Quote:
Originally Posted by hayaku
I have no idea either, but worth mentioning, right? It's all data at the end of the day. FRAPS registers ~60 FPS with acceleration on, and 1–2 FPS without; and trust me: when anything breaks down to the point where it hits 1 FPS, it tends to interrupt workflow.
|
Not really, no. Not all data is relevant. When there are no frames involved (and there are no frames involved in rendering xhtml in a browser), then a frame rate is not relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayaku
Also, after doing a little digging, it seems that Qt Web Engine does indeed leverage Open GL/Dirext X in its rendering pipeline, making FRAPS a very ample tool for diagnosing breakdowns in the rendering cycle.
|
A tool that measures frame rate is not going to be at all useful for diagnosing Sigil's Preview latency. That doesn't change simply because WebEngine can make use of OpenGL/DirextX. Sigil's Preview is not asking WebEngine to leverage OpenGL/DirextX to display
anything that could be presented in frames per second (unless an epub happens to contain video--and then proprietry codecs included with Qt kick in). So any measured drop in OpenGL/DirextX's ability to display content that CAN be measured in fps (which is what FRAPS is measuring) is not relevant to Sigil's ability to render text/images in Preview. FPS doesn't matter when there are no frames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayaku
I went simple, eyeballed it against "Lag Simulator Delux". The human brain is scarily accurate when it comes to detecting small fluctuations in Proprioceptive Feedback Delay, and one could probably expect a ±10% margin of error using this method, at least according to the current scientific consensus. https://www.skytopia.com/stuff/lag.html |
Sorry. I have no idea what any of that means. But if it means your latency numbers are merely guesses, then I'm not really that interested in pursuing this. Nor am I interested in scientific studies that indicate how well the human eye might be able to guess latency. You gave fairly specific latency numbers that I assumed were able to backed by something other than your ability to make up numbers. If I can't duplicate your tests, I can't work on fixing what might be wrong with Sigil on your system. It's that simple. Your eyeballs are the first human ones to claim to be able to discern a reduction in Sigil's text rendering speed when QtWebEngine's hardware acceleration is disabled. I'll need a larger sampling than 1 if I'm going to dig into the possibility that something needs to be researched in that regard. Sorry.