[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: plot problem in 3.4.2 (was: Testing binaries of octave for windows (
From: |
Liam Groener |
Subject: |
Re: plot problem in 3.4.2 (was: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated) |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:55:01 -0700 |
On Jul 25, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Uwe Brauer <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Correction.
>
>> *******
>> I feel that on windows XP start up time is longer than that in win 7.
>> **********
> right it needs some 3 minutes to start up. There are 2
> things I have to mention
>
> - plotting is slow, and the connection to scite works
> but is even slower!
>
> - there is a problem with a special file which uses
> isosurface etc. I attach the code below.
>
> I have compiled version 3.4.2 for ubuntu and I have used
> your precompiled version in XP. For both version I obtain
> the same plot result. BTW the code does not work in 3.2.4!!
>
> However there are users on this list using version 3.4.2
> officially distributed by suse, they obtain a different
> plot, which is closer to the plot obtained by matlab.
>
> It is also possible to modify the code such that the plot is
> separated in subplots, these subplots are shown in all
> compiled version.
>
> I have attached the plot in question already on the list and
> therefore don't want to send it again.
>
>
> I am deeply puzzled and would like to ask for help.
>
> Uwe Brauer
>
> Code in question
>
> graphics_toolkit fltk
>
> [x,y,z]=meshgrid(-20:.5:20);
> function Psi=FdOn320(x,y,z)
> r=sqrt(x.^2+y.^2+z.^2);
> Psi=exp(-r./3).*(3*z.^2-r.^2).*2*sqrt(15/(120*pi))/81;
> end
> Psi=FdOn320(x,y,z);
> m=min(Psi(:));
> M=max(Psi(:));
> color=[1 1 0;1 0 1; 0 1 1;0 1 0;1 0 0; 0 0 1; 0 0 0];
> n=2;
> for i=1:n-1
> isovalue=m+i*(M-m)/n;
> fv = isosurface(x,y,z,Psi,isovalue);
> hpatch = patch(fv)
> isonormals(x,y,z,Psi,hpatch);
> Alphalevel=0.2+0.8*i/n;
> set(hpatch,'FaceColor',color(i,:),'EdgeColor','black')
> daspect([1,1,1])
> view(3);
> axis tight
> end
Just in regards to plot time, I have both 3.4 (the binary prepared by Julien
Salort) and 3.4.2 installed with MacPorts on my iMac. Running tic;test;toc,
where test.m is your file, I get 36.3 seconds with octave 3.4 and 1.3 seconds
with 3.4.2. Actually, in the later case, it takes a moment after the run
completes for the plot to display; I would guess the elapsed time was more like
3 seconds. I don't know why the big difference between 3.4 and 3.4.2. I would
guess some substantial improvement was made in fltk.
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, (continued)
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Andy Buckle, 2011/07/20
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Uwe Brauer, 2011/07/20
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Uwe Brauer, 2011/07/23
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2011/07/23
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2011/07/23
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Uwe Brauer, 2011/07/24
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2011/07/24
- Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Uwe Brauer, 2011/07/24
Re: Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2011/07/24
Re:Testing binaries of octave for windows (MinGW32) is updated, Nit Nit, 2011/07/26