Make You Mine Speed Up

[Hetty Calin]

Notto mention very robust when dealing with very small distance. If you feel you can get away with it you can switch to a custom distance metric which only calculates the squares, that will be somewhat faster.

However the true speed-up here is to figure out which distances not to compute. It sounds like what you need is a faster nearest-neighbour lookup. I have a series of 6 blog posts about nearest neighbour search. You can find the first one here.

I am coding this script in ghcomp as part of a grasshopper script. I saw somewhere in one of the papers that their script was executing in 30-40 seconds to stipple something simple. My script, when iterating over a similar point count, is taking about 6 hours (I have not implementing multithreading yet). Pretend that I am not using any rhino related commands and just doing mathematical calculations- do python scripts execute slower through grasshopper than it would as a standalone program?

I am unfamiliar with RTree. I see that you can set up a RTree by inputting a PointCloud, but how do you get the closest point/points in that tree to a predetermined point? And why is this faster than the regular PointCloud.ClosestPoint() method?

I guess this might be much faster than my case because i am constantly adding and removing points to/from the RTree which might not be required if only one single neighbour per point is sufficient. Here is a good example using RTree, note that it searches mesh vertices but the overal routine is quite similar when searching closest points in a pointcloud:

@clement , Overnight I ran the script with PointCloud.ClosestPoint implemented and at half the point count as my weekend test (29 hours) and it only took 2.4 hours, which is a really big improvement. But after reviewing the results closely, I identified a few thing: the site positions are barely distributed well after a few iterations (more are necessary), the iterations are taking way to long, and my sample points look better than the sites do as a stipple pattern.

Mining speed (also known as "tool speed") is an invisible statistic that determines how fast the player can mine (or break walls, or chop down trees/cacti). Its value shows the time per hit in 60ths of second. It is therefore something of a misnomer: it is presented in the form of the amount of time taken for a certain event, whereas speed is the number of events that take place in a certain amount of time (or, in mathematical terms, the number that is seen is the reciprocal of the speed). This means that faster tools have smaller numbers, not larger. For example, a mining speed of 15 means that the tool will hit the block every 15/60 of a second, or four times per second. A mining speed of 20, on the other hand, means that the tool will hit the block every 20/60 of a second, or three times per second.

Pickaxes (including the Pickaxe Axe, Shroomite Digging Claw, and Picksaw), axes, hammers, and hamaxes (including The Axe) can be reforged with speed bonuses to improve their mining speed. Drills (including the Drax), chainsaws, and the Chlorophyte Jackhammer cannot. The speed-increasing modifiers are displayed in the following table.

While the best prefix for mining in general is Light, certain tools will achieve the same speed with lesser prefixes due to rounding, which means it is much easier (and cheaper) to reforge these tools, since there are more prefixes that tie for "most optimal." This is complicated by the fact that tool speed is halved and floored when hammering, but the long and short of it is this:

Step 3 illustrates why some tools do not have their speed improved by some prefixes.

The Mining armor was a red herring: it has no effect on The Axe. Since the bonus it provides is mining speed, and axes are not affected by mining speed

Performance will be one hit every 3/60s, so it will break 60/3 = 20 walls per second.

I'm on Full Fiber 500 and noticed I was only getting 200-300 speed instead of the guaranteed minimum 425. Had a frustrating engineer visit this morning where they placed there laptop next to the router and via wifi showed them getting full 500ish speed on both his laptop and phone.

I preformed the exact same test same test on my PC, phone & after they left, my gaming consoles, and they all showed the exact same slower speed of about 280. It turned into a back and forth of mine says this your says that, so I asked what could be the issue effecting my devices but not his and he had no idea.

I would understand if it was just one device but ALL of my devices have the exact same, consistent (regardless of wifi or ethernet) lower download speed when I did tests one after the other. I must be missing something.

As @iniltous says, there are so many variables that affect the speed that your devices can handle. You could have a gigabit ethernet card, a fast CPU and fast RAM but if you have a poor quality HDD, it will drag your speeds to down to a level it can handle. This will apply to every piece of hardware that is running on your network. One teeny bottleneck will drag the speeds down for that device.

It was BTs router and the speed test on the engineers laptop showed 500mb speed fine over Wifi. There aren't any connection issues with wifi (or eithernet), it's connecting fine and single strength on wifi is consistent upstairs and downstairs. It's just my devices are not getting the full speed, only around 300mb instead of 500mb. My devices connected with an Ethernet cable also show this same speed.

Again, if it was just Wifi devices with a speed limitation and my Ethernet connected devices were getting full speed, then I would determine it is a wifi issue, but my Ethernet devices are getting the exact same limited speed.

I have tried BT speed tester ( ). Results were: -8 ping, around 300mb Download and 72 Upload (I should note I am receiving my Full Upload speed). I ran this on my PC and I did read the disclaimer regarding 500/1000mb testing speeds and my pc specs, ethernet cables[CAT6a], OS etc all are within minimum spec.

UPDATE: I unplugged the BT router and plugged in my own 3rd party router and it does appear to be slightly increasing the speed. The speed before ranged from 220-300 now it is closer to 300-340 (on all my devices). Tho other factors may be contributing to this.

Yes I agree completely, my main issue however is that every single device regardless of connection type, storage speed, distance from router, all seem to be limited to the same speed. I do a test on my pc, then phone then game console, all the same number. (+/- 5mb).

Have you tried turning all your devices that are connected to the Internet off then turn only one on and run the speed test then turn that device off and turn on another device and run the speed test again and repeat with all your devices.

It does seem odd seeing this across multiple devices, wired as well - All I can really add in is when we had full Fibre 100 installed I couldn't get anywhere near 100 > 150 d/l using any speed tester on my phone - but my partner could on her phone - reason?.... my phone doesn't support the faster 5G wifi band, hers does - that said you're also seeing this on multiple devices and ethernet too so probably not that but just though I'd mention just in case - and re the BT Wholesale speed test - I note you said that you read the disclaimer on there but it does seem maybe a bit too coincidental that they state:

In a large bowl, using an electric mixer, cream together the butter and sugar until fluffy. Add the eggs one at a time, occasionally scraping down the sides of the bowl and mixing well after each addition. Add the coconut milk, ginger, and coconut extract and beat for 1 minute at high speed until well blended. In a measuring pitcher, stir together the tequila and buttermilk. Add the dry ingredients in 3 batches to the egg mixture alternately with the buttermilk mixture in 2 batches, beginning and ending with the dry ingredients and mixing well after each addition. Fold in the shredded coconut.

Juliet, your cupcakes look beautiful! I cannot wait to make them! I also love the idea of using a box mix to save time. Have a wonderful week. Looking forward to seeing what you are up too on Weekend meanderings.

This is a pretty stupid question, but how fast do you drink your shakes? I usually drink mine as fast as possible. Just now I made a huge shake( 4 cups, 1400 cals) and I drank the whole thing in less than a minute. My thought process behind this is that Ill get too full if I drink it slowly, and then not want to finish it. Anyway, after I drink a shake fast I feel kind of nauseous for about half an hour afterwords. Would it be better to drink it slowly?

[quote]Brian14 wrote:

This is a pretty stupid question, but how fast do you drink your shakes? I usually drink mine as fast as possible. Just now I made a huge shake( 4 cups, 1400 cals) and I drank the whole thing in less than a minute. My thought process behind this is that Ill get too full if I drink it slowly, and then not want to finish it. Anyway, after I drink a shake fast I feel kind of nauseous for about half an hour afterwards. Would it be better to drink it slowly?[/quote]

I highly doubt it makes a huge difference. If you have the extra time to drink it slow sure go ahead. If not then nothing to worry about. The only time i ever really drink it slow is when i am drinking it while doing my stretching

I lost my shaker so recently Ill come home post workout and lay 2 scoops of my powder out on the glass living room table and get a crazy straw. I cut the powder into good size lines and then just start sucking thru my nose. I figure protein in the brain is better than in the stomach. My gains recently have been INSANE. Allergies also INSANE

3a8082e126