I haven't any game, indeed I'm going to look for a good environment for game-develop learning ... and I think that squeak could be a very very useful project for spending efforts and time.
But I have done the test with the "games" inside squeak: BouncingAtoms and Blob.
Only 1 BouncingAtoms and 3 Blobs are enough for getting an important slowdown in all objets in the screen (Centrino 1.8 Ghz with 512Mb RAM)
It would be interesting check if the high CPU use continues when you enter in an other project giving in background blobs working. But I don't know how to do that, because when I enter in an other project blobs stop.
PD. How can I do for getting my reply under the same topic in the list and not in other thread?
Hi Antonio,
Do you have any of these games to test? I have been using Squeak on Linux without any slowness problem.
Cheers,
Offray
______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
Hi Antonio,
The German company Impara has developed a lot of games in Squeak[1]. I don't know if any of the Impara people is here, but if this is the case may be they can make a point about Squeak as a game development platform
[1] http://www.impara.de/references.html
I think that Squeak is nice for games development and some friends and me will try to learn and use it for a Free Software CreativeCommons Game (but this is a slow process, don't hold your breath). May be you can try Python and Panda3D also. But from a cognitive point of view, I can't see any more friendlier that Squeak.
Cheers,
Offray
Pdt: I don't know what's wrong with the threads of your mails, other seems tho behave properly... :-/
Antonio San. escribió:
I haven't any game, indeed I'm going to look for a good environment for game-develop learning ... and I think that squeak could be a very very useful project for spending efforts and time.
But I have done the test with the "games" inside squeak: BouncingAtoms and Blob.
Only 1 BouncingAtoms and 3 Blobs are enough for getting an important slowdown in all objets in the screen (Centrino 1.8 Ghz with 512Mb RAM)
It would be interesting check if the high CPU use continues when you enter in an other project giving in background blobs working. But I don't know how to do that, because when I enter in an other project blobs stop.
PD. How can I do for getting my reply under the same topic in the list and not in other thread?
Hi Antonio,
Do you have any of these games to test? I have been using Squeak on Linux without any slowness problem.
Cheers,
Offray
______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
___________________________________
AVISO LEGAL: El presente correo electronico no representa la opinion o el consentimiento oficial de la PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA. Este mensaje es confidencial y puede contener informacion privilegiada la cual no puede ser usada ni divulgada a personas distintas de su destinatario. Esta prohibida la retencion, grabacion, utilizacion, aprovechamiento o divulgacion con cualquier proposito. Si por error recibe este mensaje, por favor destruya su contenido y avise a su remitente. En este aviso legal se omiten intencionalmente las tildes.
Este mensaje ha sido revisado por un sistema antivirus, por lo que su contenido esta libre de virus. This e-mail has been scanned by an antivirus system, so its contents is free of viruses.
Antonio San. wrote:
I haven't any game, indeed I'm going to look for a good environment for game-develop learning ... and I think that squeak could be a very very useful project for spending efforts and time.
But I have done the test with the "games" inside squeak: BouncingAtoms and Blob.
Only 1 BouncingAtoms and 3 Blobs are enough for getting an important slowdown in all objets in the screen (Centrino 1.8 Ghz with 512Mb RAM)
It would be interesting check if the high CPU use continues when you enter in an other project giving in background blobs working. But I don't know how to do that, because when I enter in an other project blobs stop.
Maybe you should do some proper scientific tests on your specific needs. What type of game are you going to create?
Brad Fuller wrote:
Maybe you should do some proper scientific tests on your specific needs. What type of game are you going to create?
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use. Antonio might be reflecting on this same perception of slowness and frankly I'm sure that any amount of "proper scientific testing" is going to reveal that it feels like walking though mud ;-)
Anyway I'm still using a 3.7 image for development. Nice and snappy.
David
David Shaffer wrote:
Brad Fuller wrote:
Maybe you should do some proper scientific tests on your specific needs. What type of game are you going to create?
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use. Antonio might be reflecting on this same perception of slowness and frankly I'm sure that any amount of "proper scientific testing" is going to reveal that it feels like walking though mud ;-)
Anyway I'm still using a 3.7 image for development. Nice and snappy.
Ok, so I haven't used 3.9 really. What's the problem? What changed from 3.7 to 3.9. 3.8 used the 3.7 VM so that's probably not it.
Hi david this is really strange because 3.9 is much snappier than 3.8 on our machines. This is strange. Do you use a special settings (such as some strange smallland setup?)
Stef
On 21 sept. 06, at 17:55, David Shaffer wrote:
Brad Fuller wrote:
Maybe you should do some proper scientific tests on your specific needs. What type of game are you going to create?
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use. Antonio might be reflecting on this same perception of slowness and frankly I'm sure that any amount of "proper scientific testing" is going to reveal that it feels like walking though mud ;-)
Anyway I'm still using a 3.7 image for development. Nice and snappy.
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi david this is really strange because 3.9 is much snappier than 3.8 on our machines. This is strange. Do you use a special settings (such as some strange smallland setup?)
Stef
Nope, fresh 3.9g-7055 image. I develop in 3.7 which is fairly snappy. 3.9 seems a tad slower. Most notable is the pause when I select a method in the browser. This might have to do with the syntax highlighting. Anyway it took me a while to get used to 3.7...3.9 might be the same way. I plan to play with it more now that Milan got me interested in MathMorphs. So much cool stuff lurking around in Squeak!
David
On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use.
David,
This is suprising, on my: - old Athlon 2400 - SuSE9.3 - VM Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021], - latest 3.9 gama 7058 image - 1280x960
I was just recently thinking "this is best speed I have seen since 3.7". When doing simple windows operations (moving around, resizing etc) top reports below 30%, always for a very brief period when doing the work (typically below 20%).
Yoshiki's test (higlight, alt-p) | a b | a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). [a += b] timeToRun. 268
I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :) ) , time for creating 60 graphs it takes 17 seconds, usage around 80%, never above 85% (ok my top sampling 5s), goes down to almost 0% after the UI work is done.
David or Antonio, if you would like to compare: (higlight, alt-p) [ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun. ===> RESULT 17295 (hardware as above)
Milan
Antonio might be reflecting on this same perception of slowness and frankly I'm sure that any amount of "proper scientific testing" is going to reveal that it feels like walking though mud ;-)
Anyway I'm still using a 3.7 image for development. Nice and snappy.
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use.
David,
This is suprising, on my:
- old Athlon 2400
- SuSE9.3
- VM Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021],
- latest 3.9 gama 7058 image
- 1280x960
I was just recently thinking "this is best speed I have seen since 3.7". When doing simple windows operations (moving around, resizing etc) top reports below 30%, always for a very brief period when doing the work (typically below 20%).
shaffer@localhost ~/Squeak/Squeak3.9g-7055 $ squeak -version 3.9-7 #1 Mon Sep 4 17:01:02 EDT 2006 gcc 3.4.6 Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021] Linux localhost 2.6.17-gentoo-r4 #1 PREEMPT Thu Aug 24 18:31:06 EDT 2006 i686 Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 2.00GHz GNU/Linux default plugin location: /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so
Yoshiki's test (higlight, alt-p) | a b | a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). [a += b] timeToRun. 268
Under 3.9g-7055 I get numbers in the hundreds. Average of about 157 ms.
David or Antonio, if you would like to compare: (higlight, alt-p) [ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun. ===> RESULT 17295 (hardware as above)
There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image. I tried loading Plot Morph and Plot Morph 2 from SqueakMap. Neither worked so I'm guessing that's not the source of this class for 3.9. I'd be happy to run this benchmark on the off chance it will lead to some information about why things are sluggish. I'm guessing, though, that it is a dead-end. "feels slow" is often hard to track down in benchmarks. Probably something that does window manipulation would reveal the problem...
David
can you report that on squeak-dev?
On 21 sept. 06, at 21:07, David Shaffer wrote:
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM). I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU utilization even under lite GUI use.
David,
This is suprising, on my:
- old Athlon 2400
- SuSE9.3
- VM Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021],
- latest 3.9 gama 7058 image
- 1280x960
I was just recently thinking "this is best speed I have seen since 3.7". When doing simple windows operations (moving around, resizing etc) top reports below 30%, always for a very brief period when doing the work (typically below 20%).
shaffer@localhost ~/Squeak/Squeak3.9g-7055 $ squeak -version 3.9-7 #1 Mon Sep 4 17:01:02 EDT 2006 gcc 3.4.6 Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021] Linux localhost 2.6.17-gentoo-r4 #1 PREEMPT Thu Aug 24 18:31:06 EDT 2006 i686 Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 2.00GHz GNU/Linux default plugin location: /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so
Yoshiki's test (higlight, alt-p) | a b | a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024). [a += b] timeToRun. 268
Under 3.9g-7055 I get numbers in the hundreds. Average of about 157 ms.
David or Antonio, if you would like to compare: (higlight, alt-p) [ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun. ===> RESULT 17295 (hardware as above)
There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image. I tried loading Plot Morph and Plot Morph 2 from SqueakMap. Neither worked so I'm guessing that's not the source of this class for 3.9. I'd be happy to run this benchmark on the off chance it will lead to some information about why things are sluggish. I'm guessing, though, that it is a dead-end. "feels slow" is often hard to track down in benchmarks. Probably something that does window manipulation would reveal the problem...
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
stephane ducasse wrote:
can you report that on squeak-dev?
No...I'm sure the folks there would just convince me that I'm imagining things and that 3.9 really is more responsive than my X desktop apps ;-) I tried that when I first came to Squeak. Anyway now I'm busy with MathMorphs ;-)
David
On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote:
There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image.
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
<<snip>>
I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):) )
You would have to install the above package from Squeakmap to run the "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note it's alpha, so install to a 3.9 image without important stuff.
I am not sure this is a good "graphical test", it does create graphs, so it should have some value, it is non-interactive graphics though. Apart from that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as you said .. it's my feelin' only
Milan
I tried loading Plot Morph and Plot Morph 2 from SqueakMap. Neither worked so I'm guessing that's not the source of this class for 3.9. I'd be happy to run this benchmark on the off chance it will lead to some information about why things are sluggish. I'm guessing, though, that it is a dead-end. "feels slow" is often hard to track down in benchmarks. Probably something that does window manipulation would reveal the problem...
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
On 2006 September 21 15:07, David Shaffer wrote:
There is no XYPlotter in my 3.9g-7055 image.
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
<<snip>>
I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :):) )
Gasp, sorry, didn't see that. I've loaded it now. Here are the benchmark results:
[ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun.
15000
At this point the UI is so slow that moving a window or morph results in a noticable lag (nearly a second between releasing the mouse button after a drag until the object that was dragged is drawn in its new location).
You would have to install the above package from Squeakmap to run the "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note it's alpha, so install to a 3.9 image without important stuff.
I am not sure this is a good "graphical test", it does create graphs, so it should have some value, it is non-interactive graphics though. Apart from that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as you said .. it's my feelin' only
Agreed...it is subjective.
David
Gasp, sorry, didn't see that. I've loaded it now. Here are the benchmark results:
[ 1 to: 10 do: [ :i | XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ] ] timeToRun.
15000
Slightly off topic, but this is a noob list, maybe some will find this interesting. If you aren't using the index in #to:do:, why not simply...
10 timesRepeat: [ XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ]
On 2006 September 21 18:43, Ramon Leon wrote:
Slightly off topic, but this is a noob list, maybe some will find this interesting. If you aren't using the index in #to:do:, why not simply...
Ramon - yes, hehe i do qualify for a newbie, my repertoir is limited :) - thanks for the suggestion
10 timesRepeat: [ XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld. XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld. ]
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
On 2006 September 21 18:33, David Shaffer wrote:
] timeToRun.
15000
At this point the UI is so slow that moving a window or morph results in a noticable lag (nearly a second between releasing the mouse button after a drag until the object that was dragged is drawn in its new location).
David,
Thanks for running it - your observation is interesting, here it does not seem noticeably slower after I have run the benchmark ...
I am starting to think (if I read your configuration correctly) - you do have a different image (I have newer than 7055) and slightly different VM - at least compiled using different GCC version... The older GCC the faster :) - If you have time to experiment, you may want to try Ian's VM that I use?
Davids setup: ======================== shaffer@localhost ~/Squeak/Squeak3.9g-7055 $ squeak -version 3.9-7 #1 Mon Sep 4 17:01:02 EDT 2006 gcc 3.4.6 Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021] Linux localhost 2.6.17-gentoo-r4 #1 PREEMPT Thu Aug 24 18:31:06 EDT 2006 i686 Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 2.00GHz GNU/Linux default plugin location: /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so ========================
Milans setup: ======================== Squeak3.9g-7058.image mzimmermann@home-server:~> squeak -version 3.9-7 #5 Mon Apr 24 20:07:28 PDT 2006 gcc 3.3.5 Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021] Linux vps.piumarta.com 2.4.20-021stab028.18.777-enterprise #1 SMP Wed Sep 14 19:34:46 MSD 2005 i686 GNU/Linux default plugin location: /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.9-7/*.so ========================
Milan
You would have to install the above package from Squeakmap to run the "graphics test" I mentioned, but please note it's alpha, so install to a 3.9 image without important stuff.
I am not sure this is a good "graphical test", it does create graphs, so it should have some value, it is non-interactive graphics though. Apart from that, 3.9 feels as good as 3.7 here, but as you said .. it's my feelin' only
Agreed...it is subjective.
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
[snip] I am starting to think (if I read your configuration correctly) - you do have a different image (I have newer than 7055) and slightly different VM - at least compiled using different GCC version... The older GCC the faster :) - If you have time to experiment, you may want to try Ian's VM that I use?
Thanks for the tip. That definitely made a difference. The benchmark number didn't change by much (dropped to about 13000ms) but responsiveness after the test improved noticeably.
David
On 2006 September 21 22:20, David Shaffer wrote:
Milan Zimmermann wrote:
[snip] I am starting to think (if I read your configuration correctly) - you do have a different image (I have newer than 7055) and slightly different VM
- at least compiled using different GCC version... The older GCC the
faster :) - If you have time to experiment, you may want to try Ian's VM that I use?
Thanks for the tip. That definitely made a difference. The benchmark number didn't change by much (dropped to about 13000ms) but responsiveness after the test improved noticeably.
That sounds good, glad it's better. Sort of makes me wonder whether various distributions make people suffer with slower VMs if they build them themselves ... but I have little idea how to make distros aware of those performance items.
Milan
David
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Hi antonio
You should pay attention that some aspects of morphic are slow. Lot of events are generated.... Now squeak is reasonably fast (much faster than python and ruby in general). Can you tell us more about the kind of game you want to build. You can also use VisualWorks non commercial which is quite fast.
Stef
On 21 sept. 06, at 17:22, Antonio San. wrote:
I haven't any game, indeed I'm going to look for a good environment for game-develop learning ... and I think that squeak could be a very very useful project for spending efforts and time.
But I have done the test with the "games" inside squeak: BouncingAtoms and Blob.
Only 1 BouncingAtoms and 3 Blobs are enough for getting an important slowdown in all objets in the screen (Centrino 1.8 Ghz with 512Mb RAM)
It would be interesting check if the high CPU use continues when you enter in an other project giving in background blobs working. But I don't know how to do that, because when I enter in an other project blobs stop.
PD. How can I do for getting my reply under the same topic in the list and not in other thread?
Hi Antonio,
Do you have any of these games to test? I have been using Squeak on Linux without any slowness problem.
Cheers,
Offray
______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Antonio San. -
Brad Fuller -
David Shaffer -
Milan Zimmermann -
Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas -
Ramon Leon -
stephane ducasse