Windows Version Be Available?
When will the windows version be available and not just the OSX version?
this is indeed a windows compatible version. i've been using it today and as far as i can tell, it works perfectly.
i said it before in GA, but thanks a *lot* for this. it's simple, but incredibly effective.
Makes me wish I had bought a quad core instead of a dual core... hmmm... wonder what the prices are like at the moment?
Willem, I was just messing with you.
I saw Willem + the word Windows and was like "no way!"
wonder what the prices are like at the moment
is it sad i went to check prices too? ^_^;
Nice work, thanks. Is it possible to manually set the number of threads to be used (i.e. -threads switch)?
I'll now have to buy a quad core too, just to get this map done!
Who is gonna donate that time travel to send Willem and this VIS 7-8 years backwards in time?
Is it possible to manually set the number of threads to be used
yes, CTRL+ALT+DELETE, select process, right click, Set Affinity.
check any core you want to use.
obviously, you meant from the program itself, but that's all i got. :P
original vis: 5h 43m
multicore vis: 3h 37m
additionally, the multicore vis today was while the computer was in use. i used below average priority, so i would only assume that the performance was lower than can be expected when running on a completely idle system.
that is, i believe, a 58% increase. if that remains consistent for all vis times (and the logic of my foolish brain says it should?), this is pretty damn awesome.
.. that CDA vis runtime could have been decreased from 1254 hours down to 725 hours... indeed, it is a serious enhancement !
I wanted one of these for ages! Anyone tried it on an i7 yet or a Core 2 Quad / Extreme?
"Nice work, thanks. Is it possible to manually set the number of threads to be used (i.e. -threads switch)? "
It's possible and I guess I could allow it for people who want to experiment. In reality though, there's not a lot of use to setting more threads than you have cores/processors since then they'll have to start sharing time slices. It's best to have a 1-to-1 match up, IMO.
But i'll see about supporting the "-threads #" option for those who want to play around...
Incidentally, I thought something was wrong with it when I was testing it at work because it was VIS'ing "Evil Exhumed" in 2 minutes and I was sure it was taking upwards of 20 when I was working on it originally.
I guess that's what happens with 8 cores. :P
I was thinking more about setting it to a lower number if other programs need to be run at the same time.
Shouldn't you include the source and txt?
8 cores - what would I give for such a machine right now... :o
So, er, AguirRe's vis has an autosave function built in (i think it saves every minute by default or something).
So if WVis is the same only with support for more than one processor core, couldnt you stop your current build and then restart it with WVis?
Hmm, I wonder if that would work. If not, then you loose all of those hours, if so then you can cut our remaining time considerably. (if you have a multi-core processor that is)
Didn't inertia had access to some wicked cluster ages ago?
In theory, I would say you're right. That sounds like it would work. However, I don't want to be the one responsible for him losing 2 weeks of processing time or whatever it's been so I'm staying out of it. :P
OK, I replaced the download with a new version.
This version contains a new argument:
This lets you override the number of threads that will be used. This will let you do things like only tie up 3 of your 4 cores. Or try twice as many threads and see if it makes any difference.
No Warren-ty, Eh?
And for those interested, the source code:
This is pretty messy and includes a bunch of files not related to WVis but this was just a quick and dirty project anyway. "vis.sln" is the Microsoft solution file that I was using to build from. Most of the grunt work is in "vis.c".
aguirRe's VIS does save after each portal I think. So you could simply make a backup of the files and play around.
I want an i7 so badly. :]
Well I Could See How It Would Be Worth The Gamble, Even If He
only has 2 cores!
What kind of processor do you have, Negke?
You see if yesterday the estimated elapsed time was only 28%, I would guess (at the speed he was going) that it would still only read like 30 or something, so if you think that it will only get slower, if he started again now going at twice the speed, there is enough remaining time for it to still end sooner with two cores then to keep going from this point with 1......
OK, so I messed around a little on this 8 core machine.
1 thread - 14 minutes
2 threads - 7 minutes
3 threads - 5 minutes
4 threads - 4 minutes
5 threads - 3 minutes
6 threads - 2 minutes
7 threads - 2 minutes
8 threads - 2 minutes
Nice! There are obviously some rounding issues here in the time calculations provided by the VIS tool, but there is definitely a point of diminishing returns...
nicec work Willem
petty that i just have a AMD 3200 :\
I might try this in a near future :) 2015 maby.
dunno if this is indicative of anything, as it wasn't an explicit test, but WVis was able to recognize a bsp file had already had it's Base Vis calculated from a prior run through with Vis's original .vis file.
you could just try copying the .bsp file and .vis file to a new location and try to run with WVis without interrupting the original's process. just set priority to low while you test.
also, you can set thread priority in aguire's (and WVis) with -priority. 0 = below average, 1 = average, 2 = above average. if you are concerned about bogging down your system.