On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:42:06 +0100
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Then you are taking about a single frame taking 1/120 seconds to
> render, and not about pushing 120 frames per second to the user.
> Which, if you think about it, is what I said previously.
ok, fair enoug
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:45:19PM +, Ian Molton wrote:
> > What's the point of trying to display 120 Hz if you monitor can only
> > do 85 Hz?
>
> the faster you render, the lower your latency. its pointless for 3D
> modelling / artwork, but very nice for 3D games.
Then you are takin
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:14:20 +0100
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's the point of trying to display 120 Hz if you monitor can only
> do 85 Hz?
the faster you render, the lower your latency. its pointless for 3D
modelling / artwork, but very nice for 3D games.
--
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 04:44:34PM +0100, Felix Kühling wrote:
> But this way you waste lots of CPU cycles on frames which are never
> displayed. Wouldn't be waiting (IRQ) for the pageflip to occur before
> you render the 3rd frame in the above example a better approach?
What's the point of t
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:38:41 +0100
Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:34:35 -0700
> Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Time step 1:
>
>
>
> Er. surely you would render lkike this
>
> 1: Display 0 Render 1
> 2: Display 0.n Render 2
> Now, if st
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:34:35 -0700
Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Time step 1:
Er. surely you would render lkike this
1: Display 0 Render 1
2: Display 0.n Render 2
Now, if still displaying 0, swap 1 and 2 (surely a pointer swap) and
re-render in 1 else switch to 1.
in othe
Keith, Ian,
Thanks for educating me on the issues.
--
/\
Jens Owen/ \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> Time step 1:
> - Buffer 0 is being displayed (front buffer / display buffer).
> - Buffer 1 is the render buffer (back buffer).
> ...
> Time step 3:
> - Finish rendering to buffer 2, and queue it to be displayed on the next
> frame (
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Ian Romanick wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
> >>I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details. Is th
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details. Is the primary
motivation for a 3rd buffer to aliviate delays associated with vertical
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:39:23AM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
> I've heard you and others talk about triple buffering a few times, and
> I'm wondering if you can fill me in on a few details. Is the primary
> motivation for a 3rd buffer to aliviate delays associated with vertical
> refresh? Using
12 matches
Mail list logo
