Steady_Clock skipping between updates in main game loop












11














In the process of trying to work out a solid game loop in SFML I came across this issue which I can't seem to figure out. I was able to strip out all of the SFML code and still see the issue with clock() in time.h. Then I went further and still see the problem using std::chrono::steady_clock.



The issue:
Somewhat consistently I see skips in the amount of work able to be done between updates. Each update should take 1/60th of a second, and the rest of the time is spend in Draw() getting as much drawing done as possible.
Sometimes the amount of draws drops to 0 or 1 for no obvious reason. This bubbles up to the actual application in the form of noticeable stuttering. Other than the "skips" the number of draws done is very consistent.



Here is an image (notice the jump in update time and drop in draws):
Console output of the issue



Some code:



#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
#include <chrono>

using namespace std;
using namespace std::chrono;

void Draw()
{
//for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++);
}

int main()
{
steady_clock::time_point update_time;
steady_clock::time_point update_next;
int update_rate = 16666666; // 60 times a second (nanosecs)
int updates;
int max_updates = 5;
int draws = 0;
update_next = steady_clock::now();

while (true)
{
updates = 0;
update_time = steady_clock::now();
while (duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next) > nanoseconds(update_rate) && updates++ < max_updates)
{
if (draws <= 1) {
cout << "!!!!!!!!!!!!!ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!" << endl;
}
cout << "UPDATE - ";
cout << "Draws: " << draws
<< " - UT - UN: " << duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next).count()
<< endl;

draws = 0;
update_next += nanoseconds(update_rate);
}
draws++;
Draw();
}

return 0;
}



  • Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?

  • I have seen this problem with steady_clock, clock, and in a fleshed out SFML app where work is done during Update and Draw

  • I assume SFML clock probably uses time.h clock

  • From my testing the max_updates checks have nothing to do with this issue (I don't think they are causing the problem)


The fact that I have seen this with a few different timers leads me to believe there is something wrong with my implementation or my system. This example was run in VS but I have seen it also in a standalone release exe. Playing with the update rate or the amount of work done in draw may help it show up for you.





After testing out my background processes I noticed a strange correlation. This skipping issue only occurs when the Spotify web player is open in chrome and occurs once a second or so.



I found this post which may be related:
https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Partners-Web-Player-etc/Web-Player-on-Chrome-causes-lag-stutter/td-p/4587103










share|improve this question





























    11














    In the process of trying to work out a solid game loop in SFML I came across this issue which I can't seem to figure out. I was able to strip out all of the SFML code and still see the issue with clock() in time.h. Then I went further and still see the problem using std::chrono::steady_clock.



    The issue:
    Somewhat consistently I see skips in the amount of work able to be done between updates. Each update should take 1/60th of a second, and the rest of the time is spend in Draw() getting as much drawing done as possible.
    Sometimes the amount of draws drops to 0 or 1 for no obvious reason. This bubbles up to the actual application in the form of noticeable stuttering. Other than the "skips" the number of draws done is very consistent.



    Here is an image (notice the jump in update time and drop in draws):
    Console output of the issue



    Some code:



    #include <iostream>
    #include <time.h>
    #include <chrono>

    using namespace std;
    using namespace std::chrono;

    void Draw()
    {
    //for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++);
    }

    int main()
    {
    steady_clock::time_point update_time;
    steady_clock::time_point update_next;
    int update_rate = 16666666; // 60 times a second (nanosecs)
    int updates;
    int max_updates = 5;
    int draws = 0;
    update_next = steady_clock::now();

    while (true)
    {
    updates = 0;
    update_time = steady_clock::now();
    while (duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next) > nanoseconds(update_rate) && updates++ < max_updates)
    {
    if (draws <= 1) {
    cout << "!!!!!!!!!!!!!ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!" << endl;
    }
    cout << "UPDATE - ";
    cout << "Draws: " << draws
    << " - UT - UN: " << duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next).count()
    << endl;

    draws = 0;
    update_next += nanoseconds(update_rate);
    }
    draws++;
    Draw();
    }

    return 0;
    }



    • Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?

    • I have seen this problem with steady_clock, clock, and in a fleshed out SFML app where work is done during Update and Draw

    • I assume SFML clock probably uses time.h clock

    • From my testing the max_updates checks have nothing to do with this issue (I don't think they are causing the problem)


    The fact that I have seen this with a few different timers leads me to believe there is something wrong with my implementation or my system. This example was run in VS but I have seen it also in a standalone release exe. Playing with the update rate or the amount of work done in draw may help it show up for you.





    After testing out my background processes I noticed a strange correlation. This skipping issue only occurs when the Spotify web player is open in chrome and occurs once a second or so.



    I found this post which may be related:
    https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Partners-Web-Player-etc/Web-Player-on-Chrome-causes-lag-stutter/td-p/4587103










    share|improve this question



























      11












      11








      11







      In the process of trying to work out a solid game loop in SFML I came across this issue which I can't seem to figure out. I was able to strip out all of the SFML code and still see the issue with clock() in time.h. Then I went further and still see the problem using std::chrono::steady_clock.



      The issue:
      Somewhat consistently I see skips in the amount of work able to be done between updates. Each update should take 1/60th of a second, and the rest of the time is spend in Draw() getting as much drawing done as possible.
      Sometimes the amount of draws drops to 0 or 1 for no obvious reason. This bubbles up to the actual application in the form of noticeable stuttering. Other than the "skips" the number of draws done is very consistent.



      Here is an image (notice the jump in update time and drop in draws):
      Console output of the issue



      Some code:



      #include <iostream>
      #include <time.h>
      #include <chrono>

      using namespace std;
      using namespace std::chrono;

      void Draw()
      {
      //for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++);
      }

      int main()
      {
      steady_clock::time_point update_time;
      steady_clock::time_point update_next;
      int update_rate = 16666666; // 60 times a second (nanosecs)
      int updates;
      int max_updates = 5;
      int draws = 0;
      update_next = steady_clock::now();

      while (true)
      {
      updates = 0;
      update_time = steady_clock::now();
      while (duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next) > nanoseconds(update_rate) && updates++ < max_updates)
      {
      if (draws <= 1) {
      cout << "!!!!!!!!!!!!!ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!" << endl;
      }
      cout << "UPDATE - ";
      cout << "Draws: " << draws
      << " - UT - UN: " << duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next).count()
      << endl;

      draws = 0;
      update_next += nanoseconds(update_rate);
      }
      draws++;
      Draw();
      }

      return 0;
      }



      • Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?

      • I have seen this problem with steady_clock, clock, and in a fleshed out SFML app where work is done during Update and Draw

      • I assume SFML clock probably uses time.h clock

      • From my testing the max_updates checks have nothing to do with this issue (I don't think they are causing the problem)


      The fact that I have seen this with a few different timers leads me to believe there is something wrong with my implementation or my system. This example was run in VS but I have seen it also in a standalone release exe. Playing with the update rate or the amount of work done in draw may help it show up for you.





      After testing out my background processes I noticed a strange correlation. This skipping issue only occurs when the Spotify web player is open in chrome and occurs once a second or so.



      I found this post which may be related:
      https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Partners-Web-Player-etc/Web-Player-on-Chrome-causes-lag-stutter/td-p/4587103










      share|improve this question















      In the process of trying to work out a solid game loop in SFML I came across this issue which I can't seem to figure out. I was able to strip out all of the SFML code and still see the issue with clock() in time.h. Then I went further and still see the problem using std::chrono::steady_clock.



      The issue:
      Somewhat consistently I see skips in the amount of work able to be done between updates. Each update should take 1/60th of a second, and the rest of the time is spend in Draw() getting as much drawing done as possible.
      Sometimes the amount of draws drops to 0 or 1 for no obvious reason. This bubbles up to the actual application in the form of noticeable stuttering. Other than the "skips" the number of draws done is very consistent.



      Here is an image (notice the jump in update time and drop in draws):
      Console output of the issue



      Some code:



      #include <iostream>
      #include <time.h>
      #include <chrono>

      using namespace std;
      using namespace std::chrono;

      void Draw()
      {
      //for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++);
      }

      int main()
      {
      steady_clock::time_point update_time;
      steady_clock::time_point update_next;
      int update_rate = 16666666; // 60 times a second (nanosecs)
      int updates;
      int max_updates = 5;
      int draws = 0;
      update_next = steady_clock::now();

      while (true)
      {
      updates = 0;
      update_time = steady_clock::now();
      while (duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next) > nanoseconds(update_rate) && updates++ < max_updates)
      {
      if (draws <= 1) {
      cout << "!!!!!!!!!!!!!ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!" << endl;
      }
      cout << "UPDATE - ";
      cout << "Draws: " << draws
      << " - UT - UN: " << duration_cast<nanoseconds>(update_time - update_next).count()
      << endl;

      draws = 0;
      update_next += nanoseconds(update_rate);
      }
      draws++;
      Draw();
      }

      return 0;
      }



      • Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?

      • I have seen this problem with steady_clock, clock, and in a fleshed out SFML app where work is done during Update and Draw

      • I assume SFML clock probably uses time.h clock

      • From my testing the max_updates checks have nothing to do with this issue (I don't think they are causing the problem)


      The fact that I have seen this with a few different timers leads me to believe there is something wrong with my implementation or my system. This example was run in VS but I have seen it also in a standalone release exe. Playing with the update rate or the amount of work done in draw may help it show up for you.





      After testing out my background processes I noticed a strange correlation. This skipping issue only occurs when the Spotify web player is open in chrome and occurs once a second or so.



      I found this post which may be related:
      https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Partners-Web-Player-etc/Web-Player-on-Chrome-causes-lag-stutter/td-p/4587103







      c++ game-engine clock game-development game-loop






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 12 at 9:08









      BartoszKP

      26.6k1065103




      26.6k1065103










      asked Dec 12 at 2:58









      S. Turnage

      565




      565
























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8















          Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?




          Yes, absolutely. Windows is running a whole lot of processes all at once. Now your application comes along and executes what is essentially a busy spin-loop. At some point, the OS is likely to de-prioritize this for longer than you expect because it just looks like a long calculation, and the OS needs to give other processes a fair share of CPU time.



          In general you should not rely on your drawing routine being called an exact number of times per second, and your game's master clock should be able to cope with skipped frames. I'm not familiar with SFML so I can't comment on that.



          However, I do have experience with realtime audio (and video for that matter) running in loops that exceed 1000 updates per second. You can improve your game loop time share by setting the thread priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST or THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (see SetThreadPriority).



          For this to be effective you should also be a well-behaved application and periodically perform some kind of wait. Waiting allows the OS to do its necessary task-switching to service other processes (several of which will also be a high priority, and often higher than you will be able to force as a userspace application).



          The obvious place for a wait is prior to your next draw cycle. Rather than spinning on your timer with 100% core utilization, simply calculate how long you're prepared to wait and call std::this_thread::sleep_for. Remember that the only guarantee is the sleep will be for at least the amount you specify. It absolutely can and will be more than this. But I recommend you start there and do some experiments.






          share|improve this answer





















          • How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
            – James Picone
            Dec 12 at 3:48








          • 1




            I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
            – paddy
            Dec 12 at 3:52






          • 1




            Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
            – paddy
            Dec 12 at 3:53












          • I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
            – S. Turnage
            Dec 12 at 4:09





















          3














          In addition to @paddy's answer I recommend you look into fixed timesteps. If that isn't worth the trouble of implementing then you should also note that SFML has Window.setFramerateLimit(). It's not very precise but most simple games don't need significant precision.






          share|improve this answer





















          • The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
            – S. Turnage
            Dec 12 at 4:10












          • Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
            – bruglesco
            Dec 12 at 4:18



















          1














          I've used spinning loop plus yield for 1 KHz control loops with good results, but expect some deadline miss (once in thousands cycles also long sleeping times).






          share|improve this answer





























            0














            It originally looked like the issue was caused by my antivirus, but I think I've actually narrowed it down to spotify web player being open and causing a performance spike 1/sec. I'm not sure why this would be.






            share|improve this answer























            • Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 22:23











            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53735418%2fsteady-clock-skipping-between-updates-in-main-game-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            8















            Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?




            Yes, absolutely. Windows is running a whole lot of processes all at once. Now your application comes along and executes what is essentially a busy spin-loop. At some point, the OS is likely to de-prioritize this for longer than you expect because it just looks like a long calculation, and the OS needs to give other processes a fair share of CPU time.



            In general you should not rely on your drawing routine being called an exact number of times per second, and your game's master clock should be able to cope with skipped frames. I'm not familiar with SFML so I can't comment on that.



            However, I do have experience with realtime audio (and video for that matter) running in loops that exceed 1000 updates per second. You can improve your game loop time share by setting the thread priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST or THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (see SetThreadPriority).



            For this to be effective you should also be a well-behaved application and periodically perform some kind of wait. Waiting allows the OS to do its necessary task-switching to service other processes (several of which will also be a high priority, and often higher than you will be able to force as a userspace application).



            The obvious place for a wait is prior to your next draw cycle. Rather than spinning on your timer with 100% core utilization, simply calculate how long you're prepared to wait and call std::this_thread::sleep_for. Remember that the only guarantee is the sleep will be for at least the amount you specify. It absolutely can and will be more than this. But I recommend you start there and do some experiments.






            share|improve this answer





















            • How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
              – James Picone
              Dec 12 at 3:48








            • 1




              I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:52






            • 1




              Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:53












            • I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:09


















            8















            Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?




            Yes, absolutely. Windows is running a whole lot of processes all at once. Now your application comes along and executes what is essentially a busy spin-loop. At some point, the OS is likely to de-prioritize this for longer than you expect because it just looks like a long calculation, and the OS needs to give other processes a fair share of CPU time.



            In general you should not rely on your drawing routine being called an exact number of times per second, and your game's master clock should be able to cope with skipped frames. I'm not familiar with SFML so I can't comment on that.



            However, I do have experience with realtime audio (and video for that matter) running in loops that exceed 1000 updates per second. You can improve your game loop time share by setting the thread priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST or THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (see SetThreadPriority).



            For this to be effective you should also be a well-behaved application and periodically perform some kind of wait. Waiting allows the OS to do its necessary task-switching to service other processes (several of which will also be a high priority, and often higher than you will be able to force as a userspace application).



            The obvious place for a wait is prior to your next draw cycle. Rather than spinning on your timer with 100% core utilization, simply calculate how long you're prepared to wait and call std::this_thread::sleep_for. Remember that the only guarantee is the sleep will be for at least the amount you specify. It absolutely can and will be more than this. But I recommend you start there and do some experiments.






            share|improve this answer





















            • How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
              – James Picone
              Dec 12 at 3:48








            • 1




              I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:52






            • 1




              Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:53












            • I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:09
















            8












            8








            8







            Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?




            Yes, absolutely. Windows is running a whole lot of processes all at once. Now your application comes along and executes what is essentially a busy spin-loop. At some point, the OS is likely to de-prioritize this for longer than you expect because it just looks like a long calculation, and the OS needs to give other processes a fair share of CPU time.



            In general you should not rely on your drawing routine being called an exact number of times per second, and your game's master clock should be able to cope with skipped frames. I'm not familiar with SFML so I can't comment on that.



            However, I do have experience with realtime audio (and video for that matter) running in loops that exceed 1000 updates per second. You can improve your game loop time share by setting the thread priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST or THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (see SetThreadPriority).



            For this to be effective you should also be a well-behaved application and periodically perform some kind of wait. Waiting allows the OS to do its necessary task-switching to service other processes (several of which will also be a high priority, and often higher than you will be able to force as a userspace application).



            The obvious place for a wait is prior to your next draw cycle. Rather than spinning on your timer with 100% core utilization, simply calculate how long you're prepared to wait and call std::this_thread::sleep_for. Remember that the only guarantee is the sleep will be for at least the amount you specify. It absolutely can and will be more than this. But I recommend you start there and do some experiments.






            share|improve this answer













            Perhaps there is something I don't understand about typical applications? Does Windows need to hijack CPU cycles every so often?




            Yes, absolutely. Windows is running a whole lot of processes all at once. Now your application comes along and executes what is essentially a busy spin-loop. At some point, the OS is likely to de-prioritize this for longer than you expect because it just looks like a long calculation, and the OS needs to give other processes a fair share of CPU time.



            In general you should not rely on your drawing routine being called an exact number of times per second, and your game's master clock should be able to cope with skipped frames. I'm not familiar with SFML so I can't comment on that.



            However, I do have experience with realtime audio (and video for that matter) running in loops that exceed 1000 updates per second. You can improve your game loop time share by setting the thread priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST or THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (see SetThreadPriority).



            For this to be effective you should also be a well-behaved application and periodically perform some kind of wait. Waiting allows the OS to do its necessary task-switching to service other processes (several of which will also be a high priority, and often higher than you will be able to force as a userspace application).



            The obvious place for a wait is prior to your next draw cycle. Rather than spinning on your timer with 100% core utilization, simply calculate how long you're prepared to wait and call std::this_thread::sleep_for. Remember that the only guarantee is the sleep will be for at least the amount you specify. It absolutely can and will be more than this. But I recommend you start there and do some experiments.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Dec 12 at 3:43









            paddy

            42.5k53076




            42.5k53076












            • How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
              – James Picone
              Dec 12 at 3:48








            • 1




              I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:52






            • 1




              Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:53












            • I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:09




















            • How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
              – James Picone
              Dec 12 at 3:48








            • 1




              I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:52






            • 1




              Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
              – paddy
              Dec 12 at 3:53












            • I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:09


















            How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
            – James Picone
            Dec 12 at 3:48






            How effective is std::this_thread::yield for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while calling std:this_thread::yield an effective way of reducing the possibility of oversleeping
            – James Picone
            Dec 12 at 3:48






            1




            1




            I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
            – paddy
            Dec 12 at 3:52




            I don't have personal experience using that for this kind of thing. I'd say it's more suited to things like spin-locks and very short-duration timing spins. I would definitely not want to run a 60Hz game loop with a spin-wait + yield, especially not if I'd also upped the thread priority.
            – paddy
            Dec 12 at 3:52




            1




            1




            Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
            – paddy
            Dec 12 at 3:53






            Right, so as you edited your comment, then yes that could be a performance tweak. Since the sleep_for can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then use yield for tighter spin "sleeps" that pad out any undershooting. That's down to experimentation and black magic.
            – paddy
            Dec 12 at 3:53














            I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
            – S. Turnage
            Dec 12 at 4:09






            I tried both of these, adding a thread sleep for as long as 10ms on each update, and still see the problem :(
            – S. Turnage
            Dec 12 at 4:09















            3














            In addition to @paddy's answer I recommend you look into fixed timesteps. If that isn't worth the trouble of implementing then you should also note that SFML has Window.setFramerateLimit(). It's not very precise but most simple games don't need significant precision.






            share|improve this answer





















            • The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:10












            • Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
              – bruglesco
              Dec 12 at 4:18
















            3














            In addition to @paddy's answer I recommend you look into fixed timesteps. If that isn't worth the trouble of implementing then you should also note that SFML has Window.setFramerateLimit(). It's not very precise but most simple games don't need significant precision.






            share|improve this answer





















            • The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:10












            • Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
              – bruglesco
              Dec 12 at 4:18














            3












            3








            3






            In addition to @paddy's answer I recommend you look into fixed timesteps. If that isn't worth the trouble of implementing then you should also note that SFML has Window.setFramerateLimit(). It's not very precise but most simple games don't need significant precision.






            share|improve this answer












            In addition to @paddy's answer I recommend you look into fixed timesteps. If that isn't worth the trouble of implementing then you should also note that SFML has Window.setFramerateLimit(). It's not very precise but most simple games don't need significant precision.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Dec 12 at 3:52









            bruglesco

            1551211




            1551211












            • The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:10












            • Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
              – bruglesco
              Dec 12 at 4:18


















            • The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
              – S. Turnage
              Dec 12 at 4:10












            • Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
              – bruglesco
              Dec 12 at 4:18
















            The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
            – S. Turnage
            Dec 12 at 4:10






            The fixed timesteps link is a good one, and what I used to come up with the code example. I also see the issue even when using SFMLs setFrameLimit. For some reason the clock is jumping a huge amount of time.
            – S. Turnage
            Dec 12 at 4:10














            Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
            – bruglesco
            Dec 12 at 4:18




            Well the FrameLimit only keeps your loop from running too often on a fast cpu. It doesn't stop the framerate from dropping. What are you running in your background anyway? Could you try on a different machine?
            – bruglesco
            Dec 12 at 4:18











            1














            I've used spinning loop plus yield for 1 KHz control loops with good results, but expect some deadline miss (once in thousands cycles also long sleeping times).






            share|improve this answer


























              1














              I've used spinning loop plus yield for 1 KHz control loops with good results, but expect some deadline miss (once in thousands cycles also long sleeping times).






              share|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                I've used spinning loop plus yield for 1 KHz control loops with good results, but expect some deadline miss (once in thousands cycles also long sleeping times).






                share|improve this answer












                I've used spinning loop plus yield for 1 KHz control loops with good results, but expect some deadline miss (once in thousands cycles also long sleeping times).







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Dec 12 at 7:21









                PeppeDx

                468




                468























                    0














                    It originally looked like the issue was caused by my antivirus, but I think I've actually narrowed it down to spotify web player being open and causing a performance spike 1/sec. I'm not sure why this would be.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
                      – paddy
                      Dec 12 at 22:23
















                    0














                    It originally looked like the issue was caused by my antivirus, but I think I've actually narrowed it down to spotify web player being open and causing a performance spike 1/sec. I'm not sure why this would be.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
                      – paddy
                      Dec 12 at 22:23














                    0












                    0








                    0






                    It originally looked like the issue was caused by my antivirus, but I think I've actually narrowed it down to spotify web player being open and causing a performance spike 1/sec. I'm not sure why this would be.






                    share|improve this answer














                    It originally looked like the issue was caused by my antivirus, but I think I've actually narrowed it down to spotify web player being open and causing a performance spike 1/sec. I'm not sure why this would be.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 12 at 14:41

























                    answered Dec 12 at 4:50









                    S. Turnage

                    565




                    565












                    • Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
                      – paddy
                      Dec 12 at 22:23


















                    • Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
                      – paddy
                      Dec 12 at 22:23
















                    Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
                    – paddy
                    Dec 12 at 22:23




                    Do you have the same issue if you use the Spotify desktop app instead? You could try doing performance profiling on your web browser to see what system calls might be responsible. Also try using the web app in different browsers, as it could be related to details in the browser implementation.
                    – paddy
                    Dec 12 at 22:23


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53735418%2fsteady-clock-skipping-between-updates-in-main-game-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

                    Mangá

                    Eduardo VII do Reino Unido