> Tim Moore wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> > I really think, setting up a mp-client which feeds traffic is the right way 
> > to 
> > go. That way it does not matter, if the traffic is real or 
 artificial. And 
> > best of all, flightgear itself does not need any changes at all.
> I'd be a bit concerned about the performance implications of this
 approach. If the intent is to run this program on the same machine as 
> then 
 there will need to be a fair amount of tuning to make sure that the
> real-time 
 FlightGear performance isn't affected and that the AI program isn't starved at 
the same
> time.
 My impression is that the traffic manager is quite CPU intensive; perhaps 
that's skewed
 by initialization costs.
> It's still a good idea to have a separate program as an option, and
 many people have several computers laying around. But do think about the single
> machine 
 case too, especially in the context of wanting to work well on three
> operating 
 systems (Unix, Windows, OS X).

I would think that the big benefit of having an MP client feeding traffic is 
that we'd only need one traffic client for all the people connected to MP 
around the world.

Personally, I think that out-weighs the performance implications for those 
people not connected to MP who want AI traffic and who have to run a client 
locally. Having a separate client for traffic also has the benefit of allowing 
the user to prioritize my own flying over that of the AI traffic. I'd rather 
have the AI traffic stutter than my own aircraft.


Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to