3D and floating point optimization

Mike C. Fletcher mcfletch at rogers.com
Tue Jan 21 05:10:03 CET 2003


Using fixed-point to represent floating point wouldn't be the first 
place I'd look for optimisation.  Extensive use of Numeric Python 
whereever possible, binding core-code with psyco, liberal use of 
display-lists (preferably with a dynamically updated compilation) and/or 
array-based geometry, and traditional Opengl optimisation strategies 
(aggressive scene culling, state-change minimisation) will probably get 
you farther faster.

AFAIK, Numeric Python doesn't do any parallelisation tricks for e.g. 
3DNow or SSE, so adding extension support for using those for 
array-proccessing (normal calculation or the like) would probably give a 
significant speedup for some applications (though at least in my apps, I 
only do those tasks during startup).  

Re-coding a few core loops in C or PyRex would also likely be a decent 
optimisation approach.  After you've tried that, and found the code 
still too slow, I'd maybe consider fixed-point optimisations (well, 
okay, no _I_ wouldn't ;) ). Giving some idea of your application type 
(visualisation, VR, gaming), your general approach, your 
scale-of-operation, and the profiling results for your apps might yield 
more directed suggestions.

Good luck,
Mike

Simon Wittber (Maptek) wrote:

>Many years ago, using fixed point numbers to speed up calculations (esp.
>in the demo-scene) was a standard optimization, which would speed up
>code by orders of magnitude.
>
>I have been experimenting with Python+OpenGL and have run into a few
>speed bumps. 
>
>My question is, considering the speed of today's FPUs, is using fixed
>point math still a valid optimization, in Python?
>
>simon.
>  
>
_______________________________________
  Mike C. Fletcher
  Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
  http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/








More information about the Python-list mailing list