Cuberite Forum
Random Chitchat 2012-2016 - Printable Version

+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-15-2013

Oh no, I meant, before even installing the powersupply into the computerTongue

RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 04-15-2013

Use a multimeter? idkTongue

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-15-2013

I wonder if this thing would run MCServer acceptably Smile
http://www.tinydeal.com/mk808-16ghz-rk3066-android-41-tv-box-multimedia-player-p-70725.html
[Image: 117940_882367_TTH-117940.jpg]
I've just given away my MK802, since its wifi was gone, it was of no use to me; brother-in-law seemed interested so maybe he can play with it Smile

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-17-2013

I'm currently fighting through the cNoise optimization, trying to figure the best way to attack it. At first I want to implement a 2D-only case, as a testbed for performance comparison. If it's found worth it, I'll expand it into 3D.

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-17-2013

Initial tests look very promising:
Code:
[0ef0|21:11:23] cCubicNoise generating 100 * 256x256 values took 1029 ticks (1.03 sec)
[0ef0|21:11:31] cNoise generating 100 * 256x256 values took 8198 ticks (8.20 sec)
So we get an 8-fold increase in the noise generator. But I still believe I can make that 10-fold, at least, there's a few tricks left up my sleeve Smile

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 04-17-2013

wow 8 times faster :O

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-17-2013

Well, it does NOT mean that generating will be that much faster; noise generation is only a part of the whole thing.
2D noise generation is about 10 % of the whole generating time, 3D noise generation is about 16 %. So if the noise speedup stayed at 8-fold, whole generating will speed up about 22 %.
But more importantly, it will allow us to make overhangs Smile

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 04-17-2013

:D overhangsBig Grin

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 04-17-2013

Silly me, I've been comparing performance in Debug mode again. Of course it needs to be done in Release.
So here's a Release mode comparison of the same algorithms:
Code:
[21:40:01] cCubicNoise generating 500 * 256x256 values took 670 ticks (0.67 sec)
[21:40:05] cNoise generating 500 * 256x256 values took 3678 ticks (3.68 sec)
So the speedup is "only" 5.5x.

However, after two more rounds of code optimizing, I was able to squeeze out some more:
Code:
[21:52:49] cCubicNoise generating 1000 * 256x256 values took 1138 ticks (1.14 sec)
[21:52:56] cNoise generating 1000 * 256x256 values took 7403 ticks (7.40 sec)
[21:52:56] New method is 6.51x faster
Oh yeah! Wink
Code:
[22:31:47] cCubicNoise generating 1000 * 256x256 values took 701 ticks (0.70 sec)
[22:31:54] cNoise generating 1000 * 256x256 values took 7404 ticks (7.40 sec)
[22:31:54] New method is 10.56x faster
(Just changed datatype from double to float)
I think I've hit the sweet spot now:
Code:
[22:38:19] cCubicNoise generating 1000 * 256x256 values took 686 ticks (0.69 sec)
[22:38:27] cNoise generating 1000 * 256x256 values took 7403 ticks (7.40 sec)
[22:38:27] New method is 10.79x faster
Changed datatype back to doubles, but re-implemented the CubicInterpolate() method for doubles, thus eliminating the conversion back and forth between doubles and floats.

RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 04-17-2013

Impressive :O