Frame Rate Control
 

I noticed that the "frame rate" reports and discussion was scattered across several threads. Perhaps a single place might help.

In version 10d, with Sleep (1), I see frame rates varying between 165 and 180.

In version 11L, with Limit Frame Rate UNchecked, I see frame rates varying between 110 and 111.

Personal opinion: that's not good.

More detailed data: All other conditions "equal", NVidia GeForce 8400 GS video. "Windowed" = default size window.

Version 10d, Sleep=1
Full Screen______FPS 165-180_______CPU 35%
Windowed_______FPS 240___________CPU 44%

Version 11L, Limit Frame Rate UNchecked
Full Screen _____FPS 111____________CPU 18%
Windowed______FPS 111____________CPU 18%
[i.e., no differences]

Version 11L, Limit Frame Rate Checked.
Limit=60, Actual 60, CPU=13%
Limit=105, Actual 102, CPU=18%

Please note that I never complained about the previous ("sleep") controls, and that the only significant technical question I asked was:
I understand that there's been a tremendous amount of effort put into "limit frame rate" and keep the frame rate constant, of course. But it appears that, even with "limit" UNchecked, there's a big performance hit.

Looking into it.

Dale, just for comparison purposes, what sleep setting do you typically use with 10d?

As I recall, I normally used Sleep of 20. Here are today's 10d for direct comparison:

Sleep 15 fps 71.53 and essentially constant.
Sleep 18 fps flips between 58.35 and 60.24
Sleep 20 fps 52.71 and essentially constant.

I can't visually see any apparent difference among those, nor with any higher fps. The monitor is an Acer AL2216W, set to 1440 x 900, and 75 Hz refresh ("vertical sync").

I found the cause of the slowdown. It was a small piece of Edgar's code that was still using the now-defunct SleepTime variable to set a timer. I'll be uploading a new version in a few minutes.

Version 11M, Limit Frame Rate UNchecked
Full Screen _____FPS 160-170____________CPU 40%
Windowed______FPS 220-250____________CPU 46%

11m with full screen I get a ~88to 94 with ~50 %CPU
In windowed mode it depends a lot on the size of window but bouncy 210 and 60% CPU for a smallish window to ~90 ish when window stretched to full screen

Kind of irrelevant testing I think.. the limit FPS works very well and drops my CPU down to 18%. IMO the limit FPS should be on by default (perhaps hard coded to be on permanent)

The current choices are really: Unlimited and Limited.

I almost agree that Limited should be the only (non) choice.

Except, Jim made an observation that (essentially) UNlimited is a benchmark test for "how fast can this machine do that".

How about a checkbox that does "Not limited but not a permanent setting". In other words, when you get out of MA3, it goes back to Limited?

I'm not sure if anyone has actually picked up on the main reason for MA3. I recreated the background as 3D objects because, just like 10 years ago, 3D stereovision is the Next Big Thing (only this time it looks like it's for real). In order for LCD glasses to work, the video card has to output a totally steady 120hz (60hz per eye). It can't do that if my program is making its own adjustments to the frame rate. Therefore, it must have the ability to get out of the way and let the hardware choose the frame rate.

Oh. That certainly explains "Unlimited".

Has that been discussed elsewhere? Sorry I was totally off-base.

Has the 120Hz requirement for 3D glasses to work been discussed here?

Oh, once or twice at least...

Not sure if any of the old posts survive, but stereovision was a hot topic until DX8 came out and eliminated it. The fish looked fantastic in 3D, but the background was so obviously 2D that it ruined the effect. DX9 reinstated stereo capability, so I immediately set to work on a 3D background. My goal is to publish one of the first home-brew 3D Blu-Ray DVDs.

Yes, certainly. I just (stupidly) did not tumble to the fact that "UNLIMITED" would (probably) be necessary for 3D glasses to work.

I also don't know what hardware (minimum video card) will be required, nor what versions of Windows will be supported.

nVidia has a list of cards which support the 3D Vision glasses. I don't have any of this setup yet, but am looking for a good deal on a GeForce 320.

where is the adjustment for the frame rate?
thank you

Doesn't nvidia only support Windows Vista and Windows 7 for that? Or am I (yet again) not understanding something?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-overview.html

What version are you running? The answer to your question varies, depending on version.

Re: 3D requirements - Don't know. I don't have any part of the system yet (card, glasses, 120hz monitor).