I've written the following code to create a random number between 0.0 and 10.0.
const minRand = 0
const maxRand = 10
v := minRand + rand.Float64()*(maxRand-minRand)
However, I would like to set the granularity to 0.05, so having all the digits as the least significant decimal should not be allowed, only 0 and 5 should be allowed, e.g.:
the value 7.73 is NOT VALID,
the values 7.7 and 7.75 ARE VALID.
How can I produce such numbers in Go?
You can divide with the granularity, get a pseudo random integer and then multiply with the granularity to scale the result down.
const minRand = 8
const maxRand = 10
v := float64(rand.Intn((maxRand-minRand)/0.05))*0.05 + minRand
fmt.Printf("%.2f\n", v)
This will print:
8.05
8.35
8.35
8.95
8.05
9.90
....
If you don't want to get the same sequence every time rand.Seed(time.Now().UTC().UnixNano()).
From the docs
Seed uses the provided seed value to initialize the default Source to a deterministic state. If Seed is not called, the generator behaves as if seeded by Seed(1). Seed values that have the same remainder when divided by 2^31-1 generate the same pseudo-random sequence. Seed, unlike the Rand.Seed method, is safe for concurrent use.
With lower bounds
const minRand = 0
const maxRand = 10
const stepRand = 0.05
v := float64(rand.Intn((maxRand-minRand)/stepRand))*stepRand + minRand
fmt.Printf("%.2f\n", v)
I want to convert a float64 number, let's say it 1.003 to 1003 (integer type). My implementation is simply multiply the float64 with 1000 and cast it to int.
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
var f float64 = 1.003
fmt.Println(int(f * 1000))
}
But when I run that code, what I got is 1002 not 1003. Because Go automatically stores 1.003 as 1.002999... in the variable. What is the correct approach to do this kind of operation on Golang?
Go spec: Conversions:
Conversions between numeric types
When converting a floating-point number to an integer, the fraction is discarded (truncation towards zero).
So basically when you convert a floating-point number to an integer, only the integer part is kept.
If you just want to avoid errors arising from representing with finite bits, just add 0.5 to the number before converting it to int. No external libraries or function calls (from standard library) required.
Since float -> int conversion is not rounding but keeping the integer part, this will give you the desired result. Taking into consideration both the possible smaller and greater representation:
1002.9999 + 0.5 = 1003.4999; integer part: 1003
1003.0001 + 0.5 = 1003.5001; integer part: 1003
So simply just write:
var f float64 = 1.003
fmt.Println(int(f * 1000 + 0.5))
To wrap this into a function:
func toint(f float64) int {
return int(f + 0.5)
}
// Using it:
fmt.Println(toint(f * 1000))
Try them on the Go Playground.
Note:
Be careful when you apply this in case of negative numbers! For example if you have a value of -1.003, then you probably want the result to be -1003. But if you add 0.5 to it:
-1002.9999 + 0.5 = -1002.4999; integer part: -1002
-1003.0001 + 0.5 = -1002.5001; integer part: -1002
So if you have negative numbers, you have to either:
subtract 0.5 instead of adding it
or add 0.5 but subtract 1 from the result
Incorporating this into our helper function:
func toint(f float64) int {
if f < 0 {
return int(f - 0.5)
}
return int(f + 0.5)
}
As Will mentions, this comes down to how floats are represented on various platforms. Essentially you need to round the float rather than let the default truncating behavior to happen. There's no standard library function for this, probably because there's a lot of possible behavior and it's trivial to implement.
If you knew you'd always have errors of the sort described, where you're slightly below (1299.999999) the value desired (1300.00000) you could use the math library's Ceil function:
f := 1.29999
n := math.Ceil(f*1000)
But if you have different kinds of floating error and want a more general sorting behavior? Use the math library's Modf function to separate the your floating point value by the decimal point:
f := 1.29999
f1,f2 := math.Modf(f*1000)
n := int(f1) // n = 1299
if f2 > .5 {
n++
}
fmt.Println(n)
You can run a slightly more generalized version of this code in the playground yourself.
This is probably likely a problem with floating points in general in most programming languages though some have different implementations than others. I wouldn't go into the intricacies here but most languages usually have a "decimal" approach either as a standard library or a third party library to get finer precision.
For instance, I've found the inf.v0 package largely useful. Underlying the library is a Dec struct that holds the exponents and the integer value. Therefore, it's able to hold 1.003 as 1003 * 10^-3. See below for an example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"gopkg.in/inf.v0"
)
func main() {
// represents 1003 * 10^-3
someDec := inf.NewDec(1003, 3)
// multiply someDec by 1000 * 10^0
// which translates to 1003 * 10^-3 * 1000 * 10^0
someDec.Mul(someDec, inf.NewDec(1000, 0))
// inf.RoundHalfUp rounds half up in the 0th scale, eg. 0.5 rounds to 1
value, ok := someDec.Round(someDec, 0, inf.RoundHalfUp).Unscaled()
fmt.Println(value, ok)
}
Hope this helps!
I need to measure elapsed time, in order to know when a certain period of time has been exceeded.
I used to use Ticks() and Microseconds() for this, but both functions are now deprecated.
CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent is not the correct way to use because it may run backwards, as explained in the docs:
Repeated calls to this function do not guarantee monotonically
increasing results. The system time may decrease due to
synchronization with external time references or due to an explicit
user change of the clock.
What else is there that's not deprecated and fairly future-proof?
One way, as explained in Q&A 1398, is to use mach_absolute_time as follows:
static mach_timebase_info_data_t sTimebaseInfo;
mach_timebase_info(&sTimebaseInfo); // Determines the time scale
uint64_t t1 = mach_absolute_time();
...
uint64_t t2 = mach_absolute_time();
uint64_t elapsedNano = (t2-t1) * sTimebaseInfo.numer / sTimebaseInfo.denom;
This may not be fool-proof either, though. The values could overflow in some cases, as pointed out in this answer.
Use NSTimeInterval:
Used to specify a time interval, in seconds.
Example:
- (void)loop {
NSDate *startTime = [NSDate date];
sleep(90); // sleep for 90 seconds
[self elapsedTime:startTime];
}
- (void)elapsedTime:(NSDate *)startTime {
NSTimeInterval elapsedTime = fabs([startTime timeIntervalSinceNow]);
int intSeconds = (int) elapsedTime;
int intMinutes = intSeconds / 60;
intSeconds = intSeconds % 60;
NSLog(#"Elapsed Time: %d minute(s) %d seconds", intMinutes, intSeconds);
}
Result:
Elapsed Time: 1 minute(s) 29 seconds
It's unclear what type of precision you are looking for, although NSTimeInterval can accomodate fractions of a second (eg. tenths, hundredths, thousandths, etc.)
Is it possible to have two projections, .Select(...), in one same query?
int total = ...;
var sendersInfo = db.Persons
.Select(p => new
{
sentSMS = p.SentSMS.Count(...large expression...),
})
// Calculate percentages
.Select(i => new
{
sentSMS = i.sentSMS,
percentage = i.sentSMS/total * 100
});
The above is not working because apparently "i.sentSMS" isn't calculated yet and so a 0 (zero) is being used instead of the result.
What I'm trying to avoid is this (below), which does work, but has repeated code "...large expression...":
int total = ...;
var sendersInfo = db.Persons
.Select(p => new
{
sentSMS = p.SentSMS.Count(...large expression...),
percentage = p.SentSMS.Count(...large expression...) / total * 100
});
Beside my question ("is it possible..."), is there a best way to achieve this? I don't like uggly code. Also I'm trying to achieve this in pure Linq-to-entities (no linq-to-objects)
Commenting on your comment:
You do not need to cast to float every time - as soon as one of the operands is a float, the other is promoted, so the result is of type which bears a higher precision (float > int).
There are two arithmetic operations in line:
i.sentSMS / total * 100
// (1) (2)
Division, then multiplying. Both operators / and * have the same priority (refer to e.g. this), so the expression is evaluated from the left side, first computing the quotient (because both dividend and divisor are int, the result is also int), then multiplying the result with 100 (also int).
So, instead of doing
(float)i.sentSMS / (float)total * 100
It suffices to do:
// ┌─ (float) thanks to casting
// │ ┌─ (int) -> (float) promotion here, making the result of division a (float) too
// │ │ ┌─ then 100 gets promoted in the second step the same way
(float)i.sentSMS / total * 100
And even shorter so:
// ┌─ (float) literal, because 100 is an (int) literal and 100.0 (or 100d) is a (double) literal
// │ ┌─ (int) -> (float) promotion
// │ │ ┌─ and again
100f * i.sentSMS / total
100f being a literal for float (same as (float)100, but neater) :)
In my opinion 100.0 looks even better, but it is a literal for double, even greater precision, so all the floats will get promoted to double, making the result double as well, and so you would get a compiler warning for losing precision while assigning double result to float variable.
What's a good algorithm for calculating frames per second in a game? I want to show it as a number in the corner of the screen. If I just look at how long it took to render the last frame the number changes too fast.
Bonus points if your answer updates each frame and doesn't converge differently when the frame rate is increasing vs decreasing.
You need a smoothed average, the easiest way is to take the current answer (the time to draw the last frame) and combine it with the previous answer.
// eg.
float smoothing = 0.9; // larger=more smoothing
measurement = (measurement * smoothing) + (current * (1.0-smoothing))
By adjusting the 0.9 / 0.1 ratio you can change the 'time constant' - that is how quickly the number responds to changes. A larger fraction in favour of the old answer gives a slower smoother change, a large fraction in favour of the new answer gives a quicker changing value. Obviously the two factors must add to one!
This is what I have used in many games.
#define MAXSAMPLES 100
int tickindex=0;
int ticksum=0;
int ticklist[MAXSAMPLES];
/* need to zero out the ticklist array before starting */
/* average will ramp up until the buffer is full */
/* returns average ticks per frame over the MAXSAMPLES last frames */
double CalcAverageTick(int newtick)
{
ticksum-=ticklist[tickindex]; /* subtract value falling off */
ticksum+=newtick; /* add new value */
ticklist[tickindex]=newtick; /* save new value so it can be subtracted later */
if(++tickindex==MAXSAMPLES) /* inc buffer index */
tickindex=0;
/* return average */
return((double)ticksum/MAXSAMPLES);
}
Well, certainly
frames / sec = 1 / (sec / frame)
But, as you point out, there's a lot of variation in the time it takes to render a single frame, and from a UI perspective updating the fps value at the frame rate is not usable at all (unless the number is very stable).
What you want is probably a moving average or some sort of binning / resetting counter.
For example, you could maintain a queue data structure which held the rendering times for each of the last 30, 60, 100, or what-have-you frames (you could even design it so the limit was adjustable at run-time). To determine a decent fps approximation you can determine the average fps from all the rendering times in the queue:
fps = # of rendering times in queue / total rendering time
When you finish rendering a new frame you enqueue a new rendering time and dequeue an old rendering time. Alternately, you could dequeue only when the total of the rendering times exceeded some preset value (e.g. 1 sec). You can maintain the "last fps value" and a last updated timestamp so you can trigger when to update the fps figure, if you so desire. Though with a moving average if you have consistent formatting, printing the "instantaneous average" fps on each frame would probably be ok.
Another method would be to have a resetting counter. Maintain a precise (millisecond) timestamp, a frame counter, and an fps value. When you finish rendering a frame, increment the counter. When the counter hits a pre-set limit (e.g. 100 frames) or when the time since the timestamp has passed some pre-set value (e.g. 1 sec), calculate the fps:
fps = # frames / (current time - start time)
Then reset the counter to 0 and set the timestamp to the current time.
Increment a counter every time you render a screen and clear that counter for some time interval over which you want to measure the frame-rate.
Ie. Every 3 seconds, get counter/3 and then clear the counter.
There are at least two ways to do it:
The first is the one others have mentioned here before me.
I think it's the simplest and preferred way. You just to keep track of
cn: counter of how many frames you've rendered
time_start: the time since you've started counting
time_now: the current time
Calculating the fps in this case is as simple as evaluating this formula:
FPS = cn / (time_now - time_start).
Then there is the uber cool way you might like to use some day:
Let's say you have 'i' frames to consider. I'll use this notation: f[0], f[1],..., f[i-1] to describe how long it took to render frame 0, frame 1, ..., frame (i-1) respectively.
Example where i = 3
|f[0] |f[1] |f[2] |
+----------+-------------+-------+------> time
Then, mathematical definition of fps after i frames would be
(1) fps[i] = i / (f[0] + ... + f[i-1])
And the same formula but only considering i-1 frames.
(2) fps[i-1] = (i-1) / (f[0] + ... + f[i-2])
Now the trick here is to modify the right side of formula (1) in such a way that it will contain the right side of formula (2) and substitute it for it's left side.
Like so (you should see it more clearly if you write it on a paper):
fps[i] = i / (f[0] + ... + f[i-1])
= i / ((f[0] + ... + f[i-2]) + f[i-1])
= (i/(i-1)) / ((f[0] + ... + f[i-2])/(i-1) + f[i-1]/(i-1))
= (i/(i-1)) / (1/fps[i-1] + f[i-1]/(i-1))
= ...
= (i*fps[i-1]) / (f[i-1] * fps[i-1] + i - 1)
So according to this formula (my math deriving skill are a bit rusty though), to calculate the new fps you need to know the fps from the previous frame, the duration it took to render the last frame and the number of frames you've rendered.
This might be overkill for most people, that's why I hadn't posted it when I implemented it. But it's very robust and flexible.
It stores a Queue with the last frame times, so it can accurately calculate an average FPS value much better than just taking the last frame into consideration.
It also allows you to ignore one frame, if you are doing something that you know is going to artificially screw up that frame's time.
It also allows you to change the number of frames to store in the Queue as it runs, so you can test it out on the fly what is the best value for you.
// Number of past frames to use for FPS smooth calculation - because
// Unity's smoothedDeltaTime, well - it kinda sucks
private int frameTimesSize = 60;
// A Queue is the perfect data structure for the smoothed FPS task;
// new values in, old values out
private Queue<float> frameTimes;
// Not really needed, but used for faster updating then processing
// the entire queue every frame
private float __frameTimesSum = 0;
// Flag to ignore the next frame when performing a heavy one-time operation
// (like changing resolution)
private bool _fpsIgnoreNextFrame = false;
//=============================================================================
// Call this after doing a heavy operation that will screw up with FPS calculation
void FPSIgnoreNextFrame() {
this._fpsIgnoreNextFrame = true;
}
//=============================================================================
// Smoothed FPS counter updating
void Update()
{
if (this._fpsIgnoreNextFrame) {
this._fpsIgnoreNextFrame = false;
return;
}
// While looping here allows the frameTimesSize member to be changed dinamically
while (this.frameTimes.Count >= this.frameTimesSize) {
this.__frameTimesSum -= this.frameTimes.Dequeue();
}
while (this.frameTimes.Count < this.frameTimesSize) {
this.__frameTimesSum += Time.deltaTime;
this.frameTimes.Enqueue(Time.deltaTime);
}
}
//=============================================================================
// Public function to get smoothed FPS values
public int GetSmoothedFPS() {
return (int)(this.frameTimesSize / this.__frameTimesSum * Time.timeScale);
}
Good answers here. Just how you implement it is dependent on what you need it for. I prefer the running average one myself "time = time * 0.9 + last_frame * 0.1" by the guy above.
however I personally like to weight my average more heavily towards newer data because in a game it is SPIKES that are the hardest to squash and thus of most interest to me. So I would use something more like a .7 \ .3 split will make a spike show up much faster (though it's effect will drop off-screen faster as well.. see below)
If your focus is on RENDERING time, then the .9.1 split works pretty nicely b/c it tend to be more smooth. THough for gameplay/AI/physics spikes are much more of a concern as THAT will usually what makes your game look choppy (which is often worse than a low frame rate assuming we're not dipping below 20 fps)
So, what I would do is also add something like this:
#define ONE_OVER_FPS (1.0f/60.0f)
static float g_SpikeGuardBreakpoint = 3.0f * ONE_OVER_FPS;
if(time > g_SpikeGuardBreakpoint)
DoInternalBreakpoint()
(fill in 3.0f with whatever magnitude you find to be an unacceptable spike)
This will let you find and thus solve FPS issues the end of the frame they happen.
A much better system than using a large array of old framerates is to just do something like this:
new_fps = old_fps * 0.99 + new_fps * 0.01
This method uses far less memory, requires far less code, and places more importance upon recent framerates than old framerates while still smoothing the effects of sudden framerate changes.
You could keep a counter, increment it after each frame is rendered, then reset the counter when you are on a new second (storing the previous value as the last second's # of frames rendered)
JavaScript:
// Set the end and start times
var start = (new Date).getTime(), end, FPS;
/* ...
* the loop/block your want to watch
* ...
*/
end = (new Date).getTime();
// since the times are by millisecond, use 1000 (1000ms = 1s)
// then multiply the result by (MaxFPS / 1000)
// FPS = (1000 - (end - start)) * (MaxFPS / 1000)
FPS = Math.round((1000 - (end - start)) * (60 / 1000));
Here's a complete example, using Python (but easily adapted to any language). It uses the smoothing equation in Martin's answer, so almost no memory overhead, and I chose values that worked for me (feel free to play around with the constants to adapt to your use case).
import time
SMOOTHING_FACTOR = 0.99
MAX_FPS = 10000
avg_fps = -1
last_tick = time.time()
while True:
# <Do your rendering work here...>
current_tick = time.time()
# Ensure we don't get crazy large frame rates, by capping to MAX_FPS
current_fps = 1.0 / max(current_tick - last_tick, 1.0/MAX_FPS)
last_tick = current_tick
if avg_fps < 0:
avg_fps = current_fps
else:
avg_fps = (avg_fps * SMOOTHING_FACTOR) + (current_fps * (1-SMOOTHING_FACTOR))
print(avg_fps)
Set counter to zero. Each time you draw a frame increment the counter. After each second print the counter. lather, rinse, repeat. If yo want extra credit, keep a running counter and divide by the total number of seconds for a running average.
In (c++ like) pseudocode these two are what I used in industrial image processing applications that had to process images from a set of externally triggered camera's. Variations in "frame rate" had a different source (slower or faster production on the belt) but the problem is the same. (I assume that you have a simple timer.peek() call that gives you something like the nr of msec (nsec?) since application start or the last call)
Solution 1: fast but not updated every frame
do while (1)
{
ProcessImage(frame)
if (frame.framenumber%poll_interval==0)
{
new_time=timer.peek()
framerate=poll_interval/(new_time - last_time)
last_time=new_time
}
}
Solution 2: updated every frame, requires more memory and CPU
do while (1)
{
ProcessImage(frame)
new_time=timer.peek()
delta=new_time - last_time
last_time = new_time
total_time += delta
delta_history.push(delta)
framerate= delta_history.length() / total_time
while (delta_history.length() > avg_interval)
{
oldest_delta = delta_history.pop()
total_time -= oldest_delta
}
}
qx.Class.define('FpsCounter', {
extend: qx.core.Object
,properties: {
}
,events: {
}
,construct: function(){
this.base(arguments);
this.restart();
}
,statics: {
}
,members: {
restart: function(){
this.__frames = [];
}
,addFrame: function(){
this.__frames.push(new Date());
}
,getFps: function(averageFrames){
debugger;
if(!averageFrames){
averageFrames = 2;
}
var time = 0;
var l = this.__frames.length;
var i = averageFrames;
while(i > 0){
if(l - i - 1 >= 0){
time += this.__frames[l - i] - this.__frames[l - i - 1];
}
i--;
}
var fps = averageFrames / time * 1000;
return fps;
}
}
});
How i do it!
boolean run = false;
int ticks = 0;
long tickstart;
int fps;
public void loop()
{
if(this.ticks==0)
{
this.tickstart = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
this.ticks++;
this.fps = (int)this.ticks / (System.currentTimeMillis()-this.tickstart);
}
In words, a tick clock tracks ticks. If it is the first time, it takes the current time and puts it in 'tickstart'. After the first tick, it makes the variable 'fps' equal how many ticks of the tick clock divided by the time minus the time of the first tick.
Fps is an integer, hence "(int)".
Here's how I do it (in Java):
private static long ONE_SECOND = 1000000L * 1000L; //1 second is 1000ms which is 1000000ns
LinkedList<Long> frames = new LinkedList<>(); //List of frames within 1 second
public int calcFPS(){
long time = System.nanoTime(); //Current time in nano seconds
frames.add(time); //Add this frame to the list
while(true){
long f = frames.getFirst(); //Look at the first element in frames
if(time - f > ONE_SECOND){ //If it was more than 1 second ago
frames.remove(); //Remove it from the list of frames
} else break;
/*If it was within 1 second we know that all other frames in the list
* are also within 1 second
*/
}
return frames.size(); //Return the size of the list
}
In Typescript, I use this algorithm to calculate framerate and frametime averages:
let getTime = () => {
return new Date().getTime();
}
let frames: any[] = [];
let previousTime = getTime();
let framerate:number = 0;
let frametime:number = 0;
let updateStats = (samples:number=60) => {
samples = Math.max(samples, 1) >> 0;
if (frames.length === samples) {
let currentTime: number = getTime() - previousTime;
frametime = currentTime / samples;
framerate = 1000 * samples / currentTime;
previousTime = getTime();
frames = [];
}
frames.push(1);
}
usage:
statsUpdate();
// Print
stats.innerHTML = Math.round(framerate) + ' FPS ' + frametime.toFixed(2) + ' ms';
Tip: If samples is 1, the result is real-time framerate and frametime.
This is based on KPexEA's answer and gives the Simple Moving Average. Tidied and converted to TypeScript for easy copy and paste:
Variable declaration:
fpsObject = {
maxSamples: 100,
tickIndex: 0,
tickSum: 0,
tickList: []
}
Function:
calculateFps(currentFps: number): number {
this.fpsObject.tickSum -= this.fpsObject.tickList[this.fpsObject.tickIndex] || 0
this.fpsObject.tickSum += currentFps
this.fpsObject.tickList[this.fpsObject.tickIndex] = currentFps
if (++this.fpsObject.tickIndex === this.fpsObject.maxSamples) this.fpsObject.tickIndex = 0
const smoothedFps = this.fpsObject.tickSum / this.fpsObject.maxSamples
return Math.floor(smoothedFps)
}
Usage (may vary in your app):
this.fps = this.calculateFps(this.ticker.FPS)
I adapted #KPexEA's answer to Go, moved the globals into struct fields, allowed the number of samples to be configurable, and used time.Duration instead of plain integers and floats.
type FrameTimeTracker struct {
samples []time.Duration
sum time.Duration
index int
}
func NewFrameTimeTracker(n int) *FrameTimeTracker {
return &FrameTimeTracker{
samples: make([]time.Duration, n),
}
}
func (t *FrameTimeTracker) AddFrameTime(frameTime time.Duration) (average time.Duration) {
// algorithm adapted from https://stackoverflow.com/a/87732/814422
t.sum -= t.samples[t.index]
t.sum += frameTime
t.samples[t.index] = frameTime
t.index++
if t.index == len(t.samples) {
t.index = 0
}
return t.sum / time.Duration(len(t.samples))
}
The use of time.Duration, which has nanosecond precision, eliminates the need for floating-point arithmetic to compute the average frame time, but comes at the expense of needing twice as much memory for the same number of samples.
You'd use it like this:
// track the last 60 frame times
frameTimeTracker := NewFrameTimeTracker(60)
// main game loop
for frame := 0;; frame++ {
// ...
if frame > 0 {
// prevFrameTime is the duration of the last frame
avgFrameTime := frameTimeTracker.AddFrameTime(prevFrameTime)
fps := 1.0 / avgFrameTime.Seconds()
}
// ...
}
Since the context of this question is game programming, I'll add some more notes about performance and optimization. The above approach is idiomatic Go but always involves two heap allocations: one for the struct itself and one for the array backing the slice of samples. If used as indicated above, these are long-lived allocations so they won't really tax the garbage collector. Profile before optimizing, as always.
However, if performance is a major concern, some changes can be made to eliminate the allocations and indirections:
Change samples from a slice of []time.Duration to an array of [N]time.Duration where N is fixed at compile time. This removes the flexibility of changing the number of samples at runtime, but in most cases that flexibility is unnecessary.
Then, eliminate the NewFrameTimeTracker constructor function entirely and use a var frameTimeTracker FrameTimeTracker declaration (at the package level or local to main) instead. Unlike C, Go will pre-zero all relevant memory.
Unfortunately, most of the answers here don't provide either accurate enough or sufficiently "slow responsive" FPS measurements. Here's how I do it in Rust using a measurement queue:
use std::collections::VecDeque;
use std::time::{Duration, Instant};
pub struct FpsCounter {
sample_period: Duration,
max_samples: usize,
creation_time: Instant,
frame_count: usize,
measurements: VecDeque<FrameCountMeasurement>,
}
#[derive(Copy, Clone)]
struct FrameCountMeasurement {
time: Instant,
frame_count: usize,
}
impl FpsCounter {
pub fn new(sample_period: Duration, samples: usize) -> Self {
assert!(samples > 1);
Self {
sample_period,
max_samples: samples,
creation_time: Instant::now(),
frame_count: 0,
measurements: VecDeque::new(),
}
}
pub fn fps(&self) -> f32 {
match (self.measurements.front(), self.measurements.back()) {
(Some(start), Some(end)) => {
let period = (end.time - start.time).as_secs_f32();
if period > 0.0 {
(end.frame_count - start.frame_count) as f32 / period
} else {
0.0
}
}
_ => 0.0,
}
}
pub fn update(&mut self) {
self.frame_count += 1;
let current_measurement = self.measure();
let last_measurement = self
.measurements
.back()
.copied()
.unwrap_or(FrameCountMeasurement {
time: self.creation_time,
frame_count: 0,
});
if (current_measurement.time - last_measurement.time) >= self.sample_period {
self.measurements.push_back(current_measurement);
while self.measurements.len() > self.max_samples {
self.measurements.pop_front();
}
}
}
fn measure(&self) -> FrameCountMeasurement {
FrameCountMeasurement {
time: Instant::now(),
frame_count: self.frame_count,
}
}
}
How to use:
Create the counter:
let mut fps_counter = FpsCounter::new(Duration::from_millis(100), 5);
Call fps_counter.update() on every frame drawn.
Call fps_counter.fps() whenever you like to display current FPS.
Now, the key is in parameters to FpsCounter::new() method: sample_period is how responsive fps() is to changes in framerate, and samples controls how quickly fps() ramps up or down to the actual framerate. So if you choose 10 ms and 100 samples, fps() would react almost instantly to any change in framerate - basically, FPS value on the screen would jitter like crazy, but since it's 100 samples, it would take 1 second to match the actual framerate.
So my choice of 100 ms and 5 samples means that displayed FPS counter doesn't make your eyes bleed by changing crazy fast, and it would match your actual framerate half a second after it changes, which is sensible enough for a game.
Since sample_period * samples is averaging time span, you don't want it to be too short if you want a reasonably accurate FPS counter.
store a start time and increment your framecounter once per loop? every few seconds you could just print framecount/(Now - starttime) and then reinitialize them.
edit: oops. double-ninja'ed