> It seems to me that you have gone backwards: you picked a favorite > "fix" before knowing what the problem is. The bottom line is that > performance analysis is really complicated. You can't cook it down to > a single number like CPU usage (or "load" -- a equally flawed Unix > favorite) if you really want to fix a problem. Hey Andy,
I know for a fact that FlightGear uses every available processor cycle. I also know that if I increase the priority of FlightGear, it takes cycles away from other processes. In my application, I need FlightGear to run at 640x480 res at 30 Hz (the output is a TV), but I've seen FlightGear run well at 1400x1050 and 60 Hz. Therefore, I *know* FlightGear is using much more CPU cycles than it needs, and I know that if there's a way to free up these extra cycles, I can run FlightGear at a higher priority without interrupting other processes. Does this not seem like a rational train of thought? I admit, I'm new to this type of performance optimization. What do *you* think the problem is? Drew _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
