Thread history
| Time | User | Activity | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| No results | |||
And any way, PIF is not that thing, which eats significant part of CPU time:) In my case, at least:)
Actually, the combination of both methods has already been done. In Glacier I did combine "interpolating PIF" and "translating PIF" once upon a time. The result was, it was seeming to be a little faster (barely faster really, because translating PIF is fast because each iteration takes so little computation, and the extra computation of interpolating really hurts that). I discarded the combination in the end though, because the code complexity was not worth the slight performance difference.
Just to note, I think "interpolating PIF" is a terribly confusing name, since "interpolation" and "PIF" in the same conversation has normally referred to missed scan handling.
How you measure a performance?
You're welcome to rename this page, i can not find out better name:)
I had both methods running at the same time in the same bot, and put "System.nanoTime()" calls around each method. I then summed up the time taken in each and found the average time used by each method during a battle.
Maybe i will try same approach later and look self, which is faster:)
