Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
On 12 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > May be anybody is willing to write something down in the wiki? > I guess this googles well too ... I've started a wiki page for Cmake, anyone can improve it, and some of the information is already out of date as Mathias and Fred improve stuff. James -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:50:18 -0500 Curtis Olson wrote: > Indeed, telling cmake you would like a release build seems to improve the > performance of the executable dramatically. I suppose it is good to ask > dumb questions once in a while so this basic information can get in the > archives and become google-able. Also worth pointing out is that if you choose a RelWithDebInfo build for OSG or SG and don't specify a null RelWithDebInfo postfix (which is what one of Matthias' lines does >-D CMAKE_RELWITHDEBINFO_POSTFIX="" ) then the SG and FG builds will fail unless you also point them to every individual OSG and SG lib required. By default the generated libs will have -rd (IIRC) appended to their names which confuses things. Thanks to Anders for clearing up that mystery for me the other day! AJ -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
Hi, On Monday, September 12, 2011 13:50:18 Curtis Olson wrote: > Indeed, telling cmake you would like a release build seems to improve the > performance of the executable dramatically. I suppose it is good to ask > dumb questions once in a while so this basic information can get in the > archives and become google-able. Sure! May be anybody is willing to write something down in the wiki? I guess this googles well too ... Mathias -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
2011/9/12 Mathias Fröhlich > I just set CC, CXX, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and export them. > Then cmake just takes them. This works just the same than with automake > too. > At least current cmake versions behave that way. Older ones were way harder > to > convince that I know my cflags :) > > Alternatively ccmake in the build directory or on win32 cmake-gui gives you > interactive access over all the build flags if you need. > As far as I know, You can also prepare a partly populated CMAkeCache.txt > into > the build directory. I think that the already provided values are taken > mostly > as is. > > Also I have checked in a default build type of release, which should > accelerate the default build. > > Part of my script to set up all flightgear related projects is about: > > export CFLAGS= ... > export CXXFLAGS= ... > > cmake \ >-D CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="RELWITHDEBINFO" \ >-D CMAKE_DEBUG_POSTFIX="" \ >-D CMAKE_MINSIZEREL_POSTFIX="" \ >-D CMAKE_RELEASE_POSTFIX="" \ >-D CMAKE_RELWITHDEBINFO_POSTFIX="" \ >-D CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=TRUE \ >-D CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$prefix \ >-D ENABLE_RTI="ON" \ >$srcdir > > Which should cover most of the interresting everyday cmake options. > Hi Mathias, Indeed, telling cmake you would like a release build seems to improve the performance of the executable dramatically. I suppose it is good to ask dumb questions once in a while so this basic information can get in the archives and become google-able. Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
Hi Curt, Durk, On Monday, September 12, 2011 07:45:49 Durk Talsma wrote: > based on my experience with building FlightGear from yesterday, I'd say > that cmake is a great tool and most likely a step forward. But. it does > take a little getting used to, in particular the finer details of compiler > optimizations, etc etc. I'll try to post my more details about my > experiences this evening (I'm not in front of my development machine right > now). > > FWIW, after my initial build, I also got very disappointing performance, > but after running a second build with all the settings right, I did got > performance levels that I think were even better than what I had before > (note, that in addition to switching for cmake, I also installed a > complete new distributions) I just set CC, CXX, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and export them. Then cmake just takes them. This works just the same than with automake too. At least current cmake versions behave that way. Older ones were way harder to convince that I know my cflags :) Alternatively ccmake in the build directory or on win32 cmake-gui gives you interactive access over all the build flags if you need. As far as I know, You can also prepare a partly populated CMAkeCache.txt into the build directory. I think that the already provided values are taken mostly as is. Also I have checked in a default build type of release, which should accelerate the default build. Part of my script to set up all flightgear related projects is about: export CFLAGS= ... export CXXFLAGS= ... cmake \ -D CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="RELWITHDEBINFO" \ -D CMAKE_DEBUG_POSTFIX="" \ -D CMAKE_MINSIZEREL_POSTFIX="" \ -D CMAKE_RELEASE_POSTFIX="" \ -D CMAKE_RELWITHDEBINFO_POSTFIX="" \ -D CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=TRUE \ -D CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$prefix \ -D ENABLE_RTI="ON" \ $srcdir Which should cover most of the interresting everyday cmake options. Greetings Mathias -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
Hi Curt, based on my experience with building FlightGear from yesterday, I'd say that cmake is a great tool and most likely a step forward. But. it does take a little getting used to, in particular the finer details of compiler optimizations, etc etc. I'll try to post my more details about my experiences this evening (I'm not in front of my development machine right now). FWIW, after my initial build, I also got very disappointing performance, but after running a second build with all the settings right, I did got performance levels that I think were even better than what I had before (note, that in addition to switching for cmake, I also installed a complete new distributions) Cheers, Durk On 12 Sep 2011, at 05:07, Curtis Olson wrote: > Sometime in the last week I noticed the Flightgear frame rates on my machine > went to about 1/3 of what they were previously. I haven't worked super hard > on this, but here's what I can say. > > When I fire up the Cub at --airport=KANE with clear skies I get: > > v2.4 = 90 fps (bounces around a bit but usually 90 or above) > git = 20-25 fps (same options, same aircraft, same clear skies.) > > This gets even worse when I fly the f-14b off the Vinson ... even out at sea > with just a few clouds it seems like my frame rates are usually less than 20 > (12-17 range) with the git version. > > Has anyone else noticed this or should I be looking for a local build problem? > > It doesn't seem to be related to my video driver update since v2.4 runs with > the frame rates I expect. > > I recently moved over to trying to build with cmake by default, but cmake > hides the compile options so I honestly don't know how to even check what > compile options I'm building with now that I switched to cmake. Can anyone > tell me how to figure that out? Is there a detailed build log that gets saved > somewhere? > > Thanks, > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: > http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ > http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org > > -- > Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop > What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses > from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops > provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable > virtual desktop > model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
Curtis Olson wrote: > I recently moved over to trying to build with cmake by default, but cmake > hides the compile options so I honestly don't know how to even check what > compile options I'm building with now that I switched to cmake. Can anyone > tell me how to figure that out? Is there a detailed build log that gets > saved somewhere? Add "-D CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=TRUE" and you'll get verbose output, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Frame rates in git version?
Sometime in the last week I noticed the Flightgear frame rates on my machine went to about 1/3 of what they were previously. I haven't worked super hard on this, but here's what I can say. When I fire up the Cub at --airport=KANE with clear skies I get: v2.4 = 90 fps (bounces around a bit but usually 90 or above) git = 20-25 fps (same options, same aircraft, same clear skies.) This gets even worse when I fly the f-14b off the Vinson ... even out at sea with just a few clouds it seems like my frame rates are usually less than 20 (12-17 range) with the git version. Has anyone else noticed this or should I be looking for a local build problem? It doesn't seem to be related to my video driver update since v2.4 runs with the frame rates I expect. I recently moved over to trying to build with cmake by default, but cmake hides the compile options so I honestly don't know how to even check what compile options I'm building with now that I switched to cmake. Can anyone tell me how to figure that out? Is there a detailed build log that gets saved somewhere? Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates...
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:40:10 +0200 Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I picked 30 because I argee that anyrhing over 30 is a waste > >> ...unless bragging about computer speed, of course, :)... > No. Anything over the sync rate of the monitor is a waste, but there is a > visible > difference between 30 and 60. > >> It makes autopilot behavior and tuning much easier (for me at > >> least ) , and can be easily changed if a user doesn't like it ... > Really, vsync should be the default. ok,60 then ? I mentioned this change because I'd much rather have a constant framerate (as much as possible) ,and I now have a system that can actually run FG at 30 fps :). On my old system it would go from 8 to 60 depending on scenery , etc . OSG doesn't vary as much, but I have to admit PLIB looks nicer, cleaner crisper textures , proper size splash screen , and so on AND , this was a change I could actually do something about instead of having to ask someone to do it for me :) Cheers -- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates...
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:41:04 +0100 "Vivian Meazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Syd&Sandy > > > Sent: 27 October 2007 01:08 > > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates... > > > > > > Hmm. That seems to make the stuttering worse here, even at 50hz. But perhaps > the interdependence of the autopilot and the frame rate needs fixing. > >Ah , ok, I didn't know iI caused more problems on other systems ... OK , >scrap that idea :) > > > Regards > > Vivian > Cheers -- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vivian Meazza wrote: > Syd&Sandy > >> Sent: 27 October 2007 01:08 >> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates... >> >> >> With a pending PLIB release come up >> Would now be a good to push for setting (again) ... >> >> >> 30 >> >> >> as default in the preference file ? >> >> I picked 30 because I argee that anyrhing over 30 is a waste >> ...unless bragging about computer speed, of course, :)... No. Anything over the sync rate of the monitor is a waste, but there is a visible difference between 30 and 60. >> It makes autopilot behavior and tuning much easier (for me at >> least ) , and can be easily changed if a user doesn't like it ... Really, vsync should be the default. Tim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHIyJceDhWHdXrDRURAlE0AJ9M55PH+Bl/kDlMIA9OR5JzXkczwQCfZv4i iUkpVXSrLMu50xdmmNXBOdE= =acC0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates...
Syd&Sandy > Sent: 27 October 2007 01:08 > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Flightgear-devel] frame rates... > > > With a pending PLIB release come up > Would now be a good to push for setting (again) ... > > > 30 > > > as default in the preference file ? > > I picked 30 because I argee that anyrhing over 30 is a waste > ...unless bragging about computer speed, of course, :)... > It makes autopilot behavior and tuning much easier (for me at > least ) , and can be easily changed if a user doesn't like it ... Hmm. That seems to make the stuttering worse here, even at 50hz. But perhaps the interdependence of the autopilot and the frame rate needs fixing. > And , of course , I'm still hoping for a multiplayer > sim/model/texture property putting that on my Xmas wish list :) Yup, I'm with you on this one. Regards Vivian - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] frame rates...
With a pending PLIB release come up Would now be a good to push for setting (again) ... 30 as default in the preference file ? I picked 30 because I argee that anyrhing over 30 is a waste ...unless bragging about computer speed, of course, :)... It makes autopilot behavior and tuning much easier (for me at least ) , and can be easily changed if a user doesn't like it ... And , of course , I'm still hoping for a multiplayer sim/model/texture property putting that on my Xmas wish list :) Cheers -- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates
On Fri 4 May 2007 08:52, Martin Spott wrote: > John Wojnaroski wrote: > > Is there any info/data on FG frame rates with OSG vis-a-vis previous > > plib versions running on comparable hardware? > > The last time when I compared FlightGear with PLIB scenegraph against > OpenSceneGraph, is several several months behind. With close to default > settings (I don't remember the details any more) I got almost the same > FPS numbers at the standard location using the standard aircraft - with > a slight plus for OSG. That was on AMD64, Radeon X800 and ATI's closed > source driver 8.28.8 (the one that comes with Debian Etch), > > Martin. I usualy , build both FG osg and G plib from the same release, mainly to check the model compatibility during development. i can confirm the Martin remark: olders fg osg and fg plib where giving almost the same performances. It seems recently (but unfortunately i cannot say exactly when, end of february ?) we have lost that performance regarding fg osg. As i said in my previous mail i now get a difference ratio of 2.5 which is very important :( Regards -- Gérard - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates
John Wojnaroski wrote: > Is there any info/data on FG frame rates with OSG vis-a-vis previous > plib versions running on comparable hardware? The last time when I compared FlightGear with PLIB scenegraph against OpenSceneGraph, is several several months behind. With close to default settings (I don't remember the details any more) I got almost the same FPS numbers at the standard location using the standard aircraft - with a slight plus for OSG. That was on AMD64, Radeon X800 and ATI's closed source driver 8.28.8 (the one that comes with Debian Etch), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates
Hi, Hi, Windows XP Nvidea GeForce 5200 ( the weakest); 512 Mb RAM, 2.8 GHZ. Plib: 25- 42 fps OSG: 19-37 fps OSG-Compilation from the 04-18-2007, used the standart aircrafts. With the ufo I can get fps fom 42 to 51. Much improvement since the beginning of OSG in FGFS Seems that it is depending on the operating system. I don't think that is a "believ" if you use Plib or OSG - wasn't FlightGear originally made for Plib? So there might be still a lot of rubbish, which do actually slower the simulation. I can still remember when I start with the release-version 0.9.10 - the fps was horrible. But the developement went on, I could use the CVS-versions and the fps increased- lots of clearence was made in this time. I don't think that a complete change of the renderengine can made in a few months just my two cents HHS --- John Wojnaroski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Hi, > > Is there any info/data on FG frame rates with OSG > vis-a-vis previous > plib versions running on comparable hardware? > > Running with the 23 Apr release of OSG and the > latest FG/SG software I'm > seeing frame rates around 22 fps. The same > configuration at KSFO with > plib and the 0.9.10 release produces ~65fps. > > I thought that while the initial performance of > OSG/FG when first > released was much slower there had been significant > improvements over > the course of the last few months?? Still a > believer in OSG, would just > like to see a bit higher frame rate. Might the > hardware requirements be > a bit higher? > > Wonderng if I might be missing some subtle points or > optimizations in > configuring the graphics systems for OSG? Running > with Debian X, linux > 2.6.17, and the latest Nvidia driver. > > Regards > John W. > > > - > 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 > ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Frame rates
On Fri 4 May 2007 01:12, John Wojnaroski wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any info/data on FG frame rates with OSG vis-a-vis previous > plib versions running on comparable hardware? > > Running with the 23 Apr release of OSG and the latest FG/SG software I'm > seeing frame rates around 22 fps. The same configuration at KSFO with > plib and the 0.9.10 release produces ~65fps. > > I thought that while the initial performance of OSG/FG when first > released was much slower there had been significant improvements over > the course of the last few months?? Still a believer in OSG, would just > like to see a bit higher frame rate. Might the hardware requirements be > a bit higher? > > Wonderng if I might be missing some subtle points or optimizations in > configuring the graphics systems for OSG? Running with Debian X, linux > 2.6.17, and the latest Nvidia driver. > > Regards > John W. > > May be this could help to get a comparison: "fg cvs with osg 2007-04-10 dated" versus "fg cvs plib 2007-04-10 dated" Openscenegraphe is cvs 2007-04-10 Plib is the last (old) stable version 1.8.4 I did run FG plib version with 3D clouds, shadow aircraft and object scenery. FG --geometry 1800x1450 32bpp Same scenery database , same flightplan, same aircraft i get 11 fps to 37 fps with osg 35 to 89 fps with plib graphic card Nvidia 7800GS 512 Mo Fedora Core 5 -- Gérard - 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
[Flightgear-devel] Frame rates
Hi, Is there any info/data on FG frame rates with OSG vis-a-vis previous plib versions running on comparable hardware? Running with the 23 Apr release of OSG and the latest FG/SG software I'm seeing frame rates around 22 fps. The same configuration at KSFO with plib and the 0.9.10 release produces ~65fps. I thought that while the initial performance of OSG/FG when first released was much slower there had been significant improvements over the course of the last few months?? Still a believer in OSG, would just like to see a bit higher frame rate. Might the hardware requirements be a bit higher? Wonderng if I might be missing some subtle points or optimizations in configuring the graphics systems for OSG? Running with Debian X, linux 2.6.17, and the latest Nvidia driver. Regards John W. - 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
