Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> A clearer (for a human) way to see the speed is to show the inverse of
>> that: seconds per frame.
> 
> Well, I can run the program and count the number of frames rendered per
> minute (approximately). The number of seconds per frame isn't something
> I can directly measure. (Of course, you can compute it yourself from my
> numbers quite easily...)

Imagine a 3D renderer. You put one sphere: 500fps. You add a second sphere:
250fps. What? It dropped a *lot* by just adding one more sphere! How is
this going to scale to a hundred objects?

Now, you put one sphere, it takes 2 milliseconds. You add another, 4
milliseconds. That sounds better.

Even though it's the *same numbers*.

Time per frame is clearer than frames per second because the brain can't get
around the inverse curve so easily.

Post a reply to this message