(Comparison FAIL, watch vimeo.com/4738408 ~ Processing improperly set in this video)

This is a test run of MSAFluid and FluidSolver ran on my multitouch table. Computer stats:

* Windows XP Pro desktop
* Intel Celeron Processor: 1.6GHz
* 2.0 GB RAM
* NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Graphics Card
* Projector: Dell 3300MP

Not a fast computer by any means, but a definite difference in performance between Processing and Flash.

You can read a little more about it here: cyancdesign.com/2009/05/flash-vs-processing-fluid-solver/

NOTE: This video uses an unedited MSAFluid Processing example. But the example was saved intended to be used with the multi-touch iPhone app, where the screen is so small, to use normal velocities could make the display go haywire. vimeo.com/4738408 uses high velocities to produce expected results.

Credits

11 Likes

  • Eugene Zatepyakin 7 months ago
    Very nice! ;)
    BTW if you have any question on optimizing it for multitouch - feel free to ask
  •  
  • Memo Akten plus 7 months ago
    Hey, great vid and comparison of the flash vs. processing, but if you wanna see true speed try the C++ version ;) memo.tv/ofxmsafluid (or for ultimate madness look for a gpgpu version!).

    A few points about the velocity issue. CCV was outputting velocities as distance per frame, whereas I wrote the processing demo as expecting velocities per second so it's very sluggish. Seth probably wrote the flash demo as expecting velocties per frame, so it behaves nicely. In the processing demo, if you want the same behaviour, you'll need to modify the code to multiply the TUIO velocities by 60 (or whatever your tracker is running at). Although I believe the new CCV on the SVN is now sending velocities per second.

    On a note regarding performance comparison, I don't think the flash demo has the same number of fluid cells (was it 40x40?) as the processing demo (was it 120x80?), so to compare the performance of the two demos would be unfair. But I must add that I am very impressed with the flash demo's performance anyway, it flies on my macbook pro and looks great, so great job Eugene!
  • Eugene Zatepyakin 7 months ago
    Thank you, Memo ;)
    I was surprised to see processing showing such a bad visuals... I'm sure it is due to options mistakes.
    Of course Processing is faster than flash. it cant be compared ;) but at good hardware flash runs very smooth and fast. BTW flash resolution is 60 cells width
  •  
  • robear (rob potts) 7 months ago
    Nice work on the video! I have got to know the name of the aphex twin track on this video and who did this particular version!
  •  
  • Chris Yanc 6 months ago
    This version of MT. Saint Michel by Aphex Twin was done by Alarm Will Sound. They did a whole album of tracks from Aphex Twin, all orchestral. The first track is White Pixels by Sync24 off their Source album.
  •  
This conversation is missing your voice. Take five seconds to join Vimeo or log in.

Advertisement

1 Related collections

Groups Groups

Statistics

  •  
    plays
    likes
    comments
  • Total
    plays 1,196
    likes 11
    comments 5
  • Dec 16th
    plays 0
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 15th
    plays 3
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 14th
    plays 2
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 13th
    plays 2
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 12th
    plays 3
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 11th
    plays 3
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 10th
    plays 2
    likes 0
    comments 0
  • Dec 9th
    plays 1
    likes 0
    comments 0
Previous Week

Downloads

Please join Vimeo or log in to download the original file. It only takes a few seconds.