November 19, 2006 Re: Threads? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to nobody_ | nobody_ wrote:
>> Do you *absolutely* need 1000 updates per second? What are you doing that requires such precise timing?
>
> Yep, eyetracking :)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've gathered about timing you can't have any such guarantees about getting 1ms updates on a non-realtime OS (such as windows xp), with or without threading.
|
November 19, 2006 Re: Threads? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Lutger |
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've gathered about timing you can't have any such guarantees about getting 1ms updates on a non-realtime OS (such as windows xp), with or without threading.
There are alot of microseconds in a millisecond ;)
If you do countperiod/microseconds and get lucky you even get your cpuspeed.
Remove as many services as possible and its possible to get really close to realtime at a millisecond level.
|
November 21, 2006 Re: Threads? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to nobody_ | Well, there's only one company I know that HAS a 1k/hz eyetracker ;-)
BUT 50/60 hz are pretty common...
--
Paolo Invernizzi
nobody_ wrote:
> Lol, I would rather have a discussion about the threading...
>
> The position on the screen isn't the only interesting part ;)
> Think for instance about acceleration and microsaccades.
> Plus you need at least twice the frequency af the actual wave you are trying to measure.
>
> Well I think thats enough about the eye.
|
November 21, 2006 Re: Threads? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Paolo Invernizzi | http://www.fourward.com/ |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation