VUMeter Plugin

[sveakul]

I just noticed that after updating the VUMeter to 2.7.1, in the bottom panel where the Summary Statistics and open/close sidebar buttons are shown are shown, there is now the text "VU Meter" to the right of the open/close left sidebar button, preceding the play action.  Seems odd to be there, any way of turning it (but not the new meter!!) off?

[BoringName]

New version - VUMeter_2.7.2

Changes
- Removed the message from the status bar. I was using it to test something and forgot to remove it.

[BoringName]

(perhaps add that as an Ultra Smooth™ option in the UI?)

I did have the frame rate in the options at one point but took it out as it didn't seem to make any difference over 60. I think I'll add a slider to the needle action submenu for 30, 60, 90 120. edit: actually if it's running on a 12 year old machine I might just keep 60 as default and add the 120 option like you suggested for users that are not worried if uses a bit more CPU to look smoother.

I just ran that on a 12 yrs. old PC with on-board graphics (hmm, the exact same age as the Lagavulin that I am currently abusing) and it didn't break a sweat.[/i][/color]

That's cool, what was the CPU usage like on that machine?

You will notice the 120 frame rate does use a bit more CPU.

[hiccup]

That's cool, what was the CPU usage like on that machine?
You will notice the 120 frame rate does use a bit more CPU.

I think it peaked at some 9%.
Which is impressive, and a testimony to the coding qualities of both Steven and you.

Surely a higher fps will increase cpu load.
But in my personal opinion having fps at 120 will not cause any real-world issues to anyone on any system.
(I think people only have complained when it was somewhere above 15% ?)

And for the rare occasion that somebody thinks the cpu load is too much to their taste, they could modify the .xml.
Set it to 30 and accept mediocrity.

Rethinking things, I would vote against adding an additional option for 30/60/90/120 or Ultra Smooth™
Let's favour Quality over Quantity, leave the plethora of headache-inducing options to foobar2000 users, and keep things as good and simple as possible?

[Mr. Trev]

That's cool, what was the CPU usage like on that machine?
You will notice the 120 frame rate does use a bit more CPU.

I think it peaked at some 9%.
Which is impressive, and a testimony to the coding qualities of both Steven and you.

Surely a higher fps will increase cpu load.
But in my personal opinion having fps at 120 will not cause any real-world issues to anyone on any system.
(I think people only have complained when it was somewhere above 15% ?)

And for the rare occasion that somebody thinks the cpu load is too much to their taste, they could modify the .xml.
Set it to 30 and accept mediocrity.

Rethinking things, I would vote against adding an additional option for 30/60/90/120 or Ultra Smooth™
Let's favour Quality over Quantity, leave the plethora of headache-inducing options to foobar2000 users, and keep things as good and simple as possible?

I think having an option for 60/120 wouldn't entirely suck. I was pleasantly suprised at how much smoother 120 was compared to 60. If folks want to have more options than that then they can feel free to edit the xml, but I never would've know about changing the rate if I hadn't read about it here and I'm not sure how many others users actually bother reading through the full thread.

[sveakul]

I think having an option for 60/120 wouldn't entirely suck. I was pleasantly suprised at how much smoother 120 was compared to 60. If folks want to have more options than that then they can feel free to edit the xml, but I never would've know about changing the rate if I hadn't read about it here and I'm not sure how many others users actually bother reading through the full thread.

Actually I too admit to not noticing that in the xml before until hiccup mentioned it.  As far as the CPU I compromised at 90 and still see a noticeable improvement.  As long as its editable in the xml the menu thing can go one way or the other IMO.

I'm afraid most "users" wouldn't even notice/report if the meter was upside down and backwards.  They eat whatever is on the plate with zero comment.  I base that sarcasm on the almost total lack of response here to really exceptional, brains-required projects like VUMeter and CEN spectrum.  People sure like playlists though.

[hiccup]

I'm afraid most "users" wouldn't even notice/report if the meter was upside down and backwards.

;-)

FWIW, on my system, the difference between 60 and 120 fps is some 1.5% CPU load, which I find negligible and completely worth it.
On 120fps I now have somewhere between 2% and 3% MusicBee + VUMeter total load on average.

Note that the previous 2.6.x versions before this new 2.7.x one had around 10% on average. (while performing worse)
And I don't think anyone ever complained about that 10%.

If this hadn't been discussed publicly on the forum and 120fps had silently be made the default, nobody would have complained.
They would only have noticed a significant performance improvement, and a 70% lower CPU load.

So, I'm still not a proponent of adding (yet another) option setting for this.
Just make 120 the default and fuggedaboudit?

[voodoopunk]

I'm afraid most "users" wouldn't even notice/report if the meter was upside down and backwards.  They eat whatever is on the plate with zero comment.  I base that sarcasm on the almost total lack of response here to really exceptional, brains-required projects like VUMeter and CEN spectrum.  People sure like playlists though.

I wasn't going to respond to this as this thread doesn't contain anything of interest for me.

But, a lot of us... or rather, I'll speak for myself aren't interested in a VU meter, spectrums or playlists either for that matter, so why respond to these things?

[hiccup]

…so why respond to these things?

Indeed why?
The forum would be a big mess if people were posting comments in topics that they are not interested in and not adding useful information.

[voodoopunk]

Indeed why?
The forum would be a big mess if people were posting comments in topics that they are not interested in and not adding useful information.

Of course, as every response is so full of useful information as you've proved.

[Mr. Trev]

I'm afraid most "users" wouldn't even notice/report if the meter was upside down and backwards.

;-)

FWIW, on my system, the difference between 60 and 120 fps is some 1.5% CPU load, which I find negligible and completely worth it.
On 120fps I now have somewhere between 2% and 3% MusicBee + VUMeter total load on average.

Note that the previous 2.6.x versions before this new 2.7.x one had around 10% on average. (while performing worse)
And I don't think anyone ever complained about that 10%.

If this hadn't been discussed publicly on the forum and 120fps had silently be made the default, nobody would have complained.
They would only have noticed a significant performance improvement, and a 70% lower CPU load.

So, I'm still not a proponent of adding (yet another) option setting for this.
Just make 120 the default and fuggedaboudit?

Do you happen to recall the specs of that old system you tested on?
The issue I could see with 120 as the default, is that if a person was using a complete potato system, they could be really put off by the load VUmeter is making. That was my reasoning for just having a simple lo/high (60/120) option - nothing more. I seriously doubt the majority of users are going to edit an xml so maybe having that as available as menu would be a bonus.
I won't get any further into this since I don't want to draw the ire of the people who can't be assed to respond to things they don't care about