http://robowiki.net/w/index.php?title=Thread:User_talk:Rednaxela/FastTrig/Faster_normalXAngle_--_faster_sin,cos,tan/reply_(11)&feed=atom&action=historyThread:User talk:Rednaxela/FastTrig/Faster normalXAngle -- faster sin,cos,tan/reply (11) - Revision history2024-03-28T09:59:44ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.34.1http://robowiki.net/w/index.php?title=Thread:User_talk:Rednaxela/FastTrig/Faster_normalXAngle_--_faster_sin,cos,tan/reply_(11)&diff=54724&oldid=prevEnamel 32: Reply to Faster normalXAngle --> faster sin,cos,tan2018-08-15T16:39:21Z<p>Reply to <a href="/wiki/Thread:User_talk:Rednaxela/FastTrig/Faster_normalXAngle_--_faster_sin,cos,tan/reply_(10)" title="Thread:User talk:Rednaxela/FastTrig/Faster normalXAngle -- faster sin,cos,tan/reply (10)">Faster normalXAngle --> faster sin,cos,tan</a></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>That is what I'm referring to as the "polynomial implementation" above. My intuition is that the LUT version is only slower in practice because it gets evicted out of the cache due to being so large. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison test yet, but I've shrunk it by roughly a factor of 32 from the smallest version I've seen on this page, and I've added a couple other tricks to reduce the calculations required to find the lookup index. Once I truly need the speed boost I'll begin benchmarking the two against each other.</div>Enamel 32