Thanks Estaban as I said I am not giving up on Pharo. I am actually very interested making pharo work with Unreal to give Pharo access to the most powerful graphics engine out there. Yeap moving to SDL could help a lot, I am 100% behind this idea.
Definetly will keep using Pharo but I will try to integrate with powerful existing technology , so maybe I can bring something new to Pharo too , its not a suprise that Morphic is not up to my demands, these things take a lot of coders and resources that pharo does not have. Like you I believe in leveraging existing technologies from inside Pharo like SDL. If I am able to build Unreal Engine with a minimal Pharo API as a DLL and use your FFI to control it, I think I will have the best of both world. I will have to experiment and see :) On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 5:49 PM Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kilon, > > I’m sorry to feel you frustrated. > Is clear than morphic (and the world) as it is now is not well suited to > the kind of development you want to do, and clearly documentation is not > good enough (even if we have moved forward recently, in part with your > collaboration)… > Anyway, yes, using the world as is and morphic are not very suitable to > hard consuming graphics, but there are works that have been happening that > improves all that: > > Using not the world, but SDL2 (through OS-Window) will reduce the cpu > consumption drastically… in fact, what happens now (as far as I can guess… > since I don’t know your stuff) is not that instancing a png is slow, but > the rendering (you are redrawing every time and that is not optimised in > morphic, who takes area as damaged every time and redraws it… using athens, > who is vectorial and then consuming). > So, with SDL2 you will improve (and you will have separated windows). > Also, I think you do 3d stuff so in your case I would explore wooden… I > remember Ronnie showed me an animated scene (I think it was the water > example) with more then 200 fps without much effort. > Finally… I know about people doing animations with Pharo (and morphic) > than have a lot better performance than you had… so there is clearly a > problem there. If you give me your sources I can give them a look and try > to figure out what is happening. > > So well… I think is not that is not possible, but that you are traveling > paths that are new for us, then not documented (or even tested), or really > optimised. > Something that we are willing to improve, as always :) > > cheers! > Esteban > > > On 16 Jan 2016, at 15:47, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > in any case, ignore my bug reports, I am done with this, I waste my time > and your time . Its clear pharo is not really suited for my needs, life > goes on. > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:40 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> disk, 1TB. why it matters ? from my profile its clear that its not the >> primitive that is the problem but how Pharo processes pngs. >> >> I happen to work with a lot of big data both in 3d graphics, a blender >> file can easily reach 250 mb and it opens under a second and audio files , >> plus instrument that uses alot of audio files as samples of several gbs >> giving again instanenous loading. I am not talking here 60 files, I am >> talking thousands of files. >> >> I report a sever limitation and I have been told >> >> a) I have not done enough to isolate the problem when I post clear >> profiling reports and the code that is responsible for it >> b) why I make a fuss about it since there are work arounds >> c) that its a hardware limitation when the hardware is able to perform >> light years ahead of what pharo is currently doing >> >> Sorry but this kind of attitude is really bad, when someone reports a bug >> I find it a lot better to tell him that you don't care or not reply at all >> and ignore him than just find excuses for the bug or limitation. >> >> I see it every single time I complain about a problem there is a few >> people who are logical about this like Ben , Esteban etc and then some >> other that in complete denial zone and easily offended by the truth. >> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:07 PM Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl> >> wrote: >> >>> On 16-01-16 14:48, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: >>> > sorry but thats plain horrible performance wise and those images are >>> > needed as soon as the gui is opened. So there can be no lazy loading >>> for >>> > them. The total size for all the 60 images is 530kbs . What would >>> happen >>> > if I did some serious animations of 10s of mbs , I will have to go to >>> > buy a coffee to get my GUI opened :D >>> >>> Is that on a disk or an SSD? You won't be able to get much more than 60 >>> files opened/s on a disk. >>> >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >>> >
