Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
944 FPS
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Mr Flibble
May 8, 2020, 5:18:32 PM5/8/20
to
neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
/Flibble
--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais
“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
/Flibble
--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin
“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais
“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
Chris M. Thomasson
May 8, 2020, 5:53:41 PM5/8/20
to
On 5/8/2020 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>
>
> /Flibble
>
Try out a shader. Something like:
> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>
>
> /Flibble
>
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MdXSWn
Mr Flibble
May 8, 2020, 7:23:31 PM5/8/20
to
Chris M. Thomasson
May 9, 2020, 5:54:23 PM5/9/20
to
On 5/8/2020 4:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 08/05/2020 22:53, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 5/8/2020 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>>>
>>> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>>>
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Try out a shader. Something like:
>>
>> https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MdXSWn
>
> neoGFX already has a C++ shader architecture and most of its drawing
> primitives use shader code.
Okay, well... You are going to have to add a throttle. Say 60 fps is
> On 08/05/2020 22:53, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 5/8/2020 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>>>
>>> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>>>
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Try out a shader. Something like:
>>
>> https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MdXSWn
>
> neoGFX already has a C++ shader architecture and most of its drawing
> primitives use shader code.
perfect for a game. 944 fps would requite the gamer to smoke caffeine or
something. ;^)
Chris M. Thomasson
May 11, 2020, 4:47:54 PM5/11/20
to
On 5/8/2020 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>
>
When you get some really free time, can you implement the following
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>
>
shader in your system, without a throttle, and tell me the fps?
Fwiw, here is an example of running my experimental vector field in a
shader without having to create an array of field points. This creates
the points on the fly, in real time:
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3dffDX
Can you see this animation on your end? It should get 60 fps...
Mr Flibble
May 11, 2020, 5:36:52 PM5/11/20
to
Chris M. Thomasson
May 12, 2020, 3:42:20 PM5/12/20
to
On 5/11/2020 2:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 11/05/2020 21:47, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 5/8/2020 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>>>
>>> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When you get some really free time, can you implement the following
>> shader in your system, without a throttle, and tell me the fps?
>>
>> Fwiw, here is an example of running my experimental vector field in a
>> shader without having to create an array of field points. This creates
>> the points on the fly, in real time:
>>
>> https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3dffDX
>>
>> Can you see this animation on your end? It should get 60 fps...
>
> I have very little free time these days even during the COVID-19
> lockdown (which doesn't really change things for a programmer). :D
Indeed! :^) Afaict, ShaderToy tries to throttle everything down to 60 fps.
> On 11/05/2020 21:47, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 5/8/2020 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>>>
>>> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When you get some really free time, can you implement the following
>> shader in your system, without a throttle, and tell me the fps?
>>
>> Fwiw, here is an example of running my experimental vector field in a
>> shader without having to create an array of field points. This creates
>> the points on the fly, in real time:
>>
>> https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3dffDX
>>
>> Can you see this animation on your end? It should get 60 fps...
>
> I have very little free time these days even during the COVID-19
> lockdown (which doesn't really change things for a programmer). :D
Öö Tiib
May 12, 2020, 4:53:10 PM5/12/20
to
pointless waste of electricity to generate more frames. Only the fps
freaks with their 120Hz - 240Hz monitors with ultra low motion blur
will flip out that it is slide-show. BTW funny coincidence that
"first person shooters" and "frames per second" have same
abbreviations and same fans too.
Chris M. Thomasson
May 12, 2020, 5:01:30 PM5/12/20
to
possibly allowing an end user to dynamically adjust the throttle.
Default is 60 fps, fine. However, a user can decide to slide the damn
thing and let it run free, 500+ fps, how fast can the shader go... Or
even lower it to 10 fps. 1 fps... Whatever.
Öö Tiib
May 12, 2020, 5:20:06 PM5/12/20
to
has to full screen mode too to see fps and stuff there.
Chris M. Thomasson
May 12, 2020, 5:25:13 PM5/12/20
to
jacobnavia
May 13, 2020, 4:01:43 AM5/13/20
to
Le 08/05/2020 à 23:18, Mr Flibble a écrit :
> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>
>
> /Flibble
>
OK, at 944 FPS you need a monitor with latency of 1ms. The best monitors
> neoGFX achieves 944 FPS:
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d32e8fabf762b33adbf4f18f447f3530b9b66fd6/687474703a2f2f6e656f6766782e6f72672f74656d702f6c6f6c2e706e673f69643d31
>
>
> /Flibble
>
have a latency of 11-12 ms
The best monitors have a display rate of 120 FPS...
HDMI doesn't cut it beyond 60 FPS, the 120 HDMIs send two frames in one
packet, cheating. You need a display port that goes to 144 FPS (maybe)
You need new eyes. Yours (as provided by your father and mother) do not
see anything beyond 60 FPS.
This announcement is like the ads for some loudspeakers boasting 30 khz
frequency range when your ear doesn't go beyond 17khz. The rest is only
audible by your dog...
Tim Rentsch
May 14, 2020, 9:55:33 AM5/14/20
to
jacobnavia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> [...]
that pilots could easily tell that 60 FPS wasn't fast enough to
be realistic.
> This announcement is like the ads for some loudspeakers boasting 30
> khz frequency range when your ear doesn't go beyond 17khz. The rest
> is only audible by your dog...
Also wrong, although for different reasons. First frequency
response of human ears differs a lot for different individuals,
and tests have been done that found, for some people, even though
their response drops off in the low 20's of kHz it picks up again
in the high 30's of kHz. Second there is an unstated assumption
that if we can't hear sine waves above 20 kHz then there is no
perceptible information content above 20 kHz. This assumption is
known to be false. Time delays are perceptible down into the
range of a small number of microseconds, translating to
frequencies on the order of 200 kHz. These things have been
known for decades, but some engineering types keep repeating the
same bogus assertions about what frequency response is needed,
etc.
> [...]
>
> You need new eyes. Yours (as provided by your father and mother) do
> not see anything beyond 60 FPS.
Not true. Tests done with pilots, using flight simulators, found
> You need new eyes. Yours (as provided by your father and mother) do
> not see anything beyond 60 FPS.
that pilots could easily tell that 60 FPS wasn't fast enough to
be realistic.
> This announcement is like the ads for some loudspeakers boasting 30
> khz frequency range when your ear doesn't go beyond 17khz. The rest
> is only audible by your dog...
response of human ears differs a lot for different individuals,
and tests have been done that found, for some people, even though
their response drops off in the low 20's of kHz it picks up again
in the high 30's of kHz. Second there is an unstated assumption
that if we can't hear sine waves above 20 kHz then there is no
perceptible information content above 20 kHz. This assumption is
known to be false. Time delays are perceptible down into the
range of a small number of microseconds, translating to
frequencies on the order of 200 kHz. These things have been
known for decades, but some engineering types keep repeating the
same bogus assertions about what frequency response is needed,
etc.
0 new messages