I need to synchronize Unity app to a 3rd party app where time synchronization is crucial (1-2ms varient max).
The way this is done today (without Unity) is getting priority of the OS scheduler with a designated app which will assure a constant delay.
A constant delay is good enough as it can be used in the data analysis which is not done in real time. Today the constant delay is measured once on the beginning.
Thanks in advance.
This kind of delays should be easy to achieve in a background thread.
Threads work well in Unity, despite common belief. The only thing you need to look out for is not to access Unity objects from the thread.
Easiest way to do this is to start a thread in a MonoBehaviour.Start with the IsBackground property set to true (so you don't have to worry about it blocking your application exit) and communicate to and from it with a message queue (for example a List<Action> with locked access).
I'm working on an iPhone Game where the player tilts the iPhone to make the character move, but unfortunately all of the timers I'm using to animate the scenario are slowing down my game. I've been told to use NSThreads, but I really don't know anything about them. My question is, What are the differences between using NSThreads and NSTimers? Or what are the advantages of using NSThreads? How are they useful?
Timers are used for asynchronous, not concurrent, execution of code.
A timer waits until a certain time interval has elapsed and then fires, sending a specified message to a target object. For example, you could create an NSTimer object that sends a message to a window, telling it to update itself after a certain time interval.
Threads are for concurrent execution of code.
An NSThread object controls a thread of execution. Use this class when you want to have an Objective-C method run in its own thread of execution. Threads are especially useful when you need to perform a lengthy task, but don’t want it to block the execution of the rest of the application. In particular, you can use threads to avoid blocking the main thread of the application, which handles user interface and event-related actions. Threads can also be used to divide a large job into several smaller jobs, which can lead to performance increases on multi-core computers.
See also:
How do I use NSTimer?
Timer Programming Topics
Threaded Programming Guide
Timers are objects that simply call methods at a later time. Threads are additional "streams" of stuff to be processed, in psuedo-parallel. It's like comparing apples to oranges—they're not really related. The only relation I can see is if you want to do some processing in the background, but you shouldn't be doing UI calls in background threads, Why are you using timers to make your character move? Knowing that, we might be able to supply an alternate solution.
I have a complex sync job that does several asyncronous calls for content over HTTP. Each time this content is received, it asks for the next bit and so on. These are all daisey-chained in a big over-all sync job with data on the server.
There are probably 12 steps in this job chain. It seems to get stuck after around the 5th async request, the request never comes back and it hangs for ever waiting for it. I think it may have to do with too many threads being spawned because if I fire off the one it hangs at at the beginning it returns fine.
In the way I imagine it in my head, the main thread asks for async content a. When it comes back in its own asynchronous time it spawns a new thread which then asks for aync content b. When it comes back in its own sweet time it spawns a new thread which then asks for content c. Isn't a new thread being created everytime an async request returns a result?
Am I daisy-chaining these requests right? I was quite good at threads in Java development but I'm a bit confused on how they work in Obj-C. Do I need to use a Thread pool of say 3 threads and reuse these?
Sorry for the high-level question but I'm sure some experts can help clear the cloud of mystery around this.
NSOperationQueues are built on top of Grand Central Dispatch. If you need precise control over order of operations and the ability to dispatch synchronous requests you might want to use GCD directly. Using either, you don't really need to worry about thread creation/management. You simply queue your operations as needed by your app.
The Apple docs are fine on this IMHO but you can find a number of tutorials out there.
[EDIT: added link to Apple docs]
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/General/Conceptual/ConcurrencyProgrammingGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html
I am new to objective-c/cocoa programming. I am making an application which is to constantly sync with a server and keep its view updated.
Now in a nutshell, heres what I thought of: Initiate an NSTimer to trigger every second or two, contact the server, if there is a change, update the view. Is this a good way of doing it?
I have read elsewhere that you can have a thread running in the background which monitors the changes and updates the view. I never worked with threads before and I know they can be quite troublesome and you need a good amount of experience with memory management to get most out of them.
I have one month to get this application done. What do you guys recommend? Just use an NSTimer and do it the way I though of...or learn multithreading and get it done that way (but keep in mind my time frame).
Thanks!
I think using separate thread in this case would be too much. You need to use threads when there is some task that runs for considerable amount of time and can freeze your app for some time.
In your case do this:
Create timer and call some method (say update) every N seconds.
in update send asynchronous request to server and check for any changes.
download data using NSURLConnection delegate and parse. Note: if there is probability that you can receive a huge amount of data from server and its processing can take much time (for example parsing of 2Mb of XML data) then you do need to perform that is a separate thread.
update all listeners (appropriate view controllers for example) with processed data.
continue polling using timer.
Think about requirements. The most relevant questions, IMO, are :
does your application have to get new data while running in background?
does your application need to be responsive, that is, not sluggish when it's fetching new data?
I guess the answer to the first question is probably no. If you are updating a view depending on the data, it's only required to fetch the data when the view is visible. You cannot guarantee always fetching data in background anyway, because iOS can always just kill your application. Anyway, in your application's perspective, multithreading is not relevant to this question. Because either you are updating only in foreground or also in background, your application need no more than one thread.
Multithreading is relevant rather to the second question. If your application has to remain responsive while fetching data, then you will have to run your fetching code on a detached thread. What's more important here is, the update on the user interface (like views) must happen on the main thread again.
Learning multithreading in general is something indeed, but iOS SDK provides a lot of help. Learning how to use operation queue (I guess that's the easiest to learn, but not necessarily the easiest to use) wouldn't take many days. In a month period, you can definitely finish the job.
Again, however, think clearly why you would need multithreading.
I find that most game development requires a main game loop, but I don't know why it's necessary. Couldn't we implement an event listener and respond to every user action? Animations (etc.) could then be played when a event occurs.
What is the purpose of a main game loop?
The argument that you "need a loop because otherwise what calls the event listener" does not hold water. Admittedly on any mainstream OS, you do indeed have such a loop, and event listeners do work that way, but it is entirely possible to make an interrupt driven system that works without any loops of any kind.
But you still would not want to structure a game that way.
The thing that makes a loop the most appealing solution is that your loop becomes what in real-time programming is referred to as a 'cyclic executive'. The idea is that you can make the relative execution rates of the various system activities deterministic with respect to one another. The overall rate of the loop may be controlled by a timer, and that timer may ultimately be an interrupt, but with modern OS's, you will likely see evidence of that interrupt as code that waits for a semaphore (or some other synchronization mechanism) as part of your "main loop".
So why do you want deterministic behavior? Consider the relative rates of processing of your user's inputs and the baddies AIs. If you put everything into a purely event based system, there's no guarantee that the AIs won't get more CPU time than your user, or the other way round, unless you have some control over thread priorities, and even then, you're apt to have difficulty keeping timing consistent.
Put everything in a loop, however, and you guarantee that your AIs time-lines are going to proceed in fixed relationship with respect to your user's time. This is accomplished by making a call out from your loop to give the AIs a timeslice in which to decide what to do, a call out to your user input routines, to poll the input devices to find out how your user wants to behave, and call out to do your rendering.
With such a loop, you have to watch that you are not taking more time processing each pass than actually goes by in real time. If you're trying to cycle your loop at 100Hz, all your loop's processing had better finish up in under 10msec, otherwise your system is going to get jerky. In real-time programming, it's called overrunning your time frame. A good system will let you monitor how close you are to overrunning, and you can then mitigate the processing load however you see fit.
An event listener is also dependent on some invocation loop whether you see it or not. Who else is going to call the listener?
Building an explicit game loop gives you absolute control on what's going on so you won't be dependent on whatever some toolkit/event handling library does in its event loop.
A game loop (highly simplified is as follows)
initialise
do
input
update
render
loop
clean up
This will happen every frame the game is drawn. So for games that run at 60fps the above is performed sixty times every second.
This means the game runs smoothly, the game stays in sync and the updates/draws per cycle happen frequently enough. Animation is simply a trick of the eye, objects move between locations but when played quickly enough they appear to be travelling between these locations.
If you were to only update on user input, the game would only react when the user was providing input. Other game components such as A.I game objects would not react on their own. A loop is therefore the easiest and best way of updating a game.
It's not true that all kind of games require a dedicated main game loop.
Action games need such a loop due to frequent object updates and game input precision.
On the other hand, I implemented a minesweeper game and I used window
messages for the notifications.
It's because current operating systems aren't fully event based. Even though things are often represented as events, you'll still have to create a loop where you wait for the next event and process it indefinitely (as an example the Windows event loop). Unix signals are probably the closest thing you get to events on an OS level, but they're not really efficient enough for things like this.
In practical terms, as other people have indicated, a loop is needed.
However, your idea is theoretically sound. You don't need a loop. You need event-based operations.
At a simple level, you can conceptualize the CPU to have a several timers;
one fires on the rising edge of 60Hz and calls the blitting code.
Another might be ticking at 60kHz and be rendering the latest updates of the objects in the game world to the blitter buffer.
Another might be ticking at 10kHz and be taking input from the user. (pretty high resolution, lol)
Another might be the game 'heartbeat' and ticks at 60MHz; AI and physics might operate at heartbeat time.
Of course these timers can be tuned.
Practically, what would be happening is your would be (somewhat elided) like this:
void int_handler1();
//...
int main()
{
//install interrupt handlers
//configure settings
while(1);
}
The nature of games is that they're typically simulations, and are not just reacting based on external events but on internal processes as well. You could represent these internal processes by recurring events instead of polling, but they're practically equivalent:
schedule(updateEvent, 33ms)
function updateEvent:
for monster in game:
monster.update()
render()
vs:
while 1:
for monster in game:
monster.update()
wait(33ms)
render()
Interestingly, pyglet implements the event-based method instead of the more traditional loop. And while this works well a lot of the time, sometimes it causes performance problems or unpredictable behaviour caused by the clock resolution, vsync, etc. The loop is more predictable and easier to understand (unless you come from an exclusively web programming background, perhaps).
Any program that can just sit there indefinitely and respond to user's input needs some kind of loop. Otherwise it will just reach the end of program and will exit.
The main loop calls the event listener. If you are lucky enough to have an event-driven operating system or window manager, the event loop resides there. Otherwise, you write a main loop to mediate the "impedance mismatch" between an system-call interfaces that is based on I/O, poll, or select, and a traditional event-driven application.
P.S. Since you tagged your question with functional-programming, you might want to check out Functional Reactive Programming, which does a great job connecting high-level abstractions to low-level, event-based implementations.
A game needs to run in real-time, so it works best if it is running on one CPU/core continuously. An event-driven application will typically yield the CPU to another thread when there is no event in the queue. There may be a considerable wait before the CPU switches back to your process. In a game, this would mean brief stalls and jittery animation.
Two reasons -
Even event driven systems usually need a loop of some kind that reads events from a queue of some kind and dispatches them to a handler so you end up with an event loop in windows for example anyway and might was well extend it.
For the purposes of animation you'd need to handle some kind of even for every frame of the animation. You could certainly do this with a timer or some kind of idle event, but you'd probably end up creating those in some kind of loop anyway so it's just easier to use the loop
directly.
I've seen systems that do handle it all using events, they have a frame listener that listens to an event dispatched at the start of each frame. They still have a tiny game loop internally but it does little more than handle windowing system events, and create frame events,