p.s., Re: VisAD 3D surface graph performance

Another possibility is that you are constructing an
IrregularSet in your data, which can be slow. But
Test29 constructs and displays a colored surface from
an Irregular2DSet of 1024 points in just a few seconds.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Bill Hibbard wrote:

> Hi Lezlie,
> Something's wrong here. Lots of the test programs in the
> visad/examples directory render surfaces with RGB mappings
> that are much larger than 380 points, and much quicker than
> a minute even on my old 500 MHz laptop with a bad old
> graphics card. You might try running Test33, Test37 and
> Test61 (its volume rendering is made of a series of flat
> surfaces with a total of over 42000 points, and runs in a
> few seconds on my laptop).
> Bill
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Lezlie Fort wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a VisAD performance question.
> >
> > I've written recently before - indicating that I am creating a number of
> > different graphs using ASCII space-separated input files.  One of the
> > graph types that I'm generating is a "4D" surface graph.  Yesterday, I
> > ran a case with the following math type:  (Time,Depth)->(Speed,col),
> > where "col" is a fourth dimension that I have mapped to Display.RGB.
> > The case that I ran had about 380 data points in  all four vectors, and
> > I found that on my Linux box (nVidia GeForce FX graphics card, 1.5GHz
> > processor, 512M RAM), it took about 1.5 minutes for the graph to
> > generate.  On my Windows XP box (2.27 GHz processor, 512M RAM, Intel
> > 82845G video board - Open GL version of Java3D), it took about 3.5
> > minutes to generate.  I ran additional cases where I increased the data
> > size, and ended up killing the graph-generation process after 5 minutes
> > of intensive disk-chunking.  I know that 3D surface generation is very
> > computation-intensive (3D line graphs of the same data come up almost
> > instantly), but I was wondering if these performance numbers that I'm
> > seeing are typical.  I've tried to find information on other graphing
> > packages (eg:  MatLab) to determine what kind of performance one would
> > expect with them, but seem to have encountered varied information.  Any
> > ideas on whether what I'm seeing is typical, or is there perhaps
> > something that I am doing extremely incorrectly?
> >
> > Thanks alot,
> > lzf
> >