smooth animation test


    Jan 18 2006 | 9:59 pm
    I really like to clear some things up about the patch below. My problem is:
    - 40fps doesn't look smooth, even though there is almost nothing going on and my cpu is at 7% - raising it to 60fps makes it smooth but kills the max interface.
    I don't want to believe that jitter can't generate this simple animation fluently on my computer. I can't raise the framerate to 60 because it'll kill my cpu if I want to do more interesting stuff than this. I really hope there is something wrong about the way I'm experiencing this patch, please have a look.
    t_
    winmax 4.5.6, jitter 1.5.2, nvidia go6800, pentium m1.86, 1gig ram.

    • Jan 18 2006 | 11:12 pm
      Try connecting a number box to the right inlet of [line] and sending it some low values - around 1 or 2. The default time grain for [line] is 20ms, which could be the problem. Feeding it a time grain of 1ms smooths things right out on my machine (Max 4.5.6, Jitter 1.5.2 ,1.5Ghz AluBook OSX.3.9). - David
    • Jan 18 2006 | 11:58 pm
      I forgot to set the interval for the test patch. In my own patch I had it at 5ms, and it helps, but doesn't completely smooth out the animation. Still 60 fps runs a lot smoother. I this also true on your powerbook? I don't understand why this can't run perfectly smooth at 30 or even 40 fps.
      t_
    • Jan 19 2006 | 12:20 am
      Well, on my machine the jerkiness was very minimal to begin with - no large hesitations or jumps - just some chunky movement at the rate of the [line] time grain. 60 fps looks pretty much the same for me, although the responsiveness of the UI does take a hit, of course. Is the rough rendering really dramatic on your system?
    • Jan 19 2006 | 9:27 am
      No it's not dramatic at all, but noticeable. I just don't understand why it has to be this way. A framerate of 30 fps with just one moving object is not a lot to process. You can do far more complex jitter and max processing without this getting worse, so I guess it's just always there. If Jitter can do all this fancy stuff, I don't understand why a simple smooth animation at a normal framerate is impossible. Maybe it has to do with the low priority jitter processing? O well, so be it.
      t_
    • Jan 19 2006 | 7:55 pm
      You can definitely get "smooth" animations if you work at it. It's complex because there are many ways to approach timing in your Jitter patch, some of which won't be so smooth. My current approach is to run everything as closely to the DSP as possible. A single train~ object generates bangs which are sent to a dsptime~ object that clocks my patch, including spatial things. Scheduler in audio interrupt and overdrive are on. This works well for me-- and like yourself, I am cursed with an eye for detail.
      -Randy
    • Jan 19 2006 | 8:43 pm
      That's good news! I'll give it a try tomorrow. Hopefully I can integrate something like that into my patches without too many adaptions. It's also good to know that I'm not the only one who cares about stuff like this.
      Best, Thijs
    • Jan 23 2006 | 2:23 pm
      Or forget using [line] and use [bline] - looks very smooth on my computer, without having to write your own audio-rate clocking system. If that's a little jumpy, you can always throw in a [jit.qball] somewhere to smooth out the rate of incoming bangs.
      here's what I mean:
      >
    • Jan 23 2006 | 8:18 pm
      That is a really nice and easy solution if you're doing animation that isn't time sync. I need it to be as time sync as possible. On my system the two different framerates automatically create different speeds in movement. The inconsistency in position is solved but by sacrificing overall timing accuracy. I think the actual problem still remains, which would be the timing of rendering bangs/events. Or am I missing something?
      Thijs
    • Jan 23 2006 | 8:35 pm
      changing the millisecond sampling rate for line didnt solve this?
      v a d e //
      www.vade.info abstrakt.vade.info
    • Jan 23 2006 | 9:52 pm
      On 1/23/06, vade wrote:
      > changing the millisecond sampling rate for line didnt solve this?
      No not really. On my system 60fps looks smoother than 40fps, even with 1ms line interval. I think Randy's solution is the only way to go, but I haven't found the time to try it yet.
      Thijs