Am Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:50:04 -0400 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the one
and only SDL_delay call will never have ANY effect on 2nd loop.
This really is the most important info you've given by now. This
explains where
Kamaze schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
As is now, WZ eats all CPU time. Even when pause.
Can we add the removed SDL_Delay() calls that were take out?
Friends can no longer play on laptop very long because of this.
This is release builds.
Well, maybe make this configurable.
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb Giel van Schijndel:
Kamaze schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
As is now, WZ eats all CPU time. Even when pause.
Can we add the removed SDL_Delay() calls that were take out?
Friends can no longer play on laptop very long because of this.
This is
Dennis Schridde schreef:
Actually there IS a delay, in main.c:701 mainLoop()
As long as you don't set your framerate in the config to something insane,
you
should get enough delays.
Yes, I know. As long as your PC can deliver the requested framerate
there is no problem. If it can't
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:26:04 -0400 Dennis Schridde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But if you wish so, you can add (exactly one and exactly there)
a
SDL_Delay(1); right after or before
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb Dennis Schridde:
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:26:04 -0400 Dennis Schridde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But if you wish so, you can add (exactly one and
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:51:36 -0400 Dennis Schridde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I say the delay in menu code. Hit esc, game is pause, it
should
not eat up same CPU cycles as when play game right?
The solution for this would be the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
Hmm. I like easy approach, which would be, as before.
When paused, game loops through this over and over, so it is one big
busy loop. So you still need a delay to fix.
Why go make complex code, when add 1 call fix issue? This only hits
when user paused.
The point
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:21:43 -0400 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
Hmm. I like easy approach, which would be, as before.
When paused, game loops through this over and over, so it is one
big
busy loop. So you still need a delay to fix.
Why go make
Am Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:21:43 -0400 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
Hmm. I like easy approach, which would be, as before.
When paused, game loops through this over and over, so it is one
big
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:50:04 -0400 Giel van Schijndel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the one
and only SDL_delay call will never have ANY effect on 2nd loop.
This really is the most important info you've given by now. This
explains where the problem is, know if only we knew what you mean
As is now, WZ eats all CPU time. Even when pause.
Can we add the removed SDL_Delay() calls that were take out?
Friends can no longer play on laptop very long because of this.
This is release builds.
--
Click to compare save $100's on medical insurance, free quote
Well, maybe make this configurable.
At game start check if someone set niceCPU to 1.
If on, set the function pointer shareCPUTime = SDL_Delay;
Otherwise set the functionpointer to null.
This should be afaik faster than another if(){} in the mainloop.
- Kamaze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
As is
13 matches
Mail list logo
