11:21 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
pcb-head: 8.8 FPS
pcb-before-pours: 8.1 FPS
pcb-test: 4.3 FPS (wrong check-out)
pcb-test2: 0.4 FPS (the check-out above)
Yes, the decimal is correct. The test yielded a glacially slow GUI. I hardly
got to see the cross hair when
Peter Clifton wrote:
pcb-head: 8.8 FPS
pcb-before-pours: 8.1 FPS
pcb-test: 4.3 FPS (wrong check-out)
pcb-test2: 0.4 FPS (the check-out above)
Yes, the decimal is correct. The test yielded a glacially slow GUI.
I hardly got to see the cross hair when moving the mouse, because
of the
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Why does Richard see such a boost while I get a moderate slow down?
We both run AMD processors and nvidia cards. Mine is a bit dated.
So it needs the legacy driver from nvidia. nouveau is said to
have made impressive progress recently. Maybe, I should give this
Peter Clifton wrote:
Using VBOs that gives 85.4FPS, so effectively no difference.
Using arrays it gives an average of 93.1FPS, literally no difference!
Thanks for trying it. I'm embarassed to say your board manages about
9fps on my machine, with every trick I can throw at it!
I tried
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:43 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Just like my own board, there is no much divfference compared to the before
pours branch.
The same here.
My System:
AMD64 X2 4800+ (5000 bogomips x 2 cores);
DDR2 800MHz RAM 4-4-4-12;
NVIDIA GForce 8600GT;
Frequency Scaling fixed at
On Thursday 04 November 2010 23:37:35 Richard Barlow wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:43 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
I tried Richards power too and got the same result as Peter: No more than
11 FPS, even with my new ATI card driven by the closed source fglrx. :-|
Just like my own board,
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:43 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
Using VBOs that gives 85.4FPS, so effectively no difference.
Using arrays it gives an average of 93.1FPS, literally no difference!
Thanks for trying it. I'm embarassed to say your board manages about
9fps
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 23:37 +, Richard Barlow wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:43 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
I tried Richards power too and got the same result as Peter: No more than
11
FPS, even with my new ATI card driven by the closed source fglrx. :-|
Just like my own board,
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:29 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Hello people,
I've got a load of changes I've been working on recently in PCB+GL, this
time on my local_customisation_no_pours branch.
Since long time I am wondering about the terms before pours or no
pours. I have still no idea -- is
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:03:16 +0100, Stefan Salewski m...@ssalewski.de
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:29 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Hello people,
I've got a load of changes I've been working on recently in PCB+GL, this
time on my local_customisation_no_pours branch.
Since long time I am
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:29:04 +
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Here is the gotcha.. the VBO code didn't really work on the NVidia
machine.. rendering got really slow. If you discover this, you can force
it back to using Arrays rather than VBOs with this patch:
Peter,
Maybe, just by
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:51 +, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Peter C's branch includes experimental support for real copper pours. If
I remember correctly.
Peter
Ah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_pour
For my restricted English pour was always strong rain.
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 15:19 -0300, John Coppens wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:29:04 +
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Here is the gotcha.. the VBO code didn't really work on the NVidia
machine.. rendering got really slow. If you discover this, you can force
it back to using
Peter Clifton wrote:
If VBO rendering slows you down,
Ehm, how would I know, that this is the the actual bottle neck?
(What is VBO, anyway?)
Throw your usual complexity of board at it.
Tried it at work. This is a 3.5 years old, moderate hardware. AMD single
processor, 4400 BogoMIPS.
Peter Clifton wrote:
I've got a load of changes I've been working on recently in PCB+GL, this
time on my local_customisation_no_pours branch.
For those not familiar with git, these are the commands I ran to install
Peters version in /usr/local/bin/pcb-test :
/
git
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:54 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
If VBO rendering slows you down,
Ehm, how would I know, that this is the the actual bottle neck?
(What is VBO, anyway?)
Vertex buffer object:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_Buffer_Object
Throw
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:04 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
I've got a load of changes I've been working on recently in PCB+GL, this
time on my local_customisation_no_pours branch.
For those not familiar with git, these are the commands I ran to install
Peters
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 00:48 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
It is interesting to note that git HEAD PCB is slower than 20091103. I
wonder what I broke ;) (There might be some performance trade-offs which
have been made to improve other activities).
I might have to dig into that, as it is quite
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:54 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
If VBO rendering slows you down,
Ehm, how would I know, that this is the the actual bottle neck?
(What is VBO, anyway?)
And to answer your other question... you don't know unless you apply the
patch in my
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Now for the test at home: This is recently bought moderate hardware.
AMD dual core, 1050 BogoMIPS. Graphic card: ATI Radeon Sapphire HD5450.
Driver is fglrx. pcb was again maximized to 1280x1024 on the left
screen.
I only tried the lasertreiber.pcb layout:
version
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 17:29 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Throw the most complex usually-hideously-slow board at it.. how does it
perform?
I've run the benchmark on the most complex board that I've currently
designed in PCB.
Run on a AMD Phenom 9750 (4822 bogomips) with nVidia GeForce
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:34 +0100, kai-martin knaak wrote:
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Now for the test at home: This is recently bought moderate hardware.
AMD dual core, 1050 BogoMIPS. Graphic card: ATI Radeon Sapphire HD5450.
Driver is fglrx. pcb was again maximized to 1280x1024 on the left
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 01:50 +, Richard Barlow wrote:
PCB head: 16.3FPS
PCB before_pours: 25.2FPS
PCB local_customisation_no_pours (VBO): 85.6FPS
PCB local_customisation_no_pours (array): 93.1FPS
All benchmarks were performed three times and averaged.
That as the kind of change I was
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:01 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Perhaps try with the patch I just sent in reply to KMK which moves a
couple of glEnableClientState calls.
Using VBOs that gives 85.4FPS, so effectively no difference.
Using arrays it gives an average of 93.1FPS, literally no difference!
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:13 +, Richard Barlow wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 02:01 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Perhaps try with the patch I just sent in reply to KMK which moves a
couple of glEnableClientState calls.
Using VBOs that gives 85.4FPS, so effectively no difference.
Using
47 matches
Mail list logo
