I'm noticing some very significant performance differences running the master build vs. the next build on my old, slow machine. Here's a quick table of fps rates, taken while sitting on the default runway at SFO in the 172, using no command-line startup options:
master: no material shaders = 20 fps master: material shaders = 19 fps master: material shaders, shadows = 15 - 20 fps master: material shaders, shadows, 3D clouds = 10 fps next: no material shaders = 20 fps next: material shaders = 5 fps next: material shaders, 3D clouds = 4 fps As you can see, going to the next build causes a significant performance hit. The difference is great enough that I can routinely have shadows turned on when running master and can even play with 3D clouds at cruising altitude, but when running next I have to turn off material shaders completely in order to fly. Is this just a reflection that the next code is not optimized yet, or are the developers introducing new features in the basic material shaders implementation that are reducing performance? I hope you'll keep this in mind as development of local weather moves forward (the clouds look great, BTW). For reference, my system is running Kubuntu 10.10 (maverick), AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2500+, 1833 MHz, nVidia GeForce FX 5500, 1 G memory. Cathy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
