Erik Hofman wrote: >Harald JOHNSEN wrote: >> Alberico, James F wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have been tracking down the cause of an FGFS access violation that
>>> occurs when attempting to use 1-arcsec scenery data for a tile >>> generated in TerraGear to have 40000 nodes. Granted, this may be >>> extremely ambitious from a performance standpoint, and may prove to >>> be completely infeasible. However, I am very interested in knowing >>> the current limits and pushing hard on them. >Hi Jim, >It good to see some big names showing up on the list. This might give >the project a boost to get to the next level. You certainly mean Harald, not me, unless you are commenting on the ugly format of my name here. :-) >>> What I think I've learned so far from debugging: ... ... >At this point Curtis is the one who is most involved in these things. He >is attending the MathWorks International Aerospace and Defense >Conference 2005 and will be back tomorrow. It might be best to send him >a private copy of your mail also. That's a good idea. Thanks. Harald JOHNSEN wrote: >> I think that the only side effect will be that your new binary will be >> incompatible with current scenario files, >> perhaps that changing short to unsigned short could be enought. Erik Hofman wrote: >Curtis already mentioned he wanted to change the layout of the tiles >which probably breaks backward compatibility. So if it would be >necessary this change could be adopted as well. Thanks, Harald and Erik. An unsigned short for that item would help me for my specific purpose. Curt and others can determine which direction to take the project. A key question will be whether 65k or even 32k nodes far exceeds any reasonable performance expectations for the foreseeable future. Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
