On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:30 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:31:29 -0500
> From: "John Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some thoughts and ideas (LONG)
> To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Re: priority on fast frame rates -- I've always had a problem with
> the idea of frame rates faster than the display refresh speed - I've
> seen plenty of Quake III benchmarks that claim 150-300 fps, which
> technically is impressive, but as far as actual usage, seems pretty
> useless on a display that only updates 80 fps at best. Get FG up
> around 60-80 fps (on a 2ghz machine + GeForce2/64mb or better) with
> most if not all the "eye candy" options turned on, and I'll be very
> happy.
The quake engine uses framerates for its calculations, so faster is
always better, even if the display can't use it. The fraggers always
used to complain when someone else is jumping all around them 'cause
their framerate was higher ;). As well, there is some modulo framerate
that is optimal (125 from memory).
I don't know how fgfs uses it, so can't comment.
Sorry if my comments came out negative, I didn't mean them to be. I was
just offering another viewpoint from someone who uses fgfs more for
things like IFR nav practice, rather than zooming about shooting at
things ("not that there's anything wrong with that"--Seinfeld). I
totally agree that eyecandy should be able to be included, as long as
it is a configurable option for those who don't want it, either in the
make stage or in the startup stage.
Nick
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
