Re: Latency Critical-ism

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

MLM Veraart (Veraart++at++fel.tno.nl)
Tue, 04 May 1999 15:32:23 +0200

Devrim Erdem wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an app where I have some positioning and intersection
> work. Performer Pguide says that latency critical processing
> shall be before pfFrame and non-latency critical process shall
> be after pfFrame.
>
> My app recieves the positioning info from some other app and
> utilizes intersectors to position them properly. In my opinion
> both are critical. But isect process documented as async and
> my isectors don't seem to be correctly computing the intersection
> points. What might be the reason ? Currently the order is
>
> pfSync
> Receive position info
> Compute new pos using isectors
> pfFrame

The time taken between pfSync() and pfFrame() should be short.
Otherwise you will 'lose' a frame. What is meant with critical is the
stuff like setting the viewpoint based on the lastest info of controls.
The intersection stuff should be done after pfFrame and before pfSync to
make use of the multiprocess nature of performer. Calculate the
intersections while a new frame is being calculated. Or you can make an
ISECT process and let it calc the intersections in a totally frame
independant way.

Mario

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue May 04 1999 - 06:31:03 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.