Jonathan Polley wrote:
Hello all,
I am asking this question from the standpoint of the benefits of a
dual-processor computer in running FlightGear. Enabling threading will
yield more stable frame rates, but how much work can be offloaded onto
the second processor? Is it save to guess
One thing you could try is running JSBSim on the same machine in stand
alone mode and connect it to FlightGear using the network interface (is
this already possible)?
There is an experiment that is sort of in-work, but not fully staffed.
Jon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic
Jon Berndt writes:
One thing you could try is running JSBSim on the same machine in stand
alone mode and connect it to FlightGear using the network interface (is
this already possible)?
There is an experiment that is sort of in-work, but not fully staffed.
I think that's a
I have been using the remote display interface for quite some time, using a
proprietary aircraft model. Since the frame rates were basically the same as when I
was using an internal model, I expected that the CPU usage was not impacted by that
component. Does anyone know if it is the actual
Jonathan Polley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] Does anyone know if it is the actual rendering
of the display that is taking the time, or is it the math required to
process the scene graph?
I'm running FlightGear on an SGI Octane MXI (supplied with the recommended
texture cache RAM, so called
Martin Spott writes:
I'm running FlightGear on an SGI Octane MXI (supplied with the recommended
texture cache RAM, so called TRAM). Besides, this machine employs a cross
bar switch to connect CPU, RAM and display (which provides a theoretical
bandwidth of 1.6 GByte/sec) and has two parallel
