Curtis L. Olson writes: > > Norman Vine writes: > > Curtis L. Olson writes: > > > > > > Think about this another way ... do a profile of flightgear. I bet > > > you will find that the graphics rendering portion of FlightGear takes > > > 90-95% of the entire application work load. > > > > FWIW here are my results from the last time I profiled FGFS trying > > to determine what percentage of time was actually spent drawing > > This was about a year ago, but I doubt if things have changed much > > > > > % cumulative self self total > > > time seconds seconds calls ns/call ns/call name > > > 59.20 0.74 0.74 40047 18478.29 19976.49 fgRenderFrame(void) > > > 20.00 0.99 0.25 39218 6374.62 6374.62 fgUpdateTimeDepCalcs(void) > > > 16.00 1.19 0.20 fgMainLoop(void) > > > > Norman > > Also we need to be careful to consider that actual profiling numbers > could vary drastically between platforms, video cards, cpus, operating > systems, video drivers, profiling tools :-), etc.
This is all very true, the above figures are on a 733mz machine with a geForce2 > And also it should be pointed out that FlightGear has a *very* CPU/time > expensive startup and initialization sequence. This also needs to be > considered when interpretting the profiling numbers. The longer you > run flightgear, the more the actual running app numbers will become > dominant, and the less dominant the initialization numbers will be. Note fgUpdateTimeDepCalcs() and fgMainLoop() are *only* called after all initialization is done, so if anything, they actually consumed a bit more then their recorded usage time whereas fgRenderFrame is the opposite :-) Cheers Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
