Csaba Halász wrote: > These are two questions as I see it. > James wants to *use* pulse while most users would be happy to just > have FG work *around* pulse. > For this latter case, I believe an alsoftrc with alsa driver and > dmix/dsnoop devices should be fine. >
I could work around pulse, by killing pulse, using flightgear and restarting pulse. But that seems a particularly unpleasant workaround. And as Martin points out, pulse does bring some direct benefit to Flightgear when you consider also FGCOM etc.. The problem with using pulse directly from openal, I suspect is most likely an openal or possibly pulse problem, doing a backtrace when it seems to be locked indicates the execution thread is waiting somewhere in the pulse library. I'll post a backtrace later anyway. The stuttering problem with using alsa->pulse, no idea. -- James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
