On Tuesday 06 November 2007 10:41, Tim Moore wrote:
> 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 FlightGear,
> 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.

The traffic manager subsystem itself not so much as the AIModels system that 
eventually drives it. In this respect, there is still a lot of room for 

A particular problem with the integrated solution is that both the traffic 
manager and the AI models code occasionally need peaks of CPU activity, in 
particular during flightplan creation. Although it would be possible to 
spread the load across multiple frames, doing so is a lot harder within 
flightgear than doing this as a separate program. 

> 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).
Agreed. I don't think that the integrated version will disappear soon. :-)


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