The Max is 8Mb. The other settings will make you cry.
Is there anyway I can boost the memory allocaated for the frame buffer?
Ampere
On October 14, 2004 02:59, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Look in your *BIOS* settings. It isn't the AGP Aperture, it is the amount
> of main memory dedicated to graph
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 13 October 2004 23:47:
I haven't looked closely at the display list stuff. Are we being
careful to free the display lists when we free the associated objects
and remove them from the scene graph? Is this something that plib
should automat
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 13 October 2004 23:47:
> I haven't looked closely at the display list stuff. Are we being
> careful to free the display lists when we free the associated objects
> and remove them from the scene graph? Is this something that plib
> should automatically handle (bu
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> On October 13, 2004 09:44, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > You can't ask too much from an Intel Graphic processor. IIRC, it doesn't
> > use dedicated memory for textures and buffers, but rather your main memory.
> > My notebook, that features an ATI IGP, has a bios paramete
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> But to be honest I don't know that we actually ever used display lists,
> *unless* it was extremely early in the project before we got onboard
> with plib/ssg.
Maybe it didn't make it into the CVS but I certainly used DLists in all
the Windows executables I ever mad
Norman Vine wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
I haven't looked closely at the display list stuff. Are we being
careful to free the display lists when we free the associated objects
and remove them from the scene graph? Is this something that plib
should automatically handle (but maybe isn't be
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> I haven't looked closely at the display list stuff. Are we being
> careful to free the display lists when we free the associated objects
> and remove them from the scene graph? Is this something that plib
> should automatically handle (but maybe isn't because we ar
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Mathias Fröhlich -- Wednesday 13 October 2004 21:30:
My guess is that display lists are stored in the graphics cards memory which
is not that big with 32MB. That leads to graphics memory allocated via agp in
main memory. These accesses seem to be much slower. The dri dr
Simon Hollier wrote:
> I'm not whining, [...]
You were starting your argument by blaming the DRI drivers for the
Radeon9200. This is fact - read your own posting.
In the same posting you state that the machine swaps quite a lot but
you refuse to investigate if this might be related.
On the other
* Mathias Fröhlich -- Wednesday 13 October 2004 21:30:
> My guess is that display lists are stored in the graphics cards memory which
> is not that big with 32MB. That leads to graphics memory allocated via agp in
> main memory. These accesses seem to be much slower. The dri driver might be
> sc
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 16:51, Martin Spott wrote:
> Simon Hollier wrote:
> > > My guess is that display lists are stored in the graphics cards memory
> > > which is not that big with 32MB. That leads to graphics memory
> > > allocated via agp in main memory. These accesses seem to be much
> >
Simon Hollier wrote:
> > My guess is that display lists are stored in the graphics cards memory
> > which is not that big with 32MB. That leads to graphics memory allocated
> > via agp in main memory. These accesses seem to be much slower. The dri
> > driver might be screwed up too???
>
> I'm fai
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 15:30, Mathias FrÃhlich wrote:
> On Mittwoch 13 Oktober 2004 04:25, Simon Hollier wrote:
> > Well, I wish that were the case. Simgear/Flightgear/Plib fresh cvs as of
> > 20 minutes ago (just to be sure). I'm running XFree86 4.4RC2,2.6.5-7 as
> > per Suse 9.1 which mig
On Mittwoch 13 Oktober 2004 04:25, Simon Hollier wrote:
> Well, I wish that were the case. Simgear/Flightgear/Plib fresh cvs as of
> 20 minutes ago (just to be sure). I'm running XFree86 4.4RC2,2.6.5-7 as
> per Suse 9.1 which might be the difference. But as everything just works
> right now...I'm
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:44:36 +0200, Frederic wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
>
> > I have just downloaded 0.9.6. I thought there is supposed to be an
> > increase of frame rate? I'm still seeing 2fps/3fps for the 747's,
> > and an average of 6fps for other ai
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> I have just downloaded 0.9.6. I thought there is supposed to be an increase
> of frame rate? I'm still seeing 2fps/3fps for the 747's, and an average of
> 6fps for other aircrafts.
>
> Ampere
>
> Command used: /usr/local/FlightGear/bin/fgfs
> Parameters: no parameter
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I have just downloaded 0.9.6. I thought there is supposed to be an increase
of frame rate? I'm still seeing 2fps/3fps for the 747's, and an average of
6fps for other aircrafts.
Display lists are not a one thing solves all solution. Probably you have
other limiting fa
I have just downloaded 0.9.6. I thought there is supposed to be an increase
of frame rate? I'm still seeing 2fps/3fps for the 747's, and an average of
6fps for other aircrafts.
Ampere
Command used: /usr/local/FlightGear/bin/fgfs
Parameters: no parameters
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ lspci
...
:0
Simon Hollier wrote:
> If you want to spend your time hacking your system for the sake of DRI/X.org
> CVS...ATI is your choice!
>
> If you want to be up and running in 20 minutes without hassle and are
> willing to use closed source drivers...NVidia is your choice!
Please let me rephrase bec
Martin Spott writes:
Simon Hollier wrote:
I still wish I had bought Nvidia ;>
This sort of 'advertisement' is misleading because it bases on
incorrect assumptions. Better get your system right before posting such
nonsense.
Sorry, I must have missed the label on the Radeon box that mentioned get
Simon Hollier wrote:
> Running gprof(5 seconds of flightgear after loadup) shows 100+ milllion
> calls to std::Deque_iterator of FGTileEntry, and std::deque of FGTileEntry
> and FGDefferedModel. My system swaps like mad even with 512M.
This could be a sensible reason for your crippled frame-rat
Martin Spott writes:
Simon Hollier wrote:
I'm running 9200/Linux/DRI drivers... the crease patch was great (thanks!).
The DList patch gives me a frame rate of around 0.2 fps when I look at any
objects or change the view... it might as well segfault. [...]
[...]
Wishing I had chosen Nvidia so
22 matches
Mail list logo
