Timeline for Framerate control and physics engines?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2012 at 7:02 | vote | accept | Ashika Umanga Umagiliya | ||
| May 26, 2012 at 19:23 | comment | added | smokris | This is a pretty straightforward use of threads though. OP would just need to share the particle-location data structure between the two threads, which would just require a single lock. No risk of deadlock. | |
| May 26, 2012 at 15:56 | comment | added | Gustavo Maciel | I don't think the OP is treating a non-trivial physics simulation. It's not overwhelming in sense of performance, but implementation. Getting threads very sync, and out of dead locks is not a trivial task. | |
| May 26, 2012 at 5:19 | comment | added | Patrick Hughes | Almost all non-trivial physics simulations run in their own, fixed time rate threads just like @smokris describes above. | |
| May 26, 2012 at 4:20 | comment | added | smokris | Overwhelming in what sense? | |
| May 26, 2012 at 4:15 | comment | added | Gustavo Maciel | Using a separated thread is a good answer, but may be too overwhelm . | |
| May 26, 2012 at 3:18 | history | answered | smokris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |