Random Chitchat 2012-2016 - Printable Version

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 - 11-15-2016

I've just tried implementing a Simplex noise, and now I have mixed feelings about it. I was expecting it to be slower than our current noise implementation for our specific usage scenarios (generating a 3D array of values close to each other), but the actual slowness is overwhelming - our current noise is so much optimized that it is 11 times faster than the Simplex noise (!) Not bad for an algorithm that is supposed to be much slower Smile

Smile

The main reason behind this result (and behind my initial assumption) is the usage scenario - we ask the noise generator for many values close to each other. Our noise implementation has been highly optimized for this, caching whatever values it can. Unfortunately, I can't see how the Simplex noise could be optimized in the same way, it doesn't use a regular grid so it cannot cache anything, it must painfully calculate each and every value.

Remind me to pat myself on the shoulder, this noise optimization is really something I could be proud of Big Grin

Big Grin

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-16-2016

Too bad the Simplex noise can't be optimized as much.

It would be pretty cool if you could simply change the used noise for a generator though. We'd have to re-organize the Noise class to be some kind of interface which other classes inherit from. That way we could simply do something like this:

switch (inifile.GetValueSet("Generator", "BiomalNoise3DNoiseType", "Cubic")) 
{
    case "Cubic": 
    {
        m_Noise = CubicNoise(seed);
        break;
    }
    case "Simplex": 
    {
        m_Noise = SimplexNoise(seed);
        break;
    }
}

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-16-2016

I didn't say it couldn't be optimized, I just said that I don't currently see a way. It may well be possible to make it much faster.

A solution similar to yours should be possible, just templatize the BiomalNoise3D class to take the underlying noise as a template parameter (and implement a Simplex noise class that provides the same interface as the cInterp5DegNoise class (like in the NoiseSpeedTest project), then you could create the proper class in runtime. I personally don't think it's worth it, but what do I know, maybe the Simplex noise is visually much better than what we have. No other way to find out other than implementing it Smile

Smile

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-17-2016

While exploring the cClientHandle issues, I ran into something weird: The std::recursive_mutex::lock() is throwing a system error back at me on my Ubuntu. I mean, wtf, if even a simple mutex is not working, then what?!?

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-17-2016

It seems Microsoft has released the VS2017 Release candidate: https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/releasenotes/vs2017-relnotes#willow

RE: What we're doing - Seadragon91 - 11-17-2016

@xoft Looking at the description of std::recursive_mutex::lock(), it can throw three errors:

A deadlock was detected (implementations may detect certain cases of deadlock).
The thread does not have privileges to perform the operation.
The native handle type manipulated is already locked.

Source: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/mutex/recursive_mutex/lock/

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-18-2016

@Seadragon91 It has thrown a system error code 22, which, in my understanding, is EINVAL on Ubuntu Xenial 64-bit. Since I've also seen a malloc failure in another debugging session, I suspect a memory corruption somewhere. Perhaps a valgrind session is in order.

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-20-2016

I believe I've fixed one huge pain in our collective a**es - the cClientHandle race conditions. I did test this extensively, but still would appreciate more people going through the changes: https://github.com/cuberite/cuberite/pull/3439

Mostly, the change is about adding a cCriticalSection wrapped around cClientHandle's m_State, so that each write is protected. If such a write depends on a previous read, the read is included in the CS lock. Still, there are places where the value of m_State is not as important (say, when deciding what chunks to send next, it's not exactly important if the client has just disconnected - the chunk will be chosen and then the clienthandle destroyed anyway), so there are places where it makes sense to read the m_State value without holding the CS. For that reason, m_State is kept as a std::atomic.

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-21-2016

@xoft, I was thinking, perhaps the PluginChecker should check if decimals were given to a function that only accepts integers. That way you can prevent rounding errors like this.

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-21-2016

That won't be possible, because the Lua API descriptions don't specify whether they accept floating points, or integers only - they only say "number".