> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ralf Gerlich > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:23 AM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > > Hi, > > Gene Buckle wrote: > >>> Martin, the 300ms figure is really only applicable to a Level A > >>> simulator which is basically equivalent to a cockpit procedures > >>> trainer with no visuals. > >> Ok - that one makes sense. On the other hand, any type of 'tricky' > >> VFR flight with 300 ms delay, I'd expect even with 150 ms > would ruin > >> every pilot's nerves .... :-) > >> > > 150ms is the maximum allowed for a Level D certification. I don't > > know of any that were that slow. Even the > Conductron-Missouri 737-200 > > simulator I > > Hm, this sounds to me as if these _maximum_ numbers are > already unreasonably high and therefore obviously not a good > reference for discussing response times _acceptable to > users_, are they? > > Currently, due to problems which might be related to an OSG > update, FlightGear is running on my system with 10fps in some > areas, where I used to get 25fps and more, and I would say > that this is essentially unbearable. So I'd be saying that we > should be talking about a maximum delay which is well below 100ms. > > I won't enter this discussion, but just let me state for the > record that I'm clearly in favor of keeping the FDM with the client. >
If I remember correctly, the human eye can detect something less than about 15-20 fps. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
