Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Maybe we need separate options, such as > --cpu-friendly-inaccurate-throttle-with-sleep-hz= and > --frame-rate-accurate-throttle= > > Thoughts? I think we need to tread a bit more carefully on this one, > especially since I have a side project that employs this option (well, > used to employ this option) :-( to achieve accurate frame rate timing > and smooth animation.
What was the original bug report? Currently, FlightGear will look CPU-limited to the OS, which means that short running or I/O bound processes will get priority anyway. What is the application that needs extra CPU, and are we sure that it's not being performance limited in some other way? Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
