On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:33 +0000, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > What *is* the baseline hardware fg ought to be aiming at? > > I guess in practice every developer works such that stuff runs well on his > own system. What else can we do? I'm not buying a second computer just to > test how it would run on a Mac. > > > Advances in quality always requires more resources. Period. If your > > hardware doesn't support it, bad for you but be grateful FlightGear at > > least provides an option to turn to less nifty rendering. > > Actually, as Stuart or Mathias have demonstrated here, that's not always > true. We seem to be getting more random buildings for less framerate impact > for instance. Same was true with the clouds or with the geodinfo() which > suddenly was a factor 50 faster.
There could sometimes be room for improvement but that is only because of slightly less optimal use of resources in the current implementation. But in general the argument sticks. Don't get me wrong; every improvement is great (and welcome) but it is silly to expect (or almost demand) Rembrandt to run on older hardware. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
