|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
|
| Lachlan87 |
Posted - Jun 10 2004 : 4:12:29 PM
Yes, a very simple concept, but I've seen so many different ways of doing it, I want to double check and make sure the way I am doing it is acceptable. If I run this code everytime I draw everthing to the screen, I should get accurate FPS, right?
numFrames += 1
If timeGetTime - FirstTime >= 1000 Then
FPS = numFrames
FirstTime = timeGetTime
numFrames = 0
End If
Really, I feel silly asking this question since I understand the concept just fine. But after I tried implementing someone elses version of a FPS counter, and it didn't work, I'm not sure I trust myself to have got it right this time around. |
| game_maker |
Posted - Jun 13 2004 : 7:46:40 PM
Dan:
Yes they have to make every definition consistence with every language specially on .Net FrameWork ,,, and they have to expand the ability of Integers types ... and VB.Net made from C# (as I heard) ... etc
But still if you asked me what is better :
1) defining LongInteger (8-bit) or what ever they name it
2) changeing the definition for Integer Type and Long Type
So, Clearly I will prefare 1 over 2 
VBBR :
You are very right ,,, in VB.Net they are difference in representation but they are now both (8 bytes) and this what I ment  |
| VBBR |
Posted - Jun 13 2004 : 10:12:12 AM
quote:
and for Long it's = 8 byte as Double in vb.6
That's wrong, because a Double is a floating-point value but a Long is an integer number.
quote:
and the definition is not stable ,,it depens on wither it's 32-bit or 64-bit
Right, but for C++ only. VB6 and .NET currently only work with the Win32 platform, that is, 32 bits. (4 bytes)
(I dunno how would one write a 64-bit application in VB. I guess it's impossible.) |
| Dan |
Posted - Jun 13 2004 : 03:54:07 AM
quote:
Integer here defined as 4 byte and accept minus so it's the same definition in VB.6 Longs ... as you did !!! why microsoft did this ,,, if the have to change something then they should define something that have (integers in 8 bytes) and not changing everything
I think it has somthing to do with the fact the .NET framework is made up of the supposed 'Best bits' of VB and C. I believe C#'s Int/long variable types are 4 / 8 bytes respectivly. so it came to a toss up between who keeps the type definitions and C# won... makes sense really - Its easier to put a small parcel in a a big box, a wee bit trickier to do the reverse :)
|
| game_maker |
Posted - Jun 13 2004 : 12:35:04 AM
in VB.6 :
Long is 4 byte
so it's :
2^(8 * 4) = 4294967296
we dived it by 2 (to get plus and minus numbers)
2^(8 * 4) / 2 =
2147483648 to 2147483648
we save one bit to determine (minus or plus sign)
-2147483648 to 2147483647
we need to find the same properties in VB.Net :
in VB.Net
Integer here defined as 4 byte and accept minus so it's the same definition in VB.6 Longs ... as you did !!! why microsoft did this ,,, if the have to change something then they should define something that have (integers in 8 bytes) and not changing everything
and for Long it's = 8 byte as Double in vb.6
and the definition is not stable ,,it depens on wither it's 32-bit or 64-bit |
| Sr. Guapo |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 11:08:47 PM
quote:
I still wonder why timeGetTime and other API functions work if VB.Net isn't auto converting things.
Maybe they do that now in VB .NET to discourage the use of variants... Dunno...
What if you defined the GetTickCount as an "Int32" in .NET, I think that is all that a long is, a 32 bit integer. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
| Lachlan87 |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 10:14:41 PM
quote:
A LONG data type in VB6 isn't the same thing as a LONG data type in VB.NET
That I understood. I had thought that VB.Net performed the conversions automatically, but I guess I must have been thinking of the other way of using the windows API (dllImport or something like that).
game_maker: I realize my "test" was backwards and not particularly accurate, but even still, I thought it was safe to infer that GetTickCount was faster.
Oh, well. At least my problem was fixed, and I managed to learn some things. . . but like Eric said, I still wonder why timeGetTime and other API functions work if VB.Net isn't auto converting things. |
| game_maker |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 4:48:56 PM
great ^^
I think you missed some small thing in your code becouse you calculate (timeGetTime - firstTime > 999 ) and frames = frames + 1 and the loop circle
all of these takes time (ns),,, so it's not exactly what we looking for
I mean :
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32" () As Long
Private Sub Command1_Click()
Dim lastTime As Single
Dim firstTime As Long
Dim x1 As Long, x2 As Long
Dim frames As Long
Dim Count1 As Long
firstTime = GetTickCount
Count1 = GetTickCount - firstTime
firstTime = GetTickCount
lastTime = firstTime
Do Until lastTime - firstTime > 999
lastTime = lastTime + 1
Loop
lastTime = GetTickCount - firstTime - Count1
Form1.Print lastTime
frames = 0
firstTime = GetTickCount
Do Until GetTickCount - firstTime > 999
frames = frames + 1
Loop
x1 = frames - lastTime
Form1.Print x1
frames = 0
firstTime = timeGetTime
Do Until timeGetTime - firstTime > 999
frames = frames + 1
Loop
x2 = frames - lastTime
Form1.Print x2
Form1.Print (x1 - x2) / x2 * 100 & " %"
End Sub
This gives you exactly 100% FPS ( I think  )
By the way this is not frame rate this is CPS (Calls / Second) witch we wan't to find (the speed of calling a function )
I got (VB.6) :
0 *
3440201
3205927
7.307%
this means to me GettickCount is faster to call
* : (my added code is not important here with fast functions and fast computers )
It's important to report the bug you find to microsoft |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 4:34:17 PM
I'm surprised that code even works at all for you. A LONG data type in VB6 isn't the same thing as a LONG data type in VB.NET. When declaring windows API calls in VB.NET you have to make sure the data type size is the same as what's returned and what's used as parameters, otherwise you'll be reading from memory that you're not supposed to, and VB.NET will convert stuff that it shouldn't be converting. |
| Lachlan87 |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 1:37:40 PM
Ok, I think I finally figured it out. First, changing the title bar's text makes for quite a speed hit, so I removed that. That made both versions much faster, but vb6 was still lagging behind by about 100,000. So I did a rather sloppy test(Hopefully Almar will do a better one for persistent realities), and it seems as though vb.net can call timeGetTime and GetTickCount faster than VB6. My very unprofessional testing code is below.
VB6 Version:
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32" () As Long
Private Sub Command1_Click()
Dim firstTime As Long
Dim frames As Long
frames = 0
firstTime = GetTickCount
Do Until GetTickCount - firstTime > 999
frames = frames + 1
Loop
Form1.Print frames
frames = 0
firstTime = timeGetTime
Do Until timeGetTime - firstTime > 999
frames = frames + 1
Loop
Form1.Print frames
End Sub
VB.Net Version:
Private Declare Auto Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long
Private Declare Auto Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32" () As Integer
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Dim firstTime As Long
Dim frames As Long
frames = 0
firstTime = GetTickCount
Do Until GetTickCount - firstTime > 999
frames = frames + 1
Loop
Label1.Text += frames.ToString & vbCrLf
frames = 0
firstTime = timeGetTime
Do Until timeGetTime - firstTime > 999
frames = frames + 1
Loop
Label1.Text += frames.ToString
End Sub
My results were:
VB6:
7046999 - GetTickCount
5660505 - timeGetTime
VB.Net
8798485 - GetTickCount
6452133 - timeGetTime
It is my current opinion that this accounts for the speed difference---but I know I my tests were not kosher. Maybe I'll do the job properly later with QueryPerformance counter.
BTW, I did try removing the DoEvents stuff, but it didn't account for the gap. Sorry if I'm boring you guys---I find this stuff interesting! |
| Sr. Guapo |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 10:43:34 AM
It is possible that DoEvents in VB6 doesn't take as long as Application.DoEvents() in VB.NET... IT doesn't seem likely, but I don't know what else it would be... |
| Lachlan87 |
Posted - Jun 12 2004 : 10:03:10 AM
One thing I forgot to mention, and may be key to my problem, is that I am using VB.Net, which doesn't always get along with the windows API so well. game_maker's code gives me about 1187 for both values when I put it in VB6--but when I convert it to VB.Net like so:
Private Declare Auto Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long
Private Declare Auto Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32" () As Long
Dim numFrames1 As Long, FirstTime1 As Long, FPS1 As Long
Dim numFrames2 As Long, FirstTime2 As Long, FPS2 As Long
Private Sub Form1_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
Me.Show()
Do
numFrames1 = numFrames1 + 1
If timeGetTime - FirstTime1 > 999 Then
FPS1 = numFrames1
FirstTime1 = timeGetTime
numFrames1 = 0
End If
numFrames2 = numFrames2 + 1
If Math.Sign(GetTickCount - FirstTime2 - 999) + 1 Then
FPS2 = numFrames2
FirstTime2 = GetTickCount
numFrames2 = 0
End If
Application.DoEvents()
Me.Text = "FPS1 = " & FPS1 & " " & "FPS2 = " & FPS2
Application.DoEvents()
Loop
End Sub
I get about 85203 for timeGetTime and about 21843 for GetTickCount.
It doesn't make any sense to me. I would instinctively guess that VB.Net wasn't converting the data types correctly, but since both timeGetTime and GetTickCount return a Long, it ought to make the same error on both, if it truely was a conversion error. Besides, VB.Net's long can hold much greater values that VB6's, so it seems like there would be no problem.
But that was my reasoning using logic, which doesn't apply when we're working with a product made by Microsoft. I changed GetTickCount to As Integer, and Voila! Now they both return 85 thousand. For some perverted reason GetTickCount wouldn't convert right and timeGetTime would.
But that still leaves the question: Why are the values I get in VB.Net so wildy different than the values I get in VB6? I can't decide if VB.Net is too high, or if VB6 is too low, but they can't both be right! Can they? When logic as I understand it fails, I start to wonder . . .
And just to confuse things a little more, Eric's VB6 code returns the same values for timeGetTime and GetTickCount as my VB.Net verison of his code---without changing any longs to integers!! |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Jun 11 2004 : 7:28:59 PM
Here is some more code. Just copy and paste this on a form named "form1" with a command button named "command1"
This code tests the resolution of the different timers. It calls the time function, and then repeatedly calls the time function untill the returned value changes. The difference between the two values shows the precision of the timer function. The Timer function seems to be slightly more precise, but less accurate on my system. It is more prone to fluctuations returning either it's time step or it's time step times 2.
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32" () As Long
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceFrequency Lib "kernel32" (lpFrequency As Currency) As Long
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceCounter Lib "kernel32" (lpPerformanceCount As Currency) As Long
Private Sub Command1_Click()
Form1.Cls
Form1.CurrentX = 0: Form1.CurrentY = 0
Dim s As Long, t As Long
Dim u As Single, v As Single
Dim Freq As Currency, x As Currency, y As Currency, sngResult As Single
s = GetTickCount()
Do
t = GetTickCount()
If t - s > 0 Then Exit Do
Loop
Form1.Print (t - s) / 1000
s = timeGetTime()
Do
t = timeGetTime()
If t - s > 0 Then Exit Do
Loop
Form1.Print (t - s) / 1000
u = Timer
Do
v = Timer
If v - u > 0 Then Exit Do
Loop
Form1.Print (v - u)
QueryPerformanceFrequency Freq
QueryPerformanceCounter x
Do
QueryPerformanceCounter y
If y - x > 0 Then Exit Do
Loop
sngResult = (y - x) / Freq
Form1.Print Format$(sngResult, " 0.000000000000")
End Sub
after writing this I found the following from microsoft, it seems they did the same thing I just did, http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q172/3/38.asp&NoWebContent=1 |
| game_maker |
Posted - Jun 11 2004 : 6:51:42 PM
I have just tested this code
Option Explicit
Private Declare Function timeGetTime Lib "winmm.dll" () As Long
Private Declare Function GetTickCount Lib "kernel32" () As Long
Dim numFrames1 As Long, FirstTime1 As Long, FPS1 As Long
Dim numFrames2 As Long, FirstTime2 As Long, FPS2 As Long
Private Sub Form_Load()
Me.Show
Do
numFrames1 = numFrames1 + 1
If timeGetTime - FirstTime1 > 999 Then
FPS1 = numFrames1
FirstTime1 = timeGetTime
numFrames1 = 0
End If
numFrames2 = numFrames2 + 1
If Sgn(GetTickCount - FirstTime2 - 999) + 1 Then
FPS2 = numFrames2
FirstTime2 = GetTickCount
numFrames2 = 0
End If
DoEvents
Me.Caption = "FPS1 = " & FPS1 & " " & "FPS2 = " & FPS2
DoEvents
Loop
End Sub
they are 100% same ,, i.e. as Eric said your test is odd |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Jun 11 2004 : 6:43:12 PM
Is the FPS value when using GetTickCount wrong or does it slow down the game to 20 FPS? I only ever used QueryPerformanceCounter or timeGetTime, so I never noticed the getTickCount problem. |
| Lachlan87 |
Posted - Jun 11 2004 : 6:18:48 PM
According to MSDN, GetTickCount's "return value is the number of milliseconds that have elapsed since the system was started."
Sounds the same as timeGetTime to me. . .
Tested it on my brother's computer, and had the same result: 85 FPS for timeGetTime, 20 FPS for GetTickCount. Has anyone else noticed this with their games? |
|
|
| VBGamer |
© |
 |
|
|
|
