Steady_Clock skipping between updates in main game loop
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
c++ game-engine clock game-development game-loop
edited Dec 12 at 9:08
BartoszKP
26.6k1065103
26.6k1065103
asked Dec 12 at 2:58
S. Turnage
565
565
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
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.
How effective isstd::this_thread::yield
for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while callingstd: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 thesleep_for
can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then useyield
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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).
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
How effective isstd::this_thread::yield
for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while callingstd: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 thesleep_for
can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then useyield
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
add a comment |
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.
How effective isstd::this_thread::yield
for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while callingstd: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 thesleep_for
can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then useyield
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Dec 12 at 3:43
paddy
42.5k53076
42.5k53076
How effective isstd::this_thread::yield
for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while callingstd: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 thesleep_for
can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then useyield
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
add a comment |
How effective isstd::this_thread::yield
for this sort of thing? EDIT: i.e. is spinning while callingstd: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 thesleep_for
can come out late, you can use a shorter sleep than you need, then useyield
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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).
add a comment |
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).
add a comment |
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).
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).
answered Dec 12 at 7:21
PeppeDx
468
468
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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