Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box (Read 1191 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Hello

When i converting, before in my windows of converting i have one text example
"Converting .....1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 / 13"
Now i have ONLY
"Converting..... " (and nothing after)

This is more strange, because i converting some abums WITH vers 1.4b6 and i have
converting .... 1,2,3 (etc)

And mysterious, i modify nothing, i have just converting only when this bugs appars
 
I verify have my 8 cores, its good (in my taskbar), all is ok exept this

Os Win7 (no sp1), x64 8gb of ram, many ram free (7gb) and PORTABLE version use

One idea ?
(file or parameter config)
or one dll (api-ms-...) , i use only 21 of total pack
and i not use PP-UPW-Interop.Dll (why usage of this ?)

 make one reset of my config, arrggh no if possible  :-[

Ps: I'll make a other version portable full new in my C:\ for tests, i copy  flac.exe becease need for test.
I put ALLs dlls, ans i have exactly same bug (Only text "Converting....." and nothing after ....arggh
Regards

Re: 1.4b6 Lost numbers of converting box

Reply #1 –
Yess i found (solved)
 it's a new bug and exactly in module named:
foo_converter.dll

I get the old final version 1.37 of "foo_converter.dll" and i put in my new foobar beta 1.40 beta 6

an now i have the good print when converting
"Converting - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 / 13 ..."

developpers if possible fix this print bug , many's thank's

ps i use win7 (no sp1) x64, and i7

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #2 –
It's not a bug, it was an intentional reduction of what's known as "information overload".

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #3 –
Hello Kode54,

"It's not a bug, it was an intentional reduction of what's known as "information overload"."
 
Information overload  :o
to know when you have in 8 cores (or more) know number files in progress ?
 
It's use how bytes of code (size & cpu) this function  ?
 
For me i really need for see files number "in progress", and it's use no space of printing and i have this info in other location.
 
Very bad idea for me  >:(

Or give choice "activate or no" this function in menu configure / settings (etc...), here ok, but no erase it


 
But thank's for your response.

I keep the old version of this DLL, its not cool, because the new version erase file not make complete, the old no.

Regards,

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #4 –
The developer eliminated it because he was seeing information overload on his personal system, where he has two 8 core (16 thread) processors, so it was encoding 32 files simultaneously.

Maybe it would be helpful to report how many files are going at once as a number, rather than a gigantic track list, in cases like that?

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #5 –
Or maybe using ranges. Maybe a range from first to last, disregarding that files in between may have been completed - or maybe "x files left".

But as CPUs have gotten faster, the time spent after the status bar is "full" make things a bit non-informative. Just tested with a long track:
ETA 0:25; at 0:25 it actually has full bar and the estimate is still at 0:25, projecting to be done in less than a second;
Then it spends 15 more seconds at 0 speed until it shows the status report.
I assume it is verifying the file (good!), but maybe it should say so, rather than leaving the user to worry if there is something wrong.

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #6 –
I'm missing the track members too, please give it back.

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #7 –
Porcus, the progress dialog shows the status of feeding the encoder. It can reach the end before encoding even starts if you use a temporary file. And pipes have buffers too so encoders can have all the data they need much sooner than they are done encoding. It's impossible to monitor the progress of actual encoding without somehow hijacking the encoder binary and try to read its internal state.

Anakunda, Jpt: why do you think you need to see the indexes of tracks? What useful purpose did it serve? The converter will work on as many files at once as has been specified and it will inform you when it's done.

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #8 –
I could see how many threads are utilized.  It was useful to see the system stress on demanding conversions like multichannel SACD.

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Or maybe using ranges. Maybe a range from first to last, disregarding that files in between may have been completed - or maybe "x files left".

But as CPUs have gotten faster, the time spent after the status bar is "full" make things a bit non-informative. Just tested with a long track:
ETA 0:25; at 0:25 it actually has full bar and the estimate is still at 0:25, projecting to be done in less than a second;
Then it spends 15 more seconds at 0 speed until it shows the status report.
I assume it is verifying the file (good!), but maybe it should say so, rather than leaving the user to worry if there is something wrong.
and adds try for example
with  bigs with my personnal options flac in parameters (compress max)
-s  --ignore-chunk-sizes --best --no-padding -e -p  - -o %d
you say me after, if you have this speed results  ;)

Pse devs:
 put a choice in box in menu for have or not the numbers, thank's
i'm not only to ask

Re: 1.4b6 Lost nembers of converting box

Reply #10 –

Quote from: kode54 on
The developer eliminated it because he was seeing information overload on his personal system, where he has two 8 core (16 thread) processors, so it was encoding 32 files simultaneously.

Maybe it would be helpful to report how many files are going at once as a number, rather than a gigantic track list, in cases like that?
if you want, but nothing info , no
or 16 tracks max if you want ? (no 32) in your exemple with big pc