John Denker wrote:
This morning I did a git-pull and make.
I observe that the new version executes in 855 megabytes under
conditions where the previous version from a week or two ago
executed in only 450 megabytes.
That seems kinda extravagant.
Is everybody else seeing the same
Erik,
Erik Hofman wrote:
John Denker wrote:
On 01/27/2009 12:15 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Alright, I've updated JSBSim now, including a number of engine files.
The following files might need some attention though, since they are not
in JSBSim CVS:
Mmmmh, did you make a plan to take
Martin Spott wrote:
Overall, I think some day the crowd should start making up their mind
about wether relying on an externally maintained FDM is still the way
to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ FlightGear might return a much
higher benefit at reduced effort.
I more concerned about
From: Martin Spott [mailto:martin.sp...@mgras.net]
Overall, I think some day the crowd should start making up their mind
about wether relying on an externally maintained FDM is still the way
to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ FlightGear might return a much
higher benefit at reduced
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Is there sometimes confusion as to how or where to apply changes to JSBSim
code or aircraft models? Do we need to work on easing the process of
integration into FlightGear? More frequent synchs? (we'd need additional
volunteers, and/or I'd have to step in - I don't want
Hi Jon,
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
From: Martin Spott [mailto:martin.sp...@mgras.net]
Overall, I think some day the crowd should start making up their mind
about wether relying on an externally maintained FDM is still the way
to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ FlightGear might return a
Erik Hofman wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Overall, I think some day the crowd should start making up their mind
about wether relying on an externally maintained FDM is still the way
to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ FlightGear might return a much
higher benefit at reduced effort.
On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Martin Spott wrote:
Hi Jon,
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
From: Martin Spott [mailto:martin.sp...@mgras.net]
Overall, I think some day the crowd should start making up
their mind about wether relying on an externally maintained
FDM is still the way to go.
Erik Hofman wrote:
The main problem is the lack of an authoritative repository:
There would have been a sufficient number of hooks to communicate
accordingly if the FlightGear Base Package were _not_ considered to be
the 'authoritative' repository for FlightGear aircraft - no matter
which FDM
From: LeeE [mailto:l...@spatial.plus.com]
How difficult would it be to make available multiple versions of
FDM, which could then be specified in the aircraft configuration?
The appropriate FDM (UIUC/JSBSim/YASim/Balloon) has to be loaded
after the aircraft config has been read, so why can't
On Wednesday, 28. January 2009, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Is there sometimes confusion as to how or where to apply changes to JSBSim
code or aircraft models? Do we need to work on easing the process of
integration into FlightGear? More frequent synchs? (we'd need additional
volunteers, and/or I'd
On 01/28/2009 02:25 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
I didn't check it myself yet, but every once in a while I have to do a
'make clean' before 'make install' for this sort of things (both for
Simgear and FlightGear)
Good advice; thanks.
Alas after doing that, the memory bloat remains, as bad as
On Wednesday, 28. January 2009, John Denker wrote:
On 01/28/2009 02:25 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
I didn't check it myself yet, but every once in a while I have to do a
'make clean' before 'make install' for this sort of things (both for
Simgear and FlightGear)
Good advice; thanks.
Alas
On 01/28/2009 09:55 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
bloat is a hard word for something, which you did not even measure yet. The
VIRT column of top is basically useless for getting the memory usage. It's
just the virtual address space allocated to that process. That includes:
* memory allocated
John Denker wrote:
On 01/28/2009 09:55 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
bloat is a hard word for something, which you did not even measure yet.
The
VIRT column of top is basically useless for getting the memory usage. It's
just the virtual address space allocated to that process. That includes:
On Wednesday, 28. January 2009, John Denker wrote:
Ridiculing the bug report will not make the bug go away.
I did not want to ridicule the report in any way. Apologies if it came like
that. I just wanted to point out, that measuring memory usage unfortunately
is not as easy as it looks (no,
On 01/28/2009 10:20 AM, Tim Moore wrote:
Alternatively, try
starting with /sim/rendering/random-vegetation set to false.
Bingo.
That makes a huge difference. VIRT = 371 instead of 888.
I imagine there are a lot of trees around KASE...
Yes.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:31 AM, John Denker wrote:
On 01/28/2009 10:20 AM, Tim Moore wrote:
Alternatively, try
starting with /sim/rendering/random-vegetation set to false.
Bingo.
That makes a huge difference. VIRT = 371 instead of 888.
I imagine there are a lot of trees around
I noticed a change too after updating yesterday
I tried several times to fly online around KSFO , and after 10 - 15 minutes
, I came to a stop midair while the hard drive thrashed away ... I finally
had to kill X to get back some control over my system ...
It definately wasn't like this
syd adams wrote:
I noticed a change too after updating yesterday
I tried several times to fly online around KSFO , and after 10 - 15
minutes , I came to a stop midair while the hard drive thrashed away
... I finally had to kill X to get back some control over my system ...
It
Thanks Michael, I'll try it out ...
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Michael D. Smith mdsmi...@highland.netwrote:
syd adams wrote:
I noticed a change too after updating yesterday
I tried several times to fly online around KSFO , and after 10 - 15
minutes , I came to a stop midair
This is probably unrelated to the issue at hand, but I have a question
on a piece of code in tilemgr.cxx
bool FGTileMgr::scenery_available(double lat, double lon, double range_m)
{
// sanity check (unfortunately needed!)
if ( lon = -180.0 || lon = 180.0 || lat = -90.0 || lat = 90.0 )
I wrote:
Cruising at FL300 yesterday, and FL310 today, in the Citation-Bravo,
I notice what looks like a scenery tile loading problem (see the
so-named screenshots below, and notice the white areas near the
horizon).
Martin Spott wrote:
Just a few guesses: Did you install the Scenery tiles
23 matches
Mail list logo
