Quinn-Curtis Forums
Quinn-Curtis Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Tools for Microsoft .Net & .Net Compact Framework
 Real-Time Graphics Tools for .Net (VB and C#)
 Performance considerations.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

LarsOo

3 Posts

Posted - 02 May 2006 :  10:34:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm looking for a RT graphic library for .NET and since our company has used QC products before I downloaded the demo and run a couple of example projects (RTXYPlot and Polygraph).

In the Polygraph example I set the timer1 interval to 100 ms. This makes the cpu usage go up to 100%. Is the demo 'not complete' or is this the kind of performance I can expect to get when using QC RT for .NET? Or are there posibilities to optimize the examples to get better performance?

quinncurtis

1531 Posts

Posted - 02 May 2006 :  11:29:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Real-Time Graphics Tools for .Net (and Java) products use a different update algorithm than our earlier Windows and DOS products. We no longer update graphs incrementally each time a change is made to the data. The inremental update method always caused problems with other graphical objects in the same plotting area as the scrolling graph objects. Also, we found that if text objects were included in the update, update rates were drastically reduced.

In the .Net product, the data is updated asynchronously with with display. In theory you can update the data 1M updates/second, while only updating the display once a second. We feel that in the long run, this is a superior update technique, because it makes no sense to update the display faster than the eye can follow (20-30 times a second), but actual data update rates can be orders of magnitude faster.

This means though, that until computers get fast enough to maintain an optimal display update rate for a given application, some applicaitons will run much slower than the equivalent incremental update method. This is what you are seeing in the examples you site. That is the tradeoff we made in the software in order for our software to perform optimally on the next generation of computers.

Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Quinn-Curtis Forums © 2000-07 Quinn-Curtis, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07