If you have a problem or need to report a bug please email : support@dsprobotics.com
There are 3 sections to this support area:
DOWNLOADS: access to product manuals, support files and drivers
HELP & INFORMATION: tutorials and example files for learning or finding pre-made modules for your projects
USER FORUMS: meet with other users and exchange ideas, you can also get help and assistance here
NEW REGISTRATIONS - please contact us if you wish to register on the forum
Users are reminded of the forum rules they sign up to which prohibits any activity that violates any laws including posting material covered by copyright
rnd optimization
31 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: rnd optimization
Here is the original modified one. This one has your adjustement for pulse driving.
Few things to pay attention to:
- in design - it will run for less than 1 sec or more than 2 hours (generally, I use 0.01s resolution).
- one input setting could drive all 4 channels (decay is the same for all) // not present here
- must have (linear) fade in - it is set to create "ding" (usually 1-3ms) or fading effect (lenght is shared with fade out)
- for fade out: it is curved according to middle point gain (dB)
- must have a trigger node, to reinitialize (or resync) on demand
- must be fast
- could have some sort of gain compensation if during fade out - lenght is changed (shordened) // not presetn here.
*
Hmm... I just discovered, that this part is not my CPU eater. Hmm... Doing brief comparative tests in FS - it seemed that changing that rnd part will bring back about 4% of CPU. But on operating design (EXE) - performance is the same. I lost one unit from running somewhere on-the-go.
MyCo, these mono4 pack/unpack stock prims - are they something to pay attention to (i.e. worth to change in to asm parts, like I borrowed from Trog)?
Should the "specp.fsm" be optimized somehow in terms of performance? I'm checking all things I added recently.
//edit:
Actually, after reviewing the design in action a little bit deeper, mod on randomization theme and switching from m2f's into multi-channel graph2f's (while stream values are in use, green values are sent back to the interface) - gives slight improvement, but still - it's "almost" (i.e. fraction of what was expected). I switched that mono4 pack/unpack parts into slowpacks where I could too, but I don't know if these changed anything. I guess, after optimizing "specp.fsm" things may get back to glitchless on this machine; it's another "maybe", but worth to check.
//edit2: Stupid me. I think I can push the "specp" through mono4. //edit3: ...and after doing so - Initial performance is back again. Can this one be optimized even more?
Few things to pay attention to:
- in design - it will run for less than 1 sec or more than 2 hours (generally, I use 0.01s resolution).
- one input setting could drive all 4 channels (decay is the same for all) // not present here
- must have (linear) fade in - it is set to create "ding" (usually 1-3ms) or fading effect (lenght is shared with fade out)
- for fade out: it is curved according to middle point gain (dB)
- must have a trigger node, to reinitialize (or resync) on demand
- must be fast
- could have some sort of gain compensation if during fade out - lenght is changed (shordened) // not presetn here.
*
Hmm... I just discovered, that this part is not my CPU eater. Hmm... Doing brief comparative tests in FS - it seemed that changing that rnd part will bring back about 4% of CPU. But on operating design (EXE) - performance is the same. I lost one unit from running somewhere on-the-go.
MyCo, these mono4 pack/unpack stock prims - are they something to pay attention to (i.e. worth to change in to asm parts, like I borrowed from Trog)?
Should the "specp.fsm" be optimized somehow in terms of performance? I'm checking all things I added recently.
//edit:
Actually, after reviewing the design in action a little bit deeper, mod on randomization theme and switching from m2f's into multi-channel graph2f's (while stream values are in use, green values are sent back to the interface) - gives slight improvement, but still - it's "almost" (i.e. fraction of what was expected). I switched that mono4 pack/unpack parts into slowpacks where I could too, but I don't know if these changed anything. I guess, after optimizing "specp.fsm" things may get back to glitchless on this machine; it's another "maybe", but worth to check.
//edit2: Stupid me. I think I can push the "specp" through mono4. //edit3: ...and after doing so - Initial performance is back again. Can this one be optimized even more?
- Attachments
-
- specp.fsm
- (updated to m4)
- (826 Bytes) Downloaded 728 times
-
- fout.fsm
- (1.81 KiB) Downloaded 733 times
Need to take a break? I have something right for you.
Feel free to donate. Thank you for your contribution.
Feel free to donate. Thank you for your contribution.
- tester
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
- Location: Poland, internet
31 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests