Curtis,
Finally getting somewhere on this issue. Using the Seahawk with Apr source
and data, performance is very satisfactory. Generally good frame rates, with
just the odd stagger, which judging by the odd video I have seen on YouTube,
seems to be the general case. Using cvs-head source and data, with
everything else the same, severe staggering, poor frame rates, virtually
unusable. Using cvs-head source, but reverting the data to Apr, although
that breaks quite a bit of fg, framerates are restored, and staggers are
back to "normal".
So, I think we are on to something with the nasal hypothesis. I'm now trying
to eliminate the scripts one by one. And kicking myself for not getting here
faster.
Vivian
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 September 2008 23:36
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear on 32 bits versus 64 bits system
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 5:23 PM, James Turner wrote:
On 22 Sep 2008, at 23:05, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> A binary search, which I'm also trying, takes days. At some point we
> left
> OSG 2.4, used an interim version, then migrated to osg 2.6. An osg
> rebuild
> here takes well over an hour. So far, I've come about halfway
> forward from
> Apr, which is the last-known-good I have. The total rebuild takes
> about
> 3hrs. I can manage to find time for about 1 a day in all.
Well, being selfish, one around the start of August would rule my
changes in or out - but if you're slogging through the binary search,
I'll leave you to it.
> I have no evidence that it's anything that you have done, although
> AJ might
> take a different view. Still have hash.c in my sights.
Well, hash.c might be to 'hot spot' but probably not the cause - AFAIK
is hasn't been touched in a good long time.
Here's another idea to toss into the mix ...
What aircraft is being flown in these tests? If hash.c looks like a
hotspot, that could also be triggered by an aircraft that had a lot of new
nasal code added. Or it could be newly added default system nasal code? I
don't know how much of FlightGear functions anymore without nasal, but
disabling the default nasal directory and picking an aircraft with little or
no embedded nasal code might also be an interesting test. We could possibly
have crossed a threshold in terms of the amount of nasal code used for some
particular aircraft?
Regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
