🔒 Locked

QueryPerformanceCounter Question

Started by Chase85 Aug 9, 2006 at 9:49 PM 14 replies 3.2k views

Original Post

Aug 9, 2006 at 9:49 PM

Hey guys, wondering if any of you ran into the same situation i am having, and if you have a better result than i am... Basically im Calculating FPS and Frame Time using QueryPerformanceCounter... Only one problem, I call and Save the time before the render, then after and compare the two... But the Count QueryPerformanceCounter returns is exactly the same. Now i know it cant be rendering so fast that QPC hasn't changed yet, so i came up with just Sitting on it till it changes with a while(QPC == lasttime); but im wasting proc. clocks with this fix. :( So i tried switching over to the timeGetTime() method and setting timeBeginPeriod(1); same problem. Returning the same time every cycle :(

krum

Aug 9, 2006 at 9:54 PM

Are you trying to convert the value to a double or a float? Neither have enough precision to substract two close-together QPC results.

CrazyCdn

830

CrazyCdn

Aug 9, 2006 at 9:56 PM

Post code, if I recall right QueryPerformanceCounter returns a 64bit int. timeGetTime() is a lot less accurate. You can also search google for QueryPerformanceCounter articles, there's a few timers already written using it for games and other applications. You can even search these forums too.

Chase85

Author

Chase85

Aug 9, 2006 at 10:21 PM

CFrameRate::CFrameRate(void){	uiFrameTimeBufferPos = 0;	QueryPerformanceFrequency((LARGE_INTEGER*)&QPCFreq);}CFrameRate::~CFrameRate(void){	 }void CFrameRate::BeginFrame(void){	__int64 i64Time = 0;	QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER*)&i64Time);	// Get Current Count	dThisFrame = (long double)i64Time / (long double)QPCFreq;}void CFrameRate::EndFrame(void){	__int64 i64Time = 0;	QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER*)&i64Time);	//while (((long double)i64Time / (long double)QPCFreq) == dThisFrame)		//QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER*)&i64Time);	dFrameTime = ((long double)i64Time / (long double)QPCFreq) - dThisFrame;	dFPS = 1.0f/dFrameTime;	dFrameTimeAvgBuffer[uiFrameTimeBufferPos++] = dFrameTime;	if (uiFrameTimeBufferPos == 10) uiFrameTimeBufferPos = 0;}

I have commented out what i want to get rid of... Its really buggin me...

krum

Aug 9, 2006 at 10:44 PM

Quote:

Original post by Chase85

CFrameRate::CFrameRate(void){	uiFrameTimeBufferPos = 0;	QueryPerformanceFrequency((LARGE_INTEGER*)&QPCFreq);}CFrameRate::~CFrameRate(void){	 }void CFrameRate::BeginFrame(void){	__int64 i64Time = 0;	QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER*)&i64Time);	// Get Current Count	dThisFrame = (long double)i64Time / (long double)QPCFreq;}void CFrameRate::EndFrame(void){	__int64 i64Time = 0;	QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER*)&i64Time);	//while (((long double)i64Time / (long double)QPCFreq) == dThisFrame)		//QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER*)&i64Time);	dFrameTime = ((long double)i64Time / (long double)QPCFreq) - dThisFrame;	dFPS = 1.0f/dFrameTime;	dFrameTimeAvgBuffer[uiFrameTimeBufferPos++] = dFrameTime;	if (uiFrameTimeBufferPos == 10) uiFrameTimeBufferPos = 0;}

I have commented out what i want to get rid of... Its really buggin me...

So as I mentioned before you can't convert it to a double. :-D It does not have enough precision to store the value. You should subtract the long ints first, then convert that to a double and divide by (double)freq. Also, long double and double should be the same size on win32.

Chase85

Author

Chase85

Aug 9, 2006 at 11:49 PM

Okay only 1 tiny little problem, When dividing the Difference in time now by the Frequency, because it's going so fast i get a double that's too small. I wish i could truncate this someway. It runs amazing if i throw a Sleep(1) in the loop cause it slows it down just enough to about 450 fps. It'll run fine once i get more things on the screen but still there's gotta be a way to get that number regardless...

Chase85

Author

Chase85

Aug 9, 2006 at 11:56 PM

I went with this for right now

if (dFrameTime < 0.001f) dFrameTime = 0.001f;

It's lying to itself... I wish i could be completely accurate with nothing on the screen... if (dFrameTime < 0.001f) dFrameTime = 0.001f; brings the FPS to lock at 999.99

darkelf2k5

Aug 9, 2006 at 11:58 PM

DOUBLE dxutStaticTimer(){	static BOOL bQPCSupported = TRUE;	static LARGE_INTEGER liCurrentTime = { (LONGLONG)0 };;	static LARGE_INTEGER liFrequency = { (LONGLONG)0 };	static LARGE_INTEGER liLastTime = { (LONGLONG)0 };;	static DOUBLE dTimeFactor = 1.0f;	if ( liFrequency.QuadPart != (LONGLONG)0 )	{		// QueryPerformanceCounter(...) supported and set, use high precision timer		::QueryPerformanceCounter( &liCurrentTime );		LARGE_INTEGER liElapsed;		liElapsed.QuadPart = liCurrentTime.QuadPart - liLastTime.QuadPart;		liLastTime.QuadPart = liCurrentTime.QuadPart;		return liElapsed.QuadPart * dTimeFactor;	}	if ( bQPCSupported != TRUE )	{		// QueryPerformanceCounter(...) not supported, use low precision timer		liCurrentTime.QuadPart = ::timeGetTime();		LARGE_INTEGER liElapsed;		liElapsed.QuadPart = liCurrentTime.QuadPart - liLastTime.QuadPart;		liLastTime.QuadPart = liCurrentTime.QuadPart;		return liElapsed.QuadPart * 0.001f;	}	if ( bQPCSupported && liFrequency.QuadPart == (LONGLONG)0 )	{		// QueryPerformanceCounter(...) not supported or not yet initialized		::QueryPerformanceFrequency( &liFrequency );		if ( !liFrequency.QuadPart )		{			bQPCSupported = FALSE;			liLastTime.QuadPart = ::timeGetTime();		}		else		{			dTimeFactor /= liFrequency.QuadPart;			::QueryPerformanceCounter( &liLastTime );		}		return 0.0f;	}	return 0.0f;}

This works fine for me, and it even should revert back to timeGetTime() in case QPC is not supported.

Edit: it returns the time elapsed since last call( 0 at first call naturally) and in seconds

krum

Aug 10, 2006 at 12:08 AM

Chase85

Author

Chase85

Aug 10, 2006 at 12:43 AM

Tsk Tsk, im stupid i found my problem :( I was calculating Frames Before Calling Begin Scene and testing if it actually worked, So sometimes BeginScene would return false, and id be calculating a bogus frame thus the 999.999 fps, Now it only Runs when frames are rendered, and i apologize. Thx a ton those guys...

Specchum

Aug 10, 2006 at 1:10 AM

On a related note, I came across this interesting para while reading the documetnation of the timer class in boost libraries:

"... Tests showed that while the precision of these timers was high, the latency was sometimes very much higher than for the std::clock() function, and that is very bad. Furthermore, results using the Win32 API were very dependent on both the compiler (Microsoft and Borland were tested) and the operating system version (Windows NT, Windows 95, etc.) Thus the std::clock() function was much more reliable, and so was retained even on this platform with its own timer API."

Can anyone shed some light by what it means by "higher latency is very bad"? I thought QueryPerformanceCounter was recommended over the standard clock because of it's greater precision and that was that, so is this latency issue something a game developer should be worried about?

DrEvil

155

DrEvil

Aug 10, 2006 at 1:25 AM

Not really. QPC is the preferred method of timers in game dev.

Specchum

Aug 11, 2006 at 3:18 AM

:) I'm aware of that doc, but I'd like to know why the timer in boost implementation puts down the QPC for reasons cited above. Or are they just talking thru their collective hat(s)? ;)

Chase85

Author

Chase85

Aug 11, 2006 at 8:18 AM

What it means is Precision doesn't necesaraly mean accuracy. Although the number 1.2 is more percise than 1, if the latency was too high sending you that number, the existing number could already be at 2. So you could be sitting here with a precise number of 1.2 but it doesn't necesaraly mean it is correct. What you want is the most Accurate Percise number. I havent had an issue with QPC ever being inaccurate so im happy with it.

nife

Aug 12, 2006 at 5:10 AM

MSDN: Performance counter value may unexpectedly leap forward

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.