vortice | Cross-platform .NET 7 C # 11 game engine | Game Engine library
kandi X-RAY | vortice Summary
kandi X-RAY | vortice Summary
Vortice is a modern cross-platform .NET game engine.
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of vortice
vortice Key Features
vortice Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on vortice
QUESTION
I am trying to create a MSTest project for unit testing of our WinUI 3 development. I am able to run tests through the test explorer when targeting .NET 5.0.
Project Reunion requires net5.0-windows10.0.19041 as the target framework. When I try to run tests targeting net5.0-windows10.0.19041 the project builds but the tests do not run. The output of the Test log below says the WinUI3-UnitTests.dll file is not found but WinUI3-UnitTests.dll does exist in the specified location.
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Oct-05 at 14:40Resolved by reverting MSTest.TestAdapter
and MSTest.TestFramework
back to version 2.2.3.
QUESTION
I am trying to increase the speed of an aerodynamics function in Python.
Function Set: ...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Mar-23 at 03:51First of all, Numba can perform parallel computations resulting in a faster code if you manually request it using mainly parallel=True
and prange
. This is useful for big arrays (but not for small ones).
Moreover, your computation is mainly memory bound. Thus, you should avoid creating big arrays when they are not reused multiple times, or more generally when they cannot be recomputed on the fly (in a relatively cheap way). This is the case for r_0
for example.
In addition, memory access pattern matters: vectorization is more efficient when accesses are contiguous in memory and the cache/RAM is use more efficiently. Consequently, arr[0, :, :] = 0
should be faster then arr[:, :, 0] = 0
. Similarly, arr[:, :, 0] = arr[:, :, 1] = 0
should be mush slower than arr[:, :, 0:2] = 0
since the former performs to noncontinuous memory passes while the latter performs only one more contiguous memory pass. Sometimes, it can be beneficial to transpose your data so that the following calculations are much faster.
Moreover, Numpy tends to create many temporary arrays that are costly to allocate. This is a huge problem when the input arrays are small. The Numba jit can avoid that in most cases.
Finally, regarding your computation, it may be a good idea to use GPUs for big arrays (definitively not for small ones). You can give a look to cupy or clpy to do that quite easily.
Here is an optimized implementation working on the CPU:
QUESTION
I am trying to run a code on vortex simulations in parallel using OpenMP. These are similar to particle simulations where at each time step, the position of a vortex at the next time step has to be computed from its velocity which is determined by the positions of all the other vortices at the current time step. The vortices are deleted once they leave the domain. I compare the number of vortices at each time step for the parallel version of code with the serial version of code, and run each version multiple times.
For the serial versions, vortex counts match exactly at every time step. For the parallel case, all the runs match with the serial case for a few tens of time steps, post which, each parallel run shows a difference but remains within a 7-10% error bound with the serial case (as can be seen in the result link below). I know that this may be becuase of the round off errors in the parallel case owing from the difference in the order of computational steps due to distribuiton among the different threads, but should the error really be so high as 10%?
I have only used the reduction clause in a parallel do construct. The only parallel region in the whole code is within a function vblob()
, which is inside a module, which i call from a main code. All function calls within vblob()
are ixi()
, fxi()
are outside this module.
ANSWER
Answered 2020-Jul-13 at 08:29Your code essentially sums up a lot of terms in gvic
. Floating-point arithmetic is not associative, that is, (a+b)+c
is not the same as a+(b+c)
due to rounding. Also, depending on the values and the signs on the terms, there may be a serious loss of precision in each operation. See here for a really mandatory read on the subject.
While the sequential loop computes (given no clever compiler optimisations):
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install vortice
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page