I see it more as a trade off of speed with quality of life. :) On 7 February 2013 12:39, Ahmidou.xsi <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd never use python for SCOPs, it's way slower than jscript. > > Le 7 févr. 2013 à 20:47, Peter Agg <[email protected]> a écrit : > > I tend to use ICE as a sort of SCOP testbed, especially if the maths is a > little complicated it's easier to dev the system there and re-write into > Python later. The only exception would be if I needed to make use of > locations/geometry queries. But then it's still easier to store a custom > attribute then read that into a script. > > > > On 7 February 2013 02:02, Raffaele Fragapane > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I mean output to an ICE par, not to a CP par, which is akin to hitting >> your testicles with a large mallet. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM, joshxsi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> FYI, outputting to a parameter to ICE is around 10x slower than >>> outputting to a transform, so I highly recommend that if performance is a >>> requirement, never output from ICE into a parameter. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -j >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> You might be better off decoupling the length computation, which tends >>>> to be expensive with any high order surface or curve, and output it to a >>>> parameter you fetch from graphs further down the stream. >>>> That way you should save a fair chunk of cycles. >>>> >>>> If you need to keep them aligned you could also use some tricks to >>>> basically reduce the dirtyness to a simpler check, like comparing point >>>> positions before you start integrating your length function. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it >> and let them flee like the dogs they are! >> > >
