23 replies to this topic

[AceInfinity]

For a while now, and I thought it must have just been because I rated too many (however i've probably only rated about 5 posts or threads since I've registered here), It comes up with an error for me that i've used up the maximum number of positive votes for the day. I haven't rated a post for over a week now, and I was just about to "Like" my first post today when the error came to visit my computer screen once again.

Not sure if i'm the only one with this error or not?
~Ace

[Brito]

Very strange. I have no such restriction with my account. Will check what can be going wrong.

[Brito]

Checked and everything seems ok from the administration panel. Can you try to clear the cache of your browser?

Otherwise this might indeed by a forum software defect..

[AceInfinity]

Just cleared by browsing history, cleared my cache and all but still get the error:

[sambul61]

Try using a different browser. Hint - Opera 12.

[AceInfinity]

I'm not so sure, it doesn't seem to work on Firefox, Chrome (SRware Iron), or even IE when I forcably had to test it.

[Brito]

Sorry about that, for the moment I have no idea how to solve this issue.

[sambul61]

I'm not so sure, it doesn't seem to work on Firefox, Chrome (SRware Iron), or even IE when I forcably had to test it.

It might be, this forum's server has identified you as a potential trouble maker and marked for (gradual) deletion.

Btw, I seems to have used LIKE button only once so far (not that I dislike everything else here ), and it was a successful undertaking - probably didn't use my quota yet.

[sambul61]

Sorry about that, for the moment I have no idea how to solve this issue.

That's interesting, someone just suggested above using Opera, and the forum settings were promptly changed to make New Post Text Area in Opera four times smaller than it is in IE.

It looks like someone is running an underground resistance network here.

A minor note though: Opera fans are one of the most dedicated ones. The reason is, its an outstanding peace of software that serves broad choice of causes, and with integrated Mail Client simply has no competitors around.

It's not to say, it has no deficiencies. These are harshly criticized on Opera forums. However, did anyone notice, there is no separate IE forum? I don't recall ever criticizing IE either - probably because not much interested in its improvement anyway.

Purposely restricting users choice by limiting a site's usability in targeted browsers never contributed to any site reputation. In fact, Opera Software successfully sued MS for that very reason.

Reboot.pro Text Area in Opera

[AceInfinity]

Strange though... I don't remember ever LIKE'ing more than one post in a period of 24 hours, so if i'm registered as a spammer somehow I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with this forum software though.

And I love my Firefox, so I'm reluctant to move over to Opera, even though i've heard it's good, because Firefox seems more open source, and has all of the plugins that I need to use on it. I would agree though, IE is a horrible web browser, I don't use it if my life depended on it, I only use it currently to test web browser optimization with my websites and it's only on my computer still because it was a default program install, and a few other applications seem to depend on IE.

I know i've heard opera is good though, as said before, but i'm still entitled to my personal preference with Firefox. Good enough for me, and it's security features aren't directed only at socially engineered malware like IE is with all those annoying popups... (God I hate that with IE, they treat you like you're computer illiterate)

[Uvais]

is liking working now

[Wonko the Sane]

Well, Opera (besides having a lot of handy features) is faaast, actually much faster than cooking potatoes .
http://www.msfn.org/...e/page__st__645


Wonko

[sambul61]

Wonko

A solid defence.


GPU Hardware acceleration in Opera 12 - you need a newer PC (than Commodore) to enjoy this 3-d anim.

[AceInfinity]

Nope, tested, and still not able to Like posts. I'm getting around 20fps on that test with 1000 fish and sharks

[sambul61]

I got 65 fps with 10 fish though. The less fish, the higher GPU load due to higher detail level.

[AceInfinity]

I got 65 fps with 10 fish though. The less fish, the higher GPU load due to higher detail level.

No that was with 10 fish, it's not due to higher detail level that your GPU load was higher (it would be true if that was the case) but on that test, the detail stays the same regardless of the amount of fish, so it's just the amount of information getting sent in that raises your GPU usage because your GPU has to "draw out" more fish at a single point in time. Not related to detail level though, if you had the most powerful GPU out there, and you could run 1000 or 10 fish at the same fps, you wouldn't/shouldn't notice a difference in the details level because that's not what that test is testing.

Sorry for late response, haven't been on my computer for a while, i'm using someone's laptop right now.

Edit: Still can't like posts, I was curious to test on this computer, but i'm also on IE which I never use right now. So it must be something with my account somehow

[sambul61]

In fact, the less fish, the higher GPU load in Opera 12 in that anim. For 1000 fush I also see 20 fps and very low GPU load. It still indicates a link btw level of the anim details and number of fish shown, but such correlation is not that straightforward as you said.

[AceInfinity]

it is fairly straightforward, but what are you defining by GPU load? Is this your fps that you're looking at, because something is wrong if you're seeing a better framerate with more graphical data being drawn out.

[sambul61]

GPU load is measured in percent of its total capacity by GPU Monitor - I use a few nice Gadgets to visually monitor different aspects of PC activity at all times, and the (CPU, GPU, HD, Network) load variations may be logged too continuously for future analysis. Its a lot less for 1000 fish because they're shown at 20fps, and its higher for 10 fish as the anim is run at 65fps, resulting in higher details of moving fish.

[AceInfinity]

GPU load is measured in percent of its total capacity by GPU Monitor - I use a few nice Gadgets to visually monitor different aspects of PC activity at all times, and the (CPU, GPU, HD, Network) load variations may be logged too continuously for future analysis. Its a lot less for 1000 fish because they're shown at 20fps, and its higher for 10 fish as the anim is run at 65fps, resulting in higher details of moving fish.

I think you're confused. Higher FPS means less GPU load... For games and things like that with lots of GPU load, you're not going to be running at 65 fps the more detail in graphics you obvserve (especially with a crappier graphics card, in comparison to a better graphics card), it's going to be lower because the GPU load on your card is greater. The gadgets you use won't accurately measure GPU load anyway because it's not directed to only that one graphic component that uses your GPU in your current running processes...

I think you're not quite understanding of what fps and GPU load is though. fps means frames per second, and a lower number means greater GPU load because it takes more time to draw out each frame for moving graphic components, higher fps does NOT mean greater GPU load. It means the load is less which is why your GPU can move through each frame in the animation at a faster pace.

And again, details has absolutely nothing to do with that test, it's not a test of detail, it's a test of how fast your GPU can draw out graphic frames for the animation with higher GPU loads due to the card itself having to draw out more fish and animate them in a single point in time.

20fps --> higher GPU load, not less, because this means it's moving at a slower animated pace than normal; your GPU has been working harder as this is evidence that it can't keep the normal rate

60fps --> same thing, lower GPU load because it's able to draw each animated frame out at the normal speed. 50-60 is a standard fps rate.

You are confused about GPU load in relation to fps though.

[sambul61]

I think, may be you are confused.

That anim is NOT a real time computing test. It has a set by the developer (fixed) frame rate (range), different for each of its Options (number of fish) to deliver smooth user experience on a typical choice of user hardware. In addition, my Gadgets are quite accurate, and merely reflect results of system diag tools.

"Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS)... FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, “choppy” animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion."

To say it again, the anim is programmed to run at 60-65 fps range with 10 fish, and 20 fps range with 1000 fish, thus delivering a lot higher factual GPU load with 10 fish. Higher FPS delivers higher level of fish motion details (smooth). If it were programmed to run at 65 fps with 1000 fish, an average user HW would be overloaded and not showing a smooth pic, if any.

[AceInfinity]

I think, may be you are confused.

That anim is NOT a real time computing test. It has a set by the developer (fixed) frame rate (range), different for each of its Options (number of fish) to deliver smooth user experience on a typical choice of user hardware. In addition, my Gadgets are quite accurate, and merely reflect results of system diag tools.

Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS)... FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, “choppy” animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.

To say it again, the anim is programmed to run at 60-65 fps range with 10 fish, and 20 fps range with 1000 fish, thus delivering a lot higher factual GPU load with 10 fish. Higher FPS delivers higher level of fish motion details (smooth). If it were programmed to run at 65 fps with 1000 fish, an average user HW would be overloaded and not showing a smooth pic if any.

I know what FPS is, i've been working with video software and animations for over 10 years involving that factor. I was only unaware that it was set at a default max, unless you are uninterpreted it, because they definitely do NOT do that anywhere else from what I know over the past years. It's interpreted based on how much GPU load your card can overcome, it's like trying to make a dodge viper go over 500mph, it's just not possible without any external influence. So the max is interpreted by what the car itself can do, not by what the speed limit tells you that you can go. it's generally set to a max of 50/60fps because higher cards that can handle a higher GPU load would be going faster to handle as much frames at it could, so if there was no limit, you could be going 200fps, which would be inconsistent with that preset 50 or 60 max.

I was confused there, but you'd better be sure you know that, that which you are talking about is true, because I don't know much about the site there, but what would be the purpose of setting a max there? To conserve GPU load to show you that they can set limits? Otherwise it would be there to show you how good your GPU is if your card is running 1000 fish at a standard 50 or 60 fps limit.

But i'm definitely not wrong about GPU load. I know for fact that you're misinterpreting the GPU load knowledge you're trying to portray to me because if they set limits based on your card, GPU load wouldn't change at all very significantly, it would stay the same... Therefore there would be no difference between 10 and 1000 fish because they give you more time to account for the same GPU load that 10 fish would take by slowing down the fps for 1000 fish graphically to balance things out. If a limit is set, that means it's not based on your GPU at all, it's based on a set limit, so even if your card can handle a ton of load, if they set it to a 10 or 20 fps max, that doesn't mean anything to do with GPU load. It means it's a demo on conserving GPU load. Refer to my car analogy if you don't understand.

Another thing, there is NO comparison between fish DETAILS, when it comes to fps, it's more of a factor of SMOOTH frame transitions, but the detail itself stays the exact same. I know the average person probably couldn't run 1000 fish and sharks at a smooth 65fps because it would require a really good card to handle that GPU load. They would see the pic though, but the transitions as said before from frame to frame would be longer in the time it would take to draw another frame from the previous frame. Details as said before though would stay the exact same.

And i've still never heard of them setting a limit like that before, and especially for a test. The default is usually around 50-60fps and if your card can't keep up with that speed then your card automatically draws each frame at a slower speed, maybe 30fps for instance, meaning it's not realtime because your card isn't the "dodge viper" of GPU's. Or at least not good enough to keep up with that framerate.

[sambul61]

Now, if you like my last post above, just click "Like This". You may be lucky this time around.

[AceInfinity]

lol, your right, I'm actually back at my regular desktop, which I haven't been able to power on for about a month now, been a while since i've gotten back to my regular computer, i'll test it out now.

Edit: Nope, I wrote the first half before replying, but trying it now still says my quota was used up for liking posts...