ClashImpactF vs Responsive Clash

ProffieOS
#1

Hi everyone. I’m having issues with a saber that i’d like to use Fett263’s “Real Clash V2” on, however, adding the code for real clash and flashing it causes awful performance of the saber, ignitions for example ignite as 4 segments rather than being a smooth wipe, and clashes freeze for a second before registering. On the other hand, using a much simpler “Responsive Clash” layer seems to resolve this issue if I then do a bulk change in the code and then re-flash the proffie. Any advice for how to improve performance?

Here’s the two pieces of code I am interchanging within a larger style:

Responsive Clash:
ResponsiveClashL<White,TrInstant,TrFade<400>,Scale<BladeAngle<0,16000>,Int<4000>,Int<26000>>,Int<6000>,Int<20000>>,

Real Clash V2
Mix<IsLessThan<ClashImpactF<>,Int<26000>>,TransitionEffectL<TrConcat<TrInstant,AlphaL<RgbArg<CLASH_COLOR_ARG,Rgb<255,255,255>>,Bump<Scale<BladeAngle<>,Scale<BladeAngle<0,16000>,Sum<IntArg<LOCKUP_POSITION_ARG,16000>,Int<-12000>>,Sum<IntArg<LOCKUP_POSITION_ARG,16000>,Int<10000>>>,Sum<IntArg<LOCKUP_POSITION_ARG,16000>,Int<-10000>>>,Scale<ClashImpactF<>,Int<12000>,Int<60000>>>>,TrFadeX<Scale<ClashImpactF<>,Int<200>,Int<400>>>>,EFFECT_CLASH>,TransitionEffectL<TrWaveX<RgbArg<CLASH_COLOR_ARG,Rgb<255,255,255>>,Scale<ClashImpactF<>,Int<100>,Int<400>>,Int<100>,Scale<ClashImpactF<>,Int<100>,Int<400>>,Scale<BladeAngle<>,Scale<BladeAngle<0,16000>,Sum<IntArg<LOCKUP_POSITION_ARG,16000>,Int<-12000>>,Sum<IntArg<LOCKUP_POSITION_ARG,16000>,Int<10000>>>,Sum<IntArg<LOCKUP_POSITION_ARG,16000>,Int<-10000>>>>,EFFECT_CLASH>>,

#2

Edited:
Check your SD performance. Most likely your SD card is too slow. Remove DISABLE_DIAGNOSTIC_COMMANDS define
Hook up to Serial Monitor
And type ‘sdtest’.
Then post results.
Laggy effects are almost always due to slow or poor performing SD.

#3 
23:21:37.890 -> Time to read blocks: Average speed: 1001.07 kb/s, 11.35 simultaneous audio streams.```
#4

Might be helpful to post the full config file to see if you have other things that’s slowing things down (or not).
Have you tried compiling with optimizations? (Often this takes too much memory though.)
Also, you can use the “top” command, it can show what is using CPU time, and it will tell us if it’s mostly the blade style, or if it’s other stuff as well.

#5

Apparently it’s working now?? I’m not sure what was causing it before, all I’ve done now is enable diagnostic commands and the performance issues are gone…

#6

So you could faithfully reproduce a performance difference before by going back and forth, but now with diagnostic commands enabled, all is well?
To further clarify what could be a double negative, do you mean that having
#define DISABLE_DIGNOSTIC_COMMANDS
active
or
commented out/removed
is what seems to “fix” the weirdness?