Hi All! The new rembrandt project is really cool, it seems to be the eyecandy that's currently missing. I check for new and watch the youtube updates quite regularly, mostly clips of fred etc. (wish there we some more hehe)
However,I'm not that happy with performance (FPS) with or without rembrandt and in my humble opinion my hardware is not outdated, My machine: Core i7 920 2.8 ghz 24 Gbyte ram ocz vertex 2 and sandforce SSD storage 4x 1 tbyte SATA ATI 5870 Asus Xonar d2x soundcard I often choose to fly in areas with very little or non exciting scenery, basically because when i do my frames per second either fluctuate too heavily, and gameplay stutters which is quite annoying and setting max fps to the lowest stable number isn't really a preferred option as the lowest value is simply to low for smooth simulation/gameplay. Or simply because i find performance too low (e.g. 20 - 30 fps), e.g. KSFO, EHAM the more 'advanced' scenery. When i do fly in those areas i basically disable all the eyecandy you want on, random vegetation, buildings (has been improved indeed) and 3d clouds, things that make the world look more real just to have that bit of extra performance to keep things running as smooth as possible. Though as many of the people that have this comment in regards of the frames per second performance, my programming skills and knowledge of the internal workings of FG, OSG, SimGear are lacking quite a bit, and investigation and testing of this would go dramatically slow and bad if this was up to me. Though i do have a question in relation to this: Is there a benchmarking tool/setup for flightgear? For example a preconfigured/prerecorded flight with fixed variables (weather, time, fov, etc), fixed nr of frames. Basically everything fixed except rendering options and that it measures how long it takes to render/run and calculate the average FPS? People would be able to compare this value, and one would not be comparing apples with pears. Everybody ran the same benchmark/flight. It would be very helpful in determining if some change brought improvement or made performance worse by a proper measuring instead of staring at the FPS counter in the bottom of the screen during gameplay and 'estimating' if things improved or not. And a more simple second question, what do the developers accept as proper performance (value) in regards of frames per second. Perhaps i demand/expect too much, but 20 - 30 fps i find rather disappointing, flight is far from smooth at such numbers, but others might find that (more then) ideal. (rembrandt though not really the focus of my email cuts my performance generally in 2, 8 - 15 fps at EHAM when lucky). This was my penny Kindest Regards and happy flying Rob - EViLSLT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Hofman" <e...@ehofman.com> To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:12:36 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] An empassioned plea On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:33 +0000, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > What *is* the baseline hardware fg ought to be aiming at? > > I guess in practice every developer works such that stuff runs well on his > own system. What else can we do? I'm not buying a second computer just to > test how it would run on a Mac. > > > Advances in quality always requires more resources. Period. If your > > hardware doesn't support it, bad for you but be grateful FlightGear at > > least provides an option to turn to less nifty rendering. > > Actually, as Stuart or Mathias have demonstrated here, that's not always > true. We seem to be getting more random buildings for less framerate impact > for instance. Same was true with the clouds or with the geodinfo() which > suddenly was a factor 50 faster. There could sometimes be room for improvement but that is only because of slightly less optimal use of resources in the current implementation. But in general the argument sticks. Don't get me wrong; every improvement is great (and welcome) but it is silly to expect (or almost demand) Rembrandt to run on older hardware. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
