neoGFX siginificant milestone reached

[Mr Flibble]

Hi!

Yesterday a significant milestone was reached in neoGFX's implementation: rendering frames at a rate of 450 FPS; this is confirmation that the design of neoGFX's architecture is sound.

Screenshot: https://neogfx.org/temp/milestone1.png

/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."

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 04.05.2020 16:48, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yesterday a significant milestone was reached in neoGFX's
> implementation: rendering frames at a rate of 450 FPS; this is
> confirmation that the design of neoGFX's architecture is sound.

In one way this is good, in the sense that a game app's available time
won't be used up in rendering, or (hopefully) shuffling data to GPU.

However, do you actually have a monitor with 450 Hz or better refresh rate?

I find the movie refresh rates of 23.something to be generally somewhat
jerky, and /very/ jerky, annoyingly and possibly physically dangerously
jerky, for sideways panning, unless that panning is ultra slow.

Based on the generally only slight jerkiness of 23.something I gather
that for most people 70Hz should yield mostly smooth "moving pictures".
The refresh rate of my old Asus MX270 monitor is 59p Hz. I don't know
what the "p" signifies, there's also 59 iHz. But I guess it means 59.

But 450Hz would be overkill, unless one plans for the future of robots
and enhanced humans?


- Alf

[Bart]

By itself it's meaningless, as it depends on the complexity of the scene
being rendered.

From what I can see of the screenshot, it doesn't look very complex - a
few hundred triangles possibly, assuming the background is animated and
not just a static texture.

[Öö Tiib]

That 59 Hz is perhaps measured somehow to be such that most people
do not notice any jerkiness.
From scientific papers I have read that calm humans can recognize
images seen for ~13 milliseconds, (so 70 Hz).
When nervous and alert it can reduce to ~8 milliseconds (so 120 Hz).

So maybe some very passionate gamers can benefit from 120 Hz
display and up from there we have to upgrade our species somehow.

[Vir Campestris]

On 04/05/2020 16:28, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

> Based on the generally only slight jerkiness of 23.something I gather
> that for most people 70Hz should yield mostly smooth "moving pictures".
> The refresh rate of my old Asus MX270 monitor is 59p Hz. I don't know
> what the "p" signifies, there's also 59 iHz. But I guess it means 59.

In TVs the P would be progressive scan - the electron beam tracks down
the pictures once for each frame (59 times a second in this case)

I is for interlaced - the beam does half the lines, then goes back and
does the other half.

This was especially good for European PAL and SECAM TV which ran at
25Hz, interlaced - so there was actually half a frame at a time, but the
halves came out at 50Hz. Less jerky.

(US NTSC was 30Hz, interlaced)

Andy

[Alf P. Steinbach]

Thanks, learned something.

But this is a very digital flat screen, no beam. I notice I made a typo
in the product name, it's an Asus MX279. Possibly it's just Intel or
Microsoft or someone applying very old generic code to old but not that
old equipment. Possibly. I haven't tried the interlaced mode. :-o

Obligatory annoyance rant: why can't they make screens controlled from
the computer, why always mysterious ungrokable nearly unusable touch
controls under the screen? Well, I guess that's in the same category as
why can't they make higher resolution scroll wheels on mouses, or why
are they still putting auto-repeat before buffering on all keyboards,
and why caps lock, and. And WHY only 23.x FPS?!? Anyway thanks. :)

- Alf [longing for a 1980's Ctrl+Shift+Alt PEDAL]
[oh, and the programmable f-keys with legends, on HP terminals]
[and why not a key labeled "Help" on the keyboard. Why?]

[Mr Flibble]

Well it would be nice to have the option for computer control but you cannot do away with the manual controls themselves.

[Manfred]

On 5/4/2020 11:22 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> - Alf [longing for a 1980's Ctrl+Shift+Alt PEDAL]

Didn't you mean Ctrl+Alt+Del ?

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 04.05.20 um 23:22 schrieb Alf P. Steinbach:

> On 04.05.2020 22:54, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> In TVs the P would be progressive scan - the electron beam tracks down
>> the pictures once for each frame (59 times a second in this case)
>>
>> I is for interlaced - the beam does half the lines, then goes back and
>> does the other half.

> Thanks, learned something.
>
> But this is a very digital flat screen, no beam.

This is still correct for video modes today in camcorders and streaming
formats; see e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i

for Full HD video. Digital image chips also need readout and if they
don't have the so called "global shutter mode", the lines are read in
sequence - leading special motion blur artifacts for fast horizontal motion.

Christian

[Juha Nieminen]

Alf P. Steinbach <alf.p.stein...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In one way this is good, in the sense that a game app's available time
> won't be used up in rendering, or (hopefully) shuffling data to GPU.
>
> However, do you actually have a monitor with 450 Hz or better refresh rate?

For benchmarking purposes uncapped framerates are used to see how fast the
hardware (or software) is. It's not supposed to be played like that.

As for refresh rates, most people can tell the difference between a 60Hz
display and a 120Hz display. Especially experienced gamers are able to
tell which is which with 100% accuracy, even in a "blind" test ("blind"
in the sense that they don't know in advance which one they will be
presented). For most regular gamers, while they may be able to tell
the difference, it won't make much difference in terms of gameplay.
For more professional online first-person shooter players it can make
quite a difference.