"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> Personally, I think that the idea of threading in the context of
> FlightGear is a *very* scary idea, especially from the standpoint of
> long term maintanence and keeping our code robust. I'd perhaps favor
> splitting our code out into separate applications that use
Martin Rosenau wrote:
Hello.
I found out that for each simulation step an usleep(93 ms) is done.
The screen is updated only every 64 simulation steps.
93 ms X 64 = ~7 seconds
I have no idea why the display is only updated ONLY every 64th
simulation step.
Textures are not the problem; I can
Hello.
I found out that for each simulation step an usleep(93 ms) is done.
The screen is updated only every 64 simulation steps.
93 ms X 64 = ~7 seconds
I have no idea why the display is only updated ONLY every 64th
simulation step.
Textures are not the problem; I can use "--disable-textures"
Andy Ross wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
I suspect the network stuff is coupled to the same loop as is the
screen display. Just a guess, though
It is. Everything except for terrain tile I/O is driven out of the
main loop. Probably something that should be fixed...
Note that we're
Martin Spott wrote:
> I suspect the network stuff is coupled to the same loop as is the
> screen display. Just a guess, though
It is. Everything except for terrain tile I/O is driven out of the
main loop. Probably something that should be fixed...
Note that we're going to have to start thi
Martin Rosenau wrote:
> I think it is not only a problem of graphics. Even the network stuff
> (e.g. "props" at TCP port 5501) has 8 seconds delay.
I suspect the network stuff is coupled to the same loop as is the
screen display. Just a guess, though
> I use an Elite-3D-m6 card.
As far as
I'd expect that you need something in the XVR-1000 range and I don't
know if that fits into an Ultra5.
Hello.
I think it is not only a problem of graphics. Even the network stuff (e.g.
"props" at TCP port 5501) has 8 seconds delay.
This should be capable of carrying a graphics board that qua
Martin Rosenau wrote:
> Someone said that it is no problem to run FlightGear even on an Ultra-5
> machine.
This could have been my statement, but in this form it is incomplete.
I _do_ expect that the CPU of an Ultra5 is sufficient for running
FlightGear _but_ you have to have an appropriate grap
Hello.
Someone said that it is no problem to run FlightGear even on an Ultra-5
machine.
I run FlightGear on a Blade 1000 with an 750 MHz UltraSparc processor
(this is equal to a Pentium machine with 2,3 or 3 GHz speed).
The screen refreshes every 8 seconds. Any keyboard input requires 8
seco
