|
Zulghinlour | Fri 17-Apr-09 12:43 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
9792 posts
|     |
|
#24465, "RE: Another thought"
|
>Several big functions may not fit 0.25s (a pulse time?).
That's why I'm tracking the data...to find out.
>Did you guys consider splitting them into several smaller
>pieces and spear across different pulses within a tick?
Right now, the functions that are causing things to be out of whack are because they are written poorly, and have been easily refactored into the existing infrastructure. If I get to a point where that is not the case, I'll think about it. I agree different != bad, but there are also things to keep in mind like "Will people be able to determine a tick is coming if XYZ always happens here", which used to be the case with some things. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
|
|
|
 CF Performance
[View all] , Zulghinlour, Fri 17-Apr-09 12:17 AM
  FYI:,
Daevryn,
24-Apr-09 01:27 PM, #10
  RE: FYI:,
Isildur,
24-Apr-09 02:04 PM, #11
RE: FYI:,
Daevryn,
24-Apr-09 02:24 PM, #12
Mmmm...Thunderdome (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
24-Apr-09 02:46 PM, #13
What language would you use? /nt,
Rodriguez,
24-Apr-09 05:13 PM, #14
Probably C#,
Daevryn,
24-Apr-09 05:20 PM, #15
Dude,
N b M,
24-Apr-09 07:58 PM, #16
C (n/t),
Zulghinlour,
24-Apr-09 08:09 PM, #17
Two bits enter, one bit leaves! nt,
vargal,
25-Apr-09 05:06 AM, #18
I sort of posted about this several years ago.,
Dallevian,
18-Apr-09 12:05 PM, #9
Thanks Zulgh, definitely noticed the improvement. n/t.,
TheDude,
17-Apr-09 09:34 PM, #8
Another thought,
Dwoggurd,
17-Apr-09 04:25 AM, #4
RE: Another thought,
Zulghinlour,
17-Apr-09 12:43 PM #5
Re,
Dwoggurd,
17-Apr-09 06:05 PM, #7
RE: CF Performance,
Isildur,
17-Apr-09 12:30 AM, #1
RE: CF Performance,
Zulghinlour,
17-Apr-09 12:34 AM, #2
RE: CF Performance,
Asthiss,
17-Apr-09 01:53 AM, #3
RE: CF Performance,
Isildur,
17-Apr-09 12:44 PM, #6
| |
|
