Hi Arlie,
> That's all nice and applicable to 3D programming, but it's
> not really relevant. No matter how fancy your shaders are,
> and how powerful your GPU is -- you will still need to
> manipulate matrices in your app.
I then assume you're not doing 3D programming? :) I mean: you're
not doing any projection matrix manipulations yourself nowadays...
> Doing 3D in a managed language should not impose any undue /
> silly penalties, especially when those penalties are easily
> avoidable (ref Matrix foo).
ok. I recognized that the API didn't sport any methods of the
liking after this posting. (but I think you run into these within a few
minutes ;))
> Frans, I've seen enough of your posts on this list to think
> that you have a fair share of clues about CLR. But this post
> seems below your usual quality. You do, of course, realize
> the difference between reference and value types in CLR,
> don't you? Allocating reference types is *cheap*, but it is
> far from *free*.
True, however I got the impression that the question was about
doing 3D math in C#, which I found a little strange, because if you
really want to do that, there are better ways *if* you want to have
kick-ass performance of course ;)
FB
>
> -- arlie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Large structures
>
> > Taken
> >
> > But in this particular case, being heavy matrix opreations
> in 3d, this
> > kills your performance.
>
> If you want performance, write a shader and do your
> matrix manipulations on the GPU or call into a C++ matrix
> lib. I also don't really see why classes would kill
> performance really. Admitted, in C++ I used structs for
> coordinates and some own written math lib for working with
> those structs, however a struct is a class in C++ anyway
> (they're synonyms, IIRC) so why would:
>
> public class Vertex3
> {
> public float X;
> public float Y;
> public float Z;
> }
>
> be slow in .NET? Graphic programming can only be done
> fast if you parallellize operations by delegating the tasks
> to specialized units, often a library written to do a given
> kind of operation really fast (optimized math lib) or for
> example a DX helper lib, or better: a shader which does
> manipulation of your data down the pipe in hardware. I don't
> think 3D vector math in C# will be that performant over a C++ version.
>
> And in the end, if you insist doing the math in C#,
> you can of course fall back to the good old days method when
> we all used assembler:
> 3 arrays of floats or a 3 dim. array of floats. Do your math
> in place and convert it to an array of vertex objects to send
> it down the pipe to the hardware. But if you ask me, see the
> .NET layer in a DX program which relies heavily on graphics
> performance as a thin layer to keep the program together, not
> the core application: the power is not in the .NET layer,
> it's in the DX layer so don't try to do more in the .NET
> layer than absolutely necessary.
>
> > Purity is nice, but here we talk of criticals, too.
>
> if performance is critical, use the right objects in
> the layer-stack to do the work :) So, I'd suggest to call
> into C++ math libs from C# and pass on the result to DX, or
> better: write a shader. Much faster :)
>
> FB
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com
> Some .NET courses you may be interested in:
>
> NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles
> http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://discuss.develop.com
>
>
>
===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ http://www.develop.com
Some .NET courses you may be interested in:
NEW! Guerrilla ASP.NET, 17 May 2004, in Los Angeles
http://www.develop.com/courses/gaspdotnetls
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
