On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Ian Mallett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Hugo Arts wrote:
>>
>> How about writing a fragment shader?
>
> Well, vertex shaders and fragment shaders go together. Sometimes a geometry
> shader can be added between them. Together they're a "shader".
>>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Hugo Arts wrote:
> How about writing a fragment shader?
Well, vertex shaders and fragment shaders go together. Sometimes a geometry
shader can be added between them. Together they're a "shader".
> I don't know whether this would
> work or what performance woul
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Ian Mallett wrote:
> I just realized, solution two might actually be better. It will start out
> much faster, and it's speed will converge to the speed of solution 1 as the
> number of particles increases. If you really wanted to get fussy, particles
> that have h
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Hugo Arts wrote:
> This is definitely true, however if you keep the amount of snow
> particles constant but increase the resolution
> you will see big performance hits. There is a classic performance
> trade-off, with solution number 1 being independent of the sc
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ian Mallett wrote:
> What I like about the OP's approach, and about the numpy version of it, is
> that it's perfectly scalable to any number of particles. The program as I
> modified it runs ~30 fps--but it runs about 30fps whether you add random
> particles 8 or 1
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Hugo Arts wrote:
> My gut says this is most definitely the fastest way to go for small
> numbers of snow flakes.
> I suspect there is a certain point at which the numpy approach by Ian
> wins out (especially if you can
> optimize that a little more like Ian sugges
My gut says this is most definitely the fastest way to go for small
numbers of snow flakes.
I suspect there is a certain point at which the numpy approach by Ian
wins out (especially if you can
optimize that a little more like Ian suggests, though I don't know
enough about numpy).
Some good tips t
Hi
Note that didn't run any tests/profiling (no pygame installed on this machine).
Anyway, here are my suggestions:
1) in "init()" instead of setting pixel per pixel to green use
"pygame.draw.line()"
2) in "snowfall()" you check every pixel on every frame. this is most likly
your bottleneck.
Cool effect!
Well, short of doing anything drastic--like using the GPU to simulate it,
let's try some things, in the order I thought of them.
First, to establish a baseline, I added a framerate counter and got just
over 6 fps.
-Adding
import psyco
psyco.full()
increased 1 fps
-By far the slowes
hi, i'm following SDL tutorial here, http://sol.gfxile.net/gp/ch04.html
this is the pygame equivalent. as you can see the code is not nice
looking. that's because i have tried all the optimization tricks i
know (local names, avoid dot operators, numpy array etc...) the result
is still awfully slow
10 matches
Mail list logo
