Martin Spott wrote:
Russell Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Yea, that would be ideal but at the same time, that could be the kiss of death. If
[...] I'm curious because I have a friend that does research on a Cessna 172 simulator
that has an Onyx/IR with 3 channels. His simulator models are crap and his visual database is worse. I'm trying to talk
him into trying FlightGear but I have zero idea of what performance would be like.
It probably would be best if you simply ask him to try it out. And if
he really does, then we might be interested in the FlightGear
performance numbers and last but not least some information, on how
that box is equipped. For most SGI models you can choose from a range
of different CPU's and to my knowledge the Onyx is no exception (and it
might be worse than the Octane ....),,
it came in unusable for testing then that kills it. The visual database is horribly
inaccurate as to be unusable for certain experiments. As for worse performance
than the Octane, the table Erik referenced shows that pretty clearly. They have
an old Onyx with 4 R4000 chips. It was pretty hot... 12 years ago...
Thanks.
-- Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure of a system tends to mirror the
structure of the group producing it."
-- Mel Conway Datamation (1968)_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
