Nathan wrote:
On 4/23/07, adam naples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you're on a G4?
break out the velocity engine on that fun.
Oh come ON. All serious programmers refer to it as Altivec. Surely
you knew that? Why, "velocity engine" is just the
keynote-marketing-version!
http://en.wikipedia.or
On 4/23/07, adam naples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you're on a G4?
break out the velocity engine on that fun.
Oh come ON. All serious programmers refer to it as Altivec. Surely
you knew that? Why, "velocity engine" is just the
keynote-marketing-version!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltiVec
On 4/23/07, James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am working on a really fun game, but I am having a hard time making it
more fun. I need some help. Here is the source code so far:
#
print "Preparing to do fun things..."
import math
import random
print "Co
you're on a G4?
break out the velocity engine on that fun.
On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:45 PM, James Paige wrote:
I am working on a really fun game, but I am having a hard time
making it
more fun. I need some help. Here is the source code so far:
#
print "Prepari
James Paige is optimizing fun:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
>> On 4/24/07, James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Does anybody know a more fun operation than
>> >math.sqrt that I could use to push the fun up to 100%?
>>
>> while 1:
>> pass
>
> Nope, tha
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:11:16PM -0700, Brian Fisher wrote:
> On 4/23/07, James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >multithreading? I figure I should be able to max out at 200% fun on this
> >system, but I am stuck here. Any advice?
> >
> I think rather than get one instance of the game up to 200
On 4/23/07, Dave LeCompte (really) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Fisher told me that a CPU is not a saw:
> However it is also nowhere near an applicable analogy in this case. So
> if you only ever used 20% of the cpu, I guess you'll burn out that 20%
> and then have to throw away an 80% good c
On 4/23/07, James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
multithreading? I figure I should be able to max out at 200% fun on this
system, but I am stuck here. Any advice?
I think rather than get one instance of the game up to 200% fun, you
may want to look at increasing the number of instances of the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
> On 4/24/07, James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Does anybody know a more fun operation than
> >math.sqrt that I could use to push the fun up to 100%?
>
> while 1:
> pass
Nope, that is about the same. still averaging abou
On 4/24/07, James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anybody know a more fun operation than
math.sqrt that I could use to push the fun up to 100%?
while 1:
pass
--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/
Brian Fisher said:
> I know you are not advocating idiocy, and I'm sorry if I was a bit
> rude. I do think you are making very valid points, I just didn't want
> the idea that using less cpu is good to be lost.
Thanks - I probably was getting a little touchy, myself, in my frustration
- I guess I
On 4/23/07, Dave LeCompte (really) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so I'm not burning out 20% of the pins on the CPU, or wearing down 20%
of the transistors to nubs, but I still believe it's valid. If I have a
2GHz CPU, and I only use 20% of it over its entire lifetime, didn't I
really waste 80% o
I am working on a really fun game, but I am having a hard time making it
more fun. I need some help. Here is the source code so far:
#
print "Preparing to do fun things..."
import math
import random
print "Commencing fun..."
while True:
math.sqrt(random.rand
On 4/23/07, Ethan Glasser-Camp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think Dave LeCompte was trying to argue that if you know how much
CPU you have, you can use it to better effect in your game -- for
example with more accurate physics or more realistic AI. I don't
necessarily agree with this argument, bu
On 4/23/07, Dave LeCompte (really) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Why you would WANT to max out the CPU really baffles me.
Grampa used to chastise me for only using 50% of the length of the
handsaw. He said "I paid for every tooth on the saw blade, use them all.
Brian Fisher told me that a CPU is not a saw:
> However it is also nowhere near an applicable analogy in this case. So
> if you only ever used 20% of the cpu, I guess you'll burn out that 20%
> and then have to throw away an 80% good cpu? What a waste. All those
> 80% good intel CPU's lounging in a
Kris Schnee wrote:
> James Paige wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 02:18:36PM -0700, Dave LeCompte (really) wrote:
>>> By definition, wasting cycles is bad, and if the CPU is running at 25%,
>>> that would be 75% waste, right?
> And what's the benefit to using active waiting or no waiting in a game
James Paige wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 02:18:36PM -0700, Dave LeCompte (really) wrote:
By definition, wasting cycles is bad, and if the CPU is running at 25%,
that would be 75% waste, right?
NO.
---
James Paige
For instance, I'm using a laptop. In some situations I have to pay
attent
On 4/23/07, Dave LeCompte (really) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why you would WANT to max out the CPU really baffles me.
Grampa used to chastise me for only using 50% of the length of the
handsaw. He said "I paid for every tooth on the saw blade, use them all."
Wasting (including underusing) the
++;
That wouldn't make any sense... a CPU is not a saw. I paid for my computer the
way it is so that NOTHING takes up 100% on either of its two cores aside from
compiling programs, which is a completely different story.
On Monday 23 April 2007 05:32:09 pm James Paige wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 20
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 02:18:36PM -0700, Dave LeCompte (really) wrote:
>
> By definition, wasting cycles is bad, and if the CPU is running at 25%,
> that would be 75% waste, right?
>
NO.
---
James Paige
"Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Why you would WANT to max out the CPU really baffles me.
Grampa used to chastise me for only using 50% of the length of the
handsaw. He said "I paid for every tooth on the saw blade, use them all."
Wasting (including underusing) the CPU seems like the same thi
On 4/23/07, Dave LeCompte (really) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But to hardcode an upper limit on CPU usage for the general case still
really baffles me.
Why you would WANT to max out the CPU really baffles me.
Some of us (like me) do our pygame programming while the computer is
doing lots of ot
Don't you think that the "explicit is better than implicit" in import this
gives you some help?
I'd stick with the self.location
On 4/23/07, Kris Schnee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A trivial question that's bugging me:
A Widget object currently has a variable called "location," which is a
Py
A trivial question that's bugging me:
A Widget object currently has a variable called "location," which is a
Pygame.Rect object. It _is_ a Rect, but what it _means_ is the Widget's
location. Is it better to call it "self.location" or "self.rect"?
Even typing "import this" at the IDLE console
Miriam English said:
> OpenAL has some interesting 3D capabilities -- something that will be
> very useful for me later... but after a quick scan thru the
> documentation I can't see much else. Guess I have to sit down and really
> delve into the docs.
Based on Alex's suggestion of looking at Open
Ulf Ekström asked:
> Please think of people with laptops!
This is entirely reasonable - pressing my "100% monitor"/"100% CPU"
simile, it makes sense to me to have a "low power" mode analogous to the
"windowed" mode.
But to hardcode an upper limit on CPU usage for the general case still
really baf
Well, I figured out what I was doing wrong... I think the problem was that I
was (successfully) over complicating a simple thing. Well, I have bullet
code that doesn't return errors or anything, the next important thing is
making bullets disappear and stuff when they hit the edge of the screen or
Simon Oberhammer wrote:
Hm, haven't thaught about this too much and always did my own "busy
wait" and a fixed frame rate (of course game adjusts to slower fps).
Would someone care show pseudo code for decoupled update/draw and
non-busy wait stuff? Or maybe a real game and point me to the rele
Hm, haven't thaught about this too much and always did my own "busy wait"
and a fixed frame rate (of course game adjusts to slower fps).
Would someone care show pseudo code for decoupled update/draw and non-busy
wait stuff? Or maybe a real game and point me to the relevant sections?
Seems this i
Please think of people with laptops! I can accept that an amazing 3d
shooter uses all my cpu, but for some simple puzzle game to take all
cpu and make the fan run att maximum speed is really stupid. It also
affects the battery life quit a lot, and many cheap laptops get
unpleasantly hot from such
Brian Fisher wrote:
The point I was trying to make was that not all frames take the same
amount of time to do the work to get to the screen. Like lets say a
comp can only manage an average of 20 fps, or on average it takes 50ms
per frame. Well it won't come out as 50ms per frame. It's likely to
On 4/22/07, Ethan Glasser-Camp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [run simulation at a consistent rate with time]
I've seen this argument before on the pygame list and I don't really
understand it. It seems to me that in my experience, when I play a
game which I don't have the CPU for, I get slideshow
33 matches
Mail list logo
