DCBot

Jump to navigation Jump to search

And any way, PIF is not that thing, which eats significant part of CPU time:) In my case, at least:)

Jdev15:35, 17 November 2011

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.

Rednaxela15:48, 17 November 2011
 

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:Talk:PIF/Gradient PIF/DCBot/reply (8).

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.

Rednaxela15:53, 17 November 2011
 

Maybe i will try same approach later and look self, which is faster:)

Jdev16:01, 17 November 2011