Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
On Saturday, 8 January 2005 14:02, Dave Martin wrote: Target: 1024x768x32bpp / 35fps. AMD Sempron 2200 (1.5Ghz 333FSB, 256kb cache 32bit) 256MB PC2700 DDR GeForce FX5200 128MB (128bit mem bus) What do you think? Could the above system make the target res / fps or does it need more ram / better gpu / cpu etc? The FX5200 is the weakest link but it should do the job. I'm getting at least 30 FPS at SFO on a similar system. Normally my frame rates are between 40 and 50 FPS. AMD AthlonXP 2000+ (1.67 Ghz; 266 MHz FSB; L1/128K L2/256K) 256MB PC3200 (DDR400) Geforce Ti 4200 128MB BTW : 35 fps is pretty high - I found that 25 fps is still smooth enough unless you're doing barrel rolls at 360 degrees per second. What I can't figure out is why people insist on running FG on ancient *nix boxes at 3fps when they can get a really cheap PeeCee that will do the job 10 times faster. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 12:37, Jon Stockill wrote: I think you'd struggle to maintain 35FPS in complex scenery areas with the 5200 - although you could probably replace that with an older GeForce4 card of a higher spec or about the same price. The motherboard/CPU is perfectly adequate though - I've run flightgear on far less. Thanks for that info. I had a suspicion that the GPU could be a sticking point. I'm trying to price it up with all-new components so that someone can 'follow in my footsteps' (or not if it comes to nowt) Obviously, the Ti4xxx series is no longer available 'off the shelf' and their equivalent is that FX5600 / FX5700 series. - I only just noticed that the 5200's have roughly half the transistor count of the Ti4xxx / FX56/5700s :-O The FX53,5500s are the same deal with only 45mil transistors :-/ So I'm either going to need to get lucky with the suppliers or the price must go up. There is always NVCLOCK http://www.linuxhardware.org/nvclock/ but that usually leads to 'molten-gpu-syndrome' ;-) The goal of this idea is a projected panorama system (min 3 screens) and then possibly a modular cockpit system (convertible from an SEP all the way to a Multi / Jet). For projection, I'm looking at building projectors myself. This will be my third design; I've already constructed an OHP based one and a higher-quality linear projector. I hope to be using cold LED illumination. - Suprisingly, LED lightsources are now feasable as there are 1-Watt(!) white LEDs with built-in collimators on the market. You would, of course, require several banks of these. Soon, there will be 5-Watt(!!) LEDs on the market of the same design. For 'enclosed' or semi-darkroom projection, this is ample. Here is an example of a compact 'cold' projector using 1-Watt collimator LEDs: http://www.cyfinity.com/fgfs/lensview1_sml.jpg (not my design). Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
Paul Surgeon wrote: What I can't figure out is why people insist on running FG on ancient *nix boxes at 3fps when they can get a really cheap PeeCee that will do the job 10 times faster. First of all I don't insist on running FlightGear on my O2. But I do use it for that sometimes. Now for the reason, when I bought my O2 seven (!!) years ago I could run FlightGear at the same framerate as I do nowadays. I think that's good. It keeps development within sane borders. Actually I consider my O2 a reference platform for FlightGear, if it can handle the program at 5 fps or more, it runs great for every rather modern PC. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
On Saturday 08 Jan 2005 13:08, Paul Surgeon wrote: The FX5200 is the weakest link but it should do the job. I'm getting at least 30 FPS at SFO on a similar system. Normally my frame rates are between 40 and 50 FPS. AMD AthlonXP 2000+ (1.67 Ghz; 266 MHz FSB; L1/128K L2/256K) 256MB PC3200 (DDR400) Geforce Ti 4200 128MB BTW : 35 fps is pretty high - I found that 25 fps is still smooth enough unless you're doing barrel rolls at 360 degrees per second. What I can't figure out is why people insist on running FG on ancient *nix boxes at 3fps when they can get a really cheap PeeCee that will do the job 10 times faster. Paul Can I ask what resolution / colour depth you would typically be running FlightGear at? Thanks Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:37:23 + Jon Stockill wrote: I think you'd struggle to maintain 35FPS in complex scenery areas with the 5200 - although you could probably replace that with an older GeForce4 card of a higher spec or about the same price. The motherboard/CPU is perfectly adequate though - I've run flightgear on far less. I was going to comment on this as well. Tom's Hardware's website has a number of good graphics card comparison articles; they suggest very strongly that an FX5200 isn't really a good buy for the buck, and that *at that price point*, your money would be better spent on eBay going for a GF4 Ti 4x00 card. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpdSBqRIIjcn.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
Paul Surgeon wrote: What I can't figure out is why people insist on running FG on ancient *nix boxes at 3fps when they can get a really cheap PeeCee that will do the job 10 times faster. Maybe because FlightGear is not the primary application on their desktop. A used Octane for example definitely has some features that you won't get on any other platform without spending lots of money (running FrameMaker, reading audio DAT tapes without the need of external hardware, easy handling of files of serveral hundred megabyte size). Even having an OpenGL/GLUT reference platform at hand apparently proves to be of use from time to time in order to determine if the application is at fault or Mesa/DRI/whateverGLUT Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Budget 'display-only' system?
On Saturday, 8 January 2005 15:35, Dave Martin wrote: Can I ask what resolution / colour depth you would typically be running FlightGear at? 1024x768 @ 32bpp (32bpp = 24bit color) Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
