|
|
|
|
|
by s3graham
6354 days ago
|
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply your measuring process was fluff. When I did 452 we had to do something on-screen, to demonstrate responsiveness. I did the "water demo effect" (similar to http://www.derschmale.com/demo/pixelbender-water/PixelBender...). It had to animate without hitching under load, which I guess correlates with your response timing tests (the arbitrary threshold being 60 or 30 Hz in this case). Anyhoo, I meant "process" in terms of OS-level process, and "fluff", because mine was just lame graphical fluff. :) btw, planning any more co-op terms before you graduate? Drop me a line. |
|
That said, I think your display better demonstrates real-time-ness than my somewhat-less-than-rigorous measurements. By the time you account for all the assumptions I made to get semi-complete numbers, a working demonstration of a real-time process is far more convincing!