On Mar 5, 9:52 pm, "Drew Smathers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Weird ... I didn't receive this email until now. Why are you using > the new iterator features of Python 2.5 to make your update an > iterator? ... It's a rather a mind-bending approach for this use > case, and it certainly won't help you with performance (remember that > send() is just a function call). I suggest you make `update' a > normal normal method - not an iterator - and take the time as a > argument. Or just set the time delta on the instance of Sparks and > use it in `draw' to update positions and draw in one loop. Also, If > you have multiple particle systems, you might want to group them in a > single state - the excess glEnable(), glDisable() calls can hurt > performance in the pipeline.
Well, this is a little bit off-topic, but still... Originally there was no particle class at all - just a generator. It is very convenient way for me to describe a task, and I use it quite often. By 'task' I mean literally task - something that should be done in fire-and-forget way. In this exact case it was not just a particle system, but specific application of it - a sparks mini explosion. As phenomenon, it has begin state, end state and some transition logic. I am not very good at explaining things, but what am trying to say, it is not a particle system who use a task (generator in this case) to update its state, but it is really a task who use a particle system internally. And generators just happen to be most convenient (at least for me) way to implement tasks. -- serg. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
