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 rendering of the display that is taking the time, or is it the math required to process the scene graph? Would using SSE/SSE2/AltiVec for the matrix operations make much of a difference?
Jonathan Polley On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:04AM, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 that if I were to move all >> non-display processing to its own processor that I wouldn't see much, if >> any, improvement in frame rate? That being said, What would it take to >> squeeze the last bit of FPS out of FlightGear? > >This is related to your graphics hardware. If the hardware is able to do >everything hardware accelerated, I don't see much speed improvement in >splitting up tasks between processors. > >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)? > >Erik > > >_______________________________________________ >Flightgear-devel mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > Of COURSE they can do that. They're engineers! _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
