> Wait, that's not a bug report about processing time available for > other proceses at all. That's a bug report about the total CPU usage > being at 99%, which is irrelevant. If the CPU is available, then of > course FlightGear should use it all; you can't save up cycles -- > either use them now or let them go to waste.
I don't think anyone suggested there was a bug...I'm just trying to improve performance. I'm writing a simulator that interfaces with FlightGear, using FlightGear as the scenery generator on the same PC. The program runs great, it's just that FlightGear gets interrupted easily by other programs, and is jumpy in my particular application. If you open and close a window, you can see how FlightGear freezes momentarily. What I want to do is bump up the priority of FlightGear so that it is more robust. The problem I'm having is that once I do, everything else comes to a screeching halt. Therefore, I want FlightGear to be more conservative with its processor usage, so I can increase its priority without adversely affecting other processes. I don't understand what you mean about 'using them or let them go to waste'. If it takes FlightGear 10 ms to execute a frame, and I only need a frame time of 33 ms, what gain is there in FlightGear hijacking those other 23 ms, even if it is just idle time? Just because it's taking those cycles doesn't mean it's using them productively. Drew _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
