i have developed a Graph-Editor in JavaFX and now reading a file to build up a graph.
I create around 25000 Cells(Graphnodes) and 22000 edges between them and add them to a Pane which is inside a ScrollPane. After doing this I run a Layout-Algorithm which relocates every cell to a specific point. Relocating the Cells is terribly slow. Every relocate takes around 1 Second.
Does anybody now what could be the Problem here? Isn't JavaFX capable of showing such an high amount of nodes inside a ScrollPane in a short Time?
What could increase the performance?
Due to the complexity of the graph I'm not quite able to give a minimal example.
Related
I'm relatively new to JavaFX and have written a small applet which launches a number of (typically between 3 and 10) sub-processes. Each process has a dedicated tab displaying current status and a large TextArea where the process output is appended to. For simplicity all tabs are generated on startup.
javafx.application.Platform.runLater(() -> logTextArea.appendText(line)))
The applet works fine when workloads on sub-processes are low-moderate (not many logs), but starts to freeze when sub-processes are heavily used and generate a decent amount of logging output (a good few hundreds of lines per second in total).
I looked into binding the TextArea to the output, but my understanding is it effectively calls the Platform.runLater() method so there will still be hundreds of calls to JavaFX application thread per second.
Batching logging outputs isn't an ideal solution either because I'd like to keep the displayed log as real-time as possible.
The only solution which I think might solve the problem seems to be dynamic loading of individual tabs. This would definitely prevent unnecessary calls to update logging textareas that aren't currently visible, but before I go ahead to make the changes, I'd like to get some helpful advice from you here. Thanks!
Thanks for all your suggestions. Finally got around to implementing a fix today.
The issue was fixed by using a buffer coupled with a secondary check for time lapse (maximum 20 lines or 100 ms).
In addition, I also implemented rolling output to limit the total process output to 1,000 lines.
Thanks again for your invaluable contribution!
I'm working on a game (using Game Maker: Studio Professional v1.99.355) that needs to have both user-modifiable level geometry and AI pathfinding based on platformer physics. Because of this, I need a way to dynamically figure out which platforms can be reached from which other platforms in order to build a node graph I can feed to A*.
My current approach is, more or less, this:
For each platform consider each other platform in the level.
For each of those platforms, if it is obviously unreachable (due to being higher than the maximum jump height, for example) do not form a link and move on to next platform.
If a link seems possible, place an ai_character instance on the starting platform and (within the current step event) simulate a jump attempt.
3.a Repeat this jump attempt for each possible starting position on the starting platform.
If this attempt is successful, record the data necessary to replicate it in real time and move on to the next platform.
If not, do not form a link.
Repeat for all platforms.
This approach works, more or less, and produces a link structure that when visualised looks like this:
linked platforms (Hyperlink because no rep.)
In this example the mostly-concealed pink ghost in the lower right corner is trying to reach the black and white box. The light blue rectangles are just there to highlight where recognised platforms are, the actual platforms are the rows of grey boxes. Link lines are green at the origin and red at the destination.
The huge, glaring problem with this approach is that for a level of only 17 platforms (as shown above) it takes over a second to generate the node graph. The reason for this is obvious, the yellow text in the screen centre shows us how long it took to build the graph: over 24,000(!) simulated frames, each with attendant collision checks against every block - I literally just run the character's step event in a while loop so everything it would normally do to handle platformer movement in a frame it now does 24,000 times.
This is, clearly, unacceptable. If it scales this badly at a mere 17 platforms then it'll be a joke at the hundreds I need to support. Heck, at this geometric time cost it might take years.
In an effort to speed things up, I've focused on the other important debugging number, the tests counter: 239. If I simply tried every possible combination of starting and destination platforms, I would need to run 17 * 16 = 272 tests. By figuring out various ways to predict whether a jump is impossible I have managed to lower the number of expensive tests run by a whopping 33 (12%!). However the more exceptions and special cases I add to the code the more convinced I am that the actual problem is in the jump simulation code, which brings me at long last to my question:
How would you determine, with complete reliability, whether it is possible for a character to jump from one platform to another, preferably without needing to simulate the whole jump?
My specific platform physics:
Jumps are fixed height, unless you hit a ceiling.
Horizontal movement has no acceleration or inertia.
Horizontal air control is allowed.
Further info:
I found this video, which describes a similar problem but which doesn't provide a good solution. This is literally the only resource I've found.
You could limit the amount of comparisons by only comparing nearby platforms. I would probably only check the horizontal distance between platforms, and if it is wider than the longest jump possible, then don't bother checking for a link between those two. But you might have done this since you checked for the max height of a jump.
I glanced at the video and it gave me an idea. Instead of looking at all platforms to find which jumps are impossible, what if you did the opposite? Try placing an AI character on all platforms and see which other platforms they can reach. That's certainly easier to implement if your enemies can't change direction in midair though. Oh well, brainstorming is the key to finding something.
Several ideas you could try out:
Limit the amount of comparisons you need to make by using a spatial data structure, like a quad tree. This would allow you to severely limit how many platforms you're even trying to check. This is mostly the same as what you're currently doing, but a bit more generic.
Try to pre-compute some jump trajectories ahead of time. This will not catch all use cases that you have - as you allow for full horizontal control - but might allow you to catch some common cases more quickly
Consider some kind of walkability grid instead of a link generation scheme. When geometry is modified, compute which parts of the level are walkable and which are not, with some resolution (something similar to the dimensions of your agent might be good starting point). You could also filter them with a height, so that grid tiles that are higher than your jump height, and you can't drop from a higher place on to them, are marked as unwalkable. Then, when you compute your pathfinding, as part of your pathfinding step you can compute when you start a jump, if a path is actually executable ('start a jump, I can go vertically no more than 5 tiles, and after the peak of the jump, i always fall down vertically with some speed).
I am trying to implemente a CoverFlow like effect using a QGLWidget, the problem is the texture loading process.
I have a worker (QThread) for loading images from disk, and the main thread checks for new loaded images, if it finds any then uses bindTexture for loading them into QGLContext. While the texture is being bound, the main thread is blocked, so I have a fps drop.
What is the right way to do this?
I have found that the default behaviour of bindTexture in Qt4 is extremelly slow:
bindTexture(image,target,format,LinearFilteringBindOption | InvertedYBindOption | MipmapBindOption)
using only the LinearFilteringBindOption in the binding options speeds up the things a lot, this is my current call:
bindTexture(image, GL_TEXTURE_2D,GL_RGBA,QGLContext::LinearFilteringBindOption);
more info here : load time for a 3800x2850 bmp file reduced from 2 seconds to 34 milliseconds
Of course, if you need mipmapping, this is not the solution. In this case, I think that the way to go is Pixel Buffer Objects.
Binding in the main thread (single QGLWidget solution):
decide on maximum texture size. You could decide it based on maximum possible widget size for example. Say you know that the widget can be at most (approximately) 800x600 pixels and the largest cover visible has 30 pixels margins up and down and 1:2 aspect ratio -> 600-2*30 = 540 -> maximum size of the cover is 270x540, e.g. stored in m_maxCoverSize.
scale the incoming images to that size in the loader thread. It doesn't make sense to bind larger textures and the larger it is, the longer it'll take to upload to the graphics card. Use QImage::scaled(m_maxCoverSize, Qt::KeepAspectRatio) to scale loaded image and pass it to the main thread.
limit the number of textures or better time spent binding them per frame. I.e. remember the time at which you started binding textures (e.g. QTime bindStartTime;) and after binding each texture do:
if (bindStartTime.elapsed() > BIND_TIME_LIMIT)
break;
BIND_TIME_LIMIT would depend on frame rate you want to keep. But of course if binding each one texture takes much longer than BIND_TIME_LIMIT you haven't solved anything.
You might still experience framerate drop while loading images though on slower machines / graphics cards. The rest of the code should be prepared to live with it (e.g. use actual time to drive animation).
Alternative solution is to bind in a separate thread (using a second invisible QGLWidget, see documentation):
2. Texture uploading in a thread.
Doing texture uploads in a thread may be very useful for applications handling large amounts of images that needs to be displayed, like for instance a photo gallery application. This is supported in Qt through the existing bindTexture() API. A simple way of doing this is to create two sharing QGLWidgets. One is made current in the main GUI thread, while the other is made current in the texture upload thread. The widget in the uploading thread is never shown, it is only used for sharing textures with the main thread. For each texture that is bound via bindTexture(), notify the main thread so that it can start using the texture.
In MXML-based apps, you set the target framerate for the app and I believe this is a core part of Flash as well.
Two questions...
In many games you want the game to run as fast as it can for graphical smoothness, with some upper cap like 50-100Hz. How can you have variable framerates in Flash, or is it really not how things work?
What happens when an app cannot run at the target framerate? Do updates 'stack up' leading to other problems, or does Flash discard them?
I've a simple case where I'm moving a sprite from left to right at 100px/s, at 20fps it looks un-smooth. It's not jerky or anything, but you can clearly see the stepped motion, the artwork is black/white which accentuates it I think. I reckon a higher FPS is needed ideally, but on slower systems it might be too much and I don't want to run into nasty issues where I try to drive it too fast.
If the ActionScript takes too much time and the player can't maintain the frame rate that was specified, the frame rate just drops. There's nothing to stack up, you just get frames generated less often. For this reason when frame rate is important it's critical to make sure the AS code is not taking more time than you have available given the desired frame rate. Also make sure all calculates for movement are based on time and not frames.
As far as animation as 20fps, yeah, it will not look smooth. Bump up the frame rate. :-)
http://www.morearty.com/blog/2006/07/17/flex-tip-a-higher-frame-rate-even-makes-text-entry-look-better/
If Flash is unable to execute at the desired framerate, it will begin dropping frames. You can read the details of this here.
If you are dealing with framerates in Flash a lot, it can be helpful to understand the 'elastic racetrack' model that Flash uses. You can see details about it here, but the basic idea is that the amount of time spend executing code or rendering a frame can vary on a frame by frame basis.
I want to create a large CompatibleDC, draw a large image on it, then bitblt part of the image to other DC, in order to achieve high performance. I am using the following code to create compatible Memory DC. But when the rect becomes very large, etc: 5000*5000, the CompatibleDC created become unstable. sometimes it is OK, sometimes it failed. is there any thing wrong with my code?
input :pInputDC
output:pOutputMemDC
{
pOutputMemDC=new CDC();
VERIFY(pOutputMemDC->CreateCompatibleDC(pInputDC));
CRect rect(0,0,nDCWidth,nDCHeight);
CBitmap bitmap;
if (bitmap.CreateCompatibleBitmap(pInputDC, rect.Width(), rect.Height()))
{
pOutputMemDC->SetViewportOrg(-rect.left, -rect.top);
m_pOldBitmap = pOutputMemDC->SelectObject(&bitmap);
}
CBrush brush;
VERIFY(brush.CreateSolidBrush(RGB(255,0, 0)));
brush.UnrealizeObject();
pOutputMemDC->FillRect(rect, &brush);
}
Instead of creating a large DC and then blitting a portion of it another, smaller DC, create a DC the same size as the destination DC, or at least the same size as the blit destination. Then, offset all your drawing commands by the (-x,-y) of the sub section you want to copy. If your destination is (100,200)-(400,400) on the source then create a DC (300x200) and offset everything by (-100,-200).
This has two big advantages: firstly, the memory required is much smaller. Secondly, GDI will clip your drawing operations to the size of the DC (it always clips anyway). Although the act of clipping takes CPU time, the time saved by not drawing pixels that aren't seen more than makes up for it.
Now, if this large DC is something like an image (JPEG for example) then you need to look into other methods. One technique used by many image editing programs is to split the image into tiles and page the tiles to/from memory/hard disk. Each tile is its own DC and you only have enough source DCs to fill the target DC. As the view window moves across the large image, unload tiles that have moved out of the target rectangle and load tiles that have become visible.
Each 5000x5000 pixel image needs ca. 100MB of RAM. Depending on how much RAM your PC has, this might already be the problem.
If you have 1GB of RAM or more, then that's probably not the issue. In this case, you must have a memory leak. Where do you free the allocated bitmap? I see that you unrealize the brush but how about the bitmap?
Note that increasing your swap won't help since that will kill your performance.
Make sure you are selecting all original GDI objects to the DCs.
The problem may be that your Bitmap is still selected into the pOutputMemDC when it is being destroyed and one of them or both can't be deleted properly. Thus problems with memory might begin.