hi all, I think we'll need to do another rc release...
I've fixed a few things in subversion. Enough that would require testing again I think. btw, the compile farm that Brian made is coool! It speeds up testing a lot when you don't have that platform available :) cu, On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:07 AM, René Dudfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi, > > yeah, we changed clock.tick to use the non cpu chewing one. Just > because by default we should try to save energy. > > > To get the old behaviour on different pygame versions, you could use > something like: > > if hasattr(clock , "tick_busy_loop"): > tick = clock.tick_busy_loop > else: > tick = clock.tick > > > However, I think it's best to use less power in general :) Or to make > it an option for game players. > > > > cu, > > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:54 AM, PyMike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... I played one of my more recent games, and sometimes moving stuff > will > > jerk around a little bit. I used clock.tick_busy_loop and it seemed to go > > away... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM, PyMike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Aye. I always use clock.tick. Well this is awesome that games can now run > > fast and not chew up CPU! Thank you pygame! :D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I assume that's with games using Clock.tick? > > > > > > > > I think vs. 1.7 pygame 1.8 changed Clock.tick to be more cpu friendly: > > > > http://www.pygame.org/docs/ref/time.html#Clock.tick > > > > > > > > Clock.tick_busy_loop would be a CPU unfriendly alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:00 AM, PyMike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Has anyone noticed that now games running at 60 fps are only using > > 10-16% of > > > > > the CPU? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > - PyMike > > > > > > > > -- > > - PyMike >
