an on it's knees example :) A slider can definitely affect the performance, depending upon what the slider has been asked to preform. I recall for example a script from visose related to Creating Surfaces from Math formulas. When I ran his script I had no indication if grasshopper had crashed or was still calculating. The program did eventually produce the surface, from a formula I had entered, but with a program such as K3dSurf all these calculations would have been done instantly. Note: visose's script does not run under the current version, because you had eliminated the F(X)6 function which was used in that particular script.
cheers! On Apr 26, 1:36 am, David Rutten <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi tomot, > > Quad core is not of any use for most software since only very few > applications are truly multi-threaded. Only a single processor will be > used for most of the work done by both Rhino and Grasshopper > combined. > > What do you mean by "it's knees"? Is the display of Grasshopper > geometry slow? Does it take a long time to update a definition when > you drag a slider? Is the redraw of the Grasshopper canvas not smooth? > > All grasshopper geometry is drawn by Grasshopper itself, after Rhino > finishes drawing its own objects. For some geometry types (such as > points) Grasshopper is much faster than Rhino. For other types > (especially if they have custom openGL shaders attached) Grasshopper > is slower because it cannot use any of the caching operations that are > used for existing (and thus predictable) geometry. > > You are right of course in your observation that as processing power > accumulates, software counteracts this by requiring more of it to run. > Adobe products are historically very memory intensive (don't know why, > but it's quite likely that it's because they want to develop for Mac > and Windows simultaneously and thus use very few platform specific > functions). > > Grasshopper 0.6 contains a number of optimisations that /should/ make > it run faster (they do, I profiled it). The base package is larger > than 0.5, but that shouldn't mean it will run slower. I think the only > change between 0.5 and 0.6 that could affect performance is the data- > tree logic. It now takes more function calls to populate and parse the > data inside parameters. > > If you have a file which runs notably faster in 0.5, please send it to > me so I can profile it over here. > > -- > David Rutten > [email protected] > Robert McNeel & Associates > > On Apr 25, 5:37 pm, tomot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have a Quad core CPU running at 2.4GHz with 4gb of ram, and a > > Geforce 8800GT video card with 512mb of ram. It becomes the family > > computer at night so my Sonny Bunny can play his computer games on it. > > > I have never seen my system brought to its processing knees. Till I > > started using Grasshopper. I'm not a computer programmer, but there > > appears to me to be a huge disconnect between Grasshopper and Rhino > > which is trying to display the 3d information. ParaCloud Gem is vastly > > faster in processing 3d information. > > > It reminds me of the days when I bought an 8086 Math Co-processor for > > $800.00 so I could run AutoCad faster. It appears to me, we are losing > > computing power, through the trend of build application specific > > API's, and by stacking one scripting language, on top of another,etc. > > > Its beyond comprehension why it now take 126mb of HDD space for Adobe > > Reader to read PDF files? The list goes on. Its not my intent to > > create a rant. The above is simply intended as a general observation. > > > On Apr 24, 4:45 am, andres m <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi david, > > > > Thanks for the quick response. > > > I am really finding gh 6.0 slower. but at the end has being good as i > > > have pass throwout my whole definition and make it work faster. > > > > i will make my definition more user friendly and send it over. i am > > > new in vb.net and my scripts are rather messy which does not help. > > > > About saving. i always have the impression that things does not get > > > saved. i hardly ever use ctrl + s for the same reason. i am actually > > > used to it. > > > > Maybe is the network. my rhino file is on a network. but my xml is on > > > my local hard drive. > > > > On Apr 24, 12:16 pm, David Rutten <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Andres, > > > > > it should actually be faster, I added a bunch of optimisations in 0.6. > > > > If you can give me a ghx file that seems to run slower, I can profile > > > > it more accurately. > > > > > Saving should obviously work, if it doesn't, it's a bug. If you save > > > > through the menu, it will always call the Save function. If you save > > > > via Ctrl+S, then it only calls save if Grasshopper is the active > > > > window (otherwise it saves the Rhino file). > > > > > Are you saving to a local disk or a network drive? > > > > > -- > > > > David Rutten > > > > [email protected] > > > > Robert McNeel & Associates > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:36 pm, andres m <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am finding a couple of things strange in grasshopper 6. > > > > > > first Is it really slower than gh 5 or is it just my imagination. my > > > > > current definition is heavily scripted. (Which i have not optimized > > > > > and i will not do it any time soon) > > > > > > second, i feel that no change is ever saved. if i do something and i > > > > > want to make sure it will be saved i have to save as. otherwise no > > > > > change is saved. > > > > > > any idea why?
