- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stockill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance analysis
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Norman Vine wrote:
>
> > FWIW It has always seemed pretty big to me and I definate
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 18:56, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> David Megginson writes:
> > Continuous LOD is probably a non-starter for us -- at least, the
> > implementations I've read about assume a regular elevation grid with a
> > simple texture mapped on top, and that doesn't describe the way we
> > mo
I did some profiling of flightgear because I'd like to
optimize performance of the terrain culling + rendering which is bad
when terrain fog is far, that mean when there is a lot to render and
cull in the scene graph.
Performance is fine with the default fog distance though but it gets
very bad wh
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 17:14, David Megginson wrote:
> Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
>
> > There was a discussion quite a while back about decreasing the
> > terrain level of detail (LOD) as the terrain distance increased so
> > that frame rates could be increased. Do you know if that LOD
> > concep
cover a lot of screen reale state and because they are blended into
> the background they burn heavily into your pixel fill budget.
>
I disabled it with --disable-clouds for the profiling
> Regards,
>
> Curt.
>
>
> Michael Pujos writes:
> > I did some profiling of f
I did some profiling of flightgear because I'd like to
optimize performance of the terrain culling + rendering which is bad
when terrain fog is far, that mean when there is a lot to render and
cull in the scene graph.
Performance is fine with the default fog distance though but it gets
very bad wh
Hi
I built with VC++ 6.0 FlightGear 0.9.1 with pthread
support for the tile loader using pthread-win32 2002-11-04
At execution an assert fails in
SGMutex::unlock().
So my question is if anyone had this working ? Or
does it work only built with cygwin ?
Is it stable and does it work well
