Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Sunday 20 March 2005 00:49, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:17:39 -0600, Andrzej wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ..you cut your colors from 32bit to 16bit, ATI's cards are all 24bit, how are your 24bit framerates? My ASUS GeForce 2 Ti 32 MB gives following results (using --geometry 1024x768): 1. Windows 2K with NVidia provided drivers (on of the latest FG I believe 0.98 taken from the website a few months ago): -16 bit (High Color) - 43-45 FPS -32 bit (so called True Color) - 25-42 FPS (it drops to 25 or even more when the horizon is very far) ..24 bit on this? Nvidea didn't do ATI's 24bit cheat, so their 24bit numbers should line up with either your 16 or 32 bit figure, and not hold the middle ground like ATI, which tries to with their cheat, which has their 16bit look better and their 32bit, like 24bit. 2. Linux Mandrake 10.0 with kernel 2.4 and rather older NVidia driver (FG compiled out of the cvs a few days ago): -16 bit - 62-77 FPS -24 bit - 38-47 FPS ..and with the new drivers? Some old Nvidea might even work with DRI. Note that Windows does not give an option to run 24-bit (I am not sure what 32-bit/True Color means either) and Linux that 32-bit. ..chances are 24bit isn't possible on this combination of OS, HW and drivers. Interestingly, the sound under Linux and 16-bit mode got strangely interrupts. Under Linux 24-bit it I do not see (or rather hear :-) that effect. Using a 32 bpp display mode doesn't give more colours than a 24 bpp display mode - it just adds an 8 bpp alpha layer to go along with the 8 bit R, G B channels. When 24 bpp data is viewed using a 16 bpp display mode the least significant bits from the R, G B channels are discarded. Iirc, 3 bits are dropped from the R B channels and 2 bits from the G channel. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:32:52 -0600 Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: So which model would guarantee decent improvements? Sorry, I know I'm coming into this late, and you may have already made a decision. My advice is to head off to ebay and spend $50-$80 on a used GF4 Ti4200 or Ti4600, the sexy cards of about 2-2.5 years ago. On every benchmark I've seen (e.g. the charts at Tom's Hardware), they outdo all the nVidia FX series except the 5800 and 5900 (including lower ultras), and it'll be cheaper. -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 pgpy7cQsI4yFe.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
..you cut your colors from 32bit to 16bit, ATI's cards are all 24bit, how are your 24bit framerates? My ASUS GeForce 2 Ti 32 MB gives following results (using --geometry 1024x768): 1. Windows 2K with NVidia provided drivers (on of the latest FG I believe 0.98 taken from the website a few months ago): -16 bit (High Color) - 43-45 FPS -32 bit (so called True Color) - 25-42 FPS (it drops to 25 or even more when the horizon is very far) 2. Linux Mandrake 10.0 with kernel 2.4 and rather older NVidia driver (FG compiled out of the cvs a few days ago): -16 bit - 62-77 FPS -24 bit - 38-47 FPS Note that Windows does not give an option to run 24-bit (I am not sure what 32-bit/True Color means either) and Linux that 32-bit. Interestingly, the sound under Linux and 16-bit mode got strangely interrupts. Under Linux 24-bit it I do not see (or rather hear :-) that effect. A. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
My ASUS GeForce 2 Ti 32 MB gives following results (using --geometry 1024x768): forgot to add that all rendering options are on. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:38:22 -0800, Andy wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: Kees Lemmens wrote: ATI is a disaster : horrible installation procedure. ..I use an ATI 9250 (Sapphire's 128bit AGP w128 memory) on standard Debian Sid X86Free DRI code Note that the ATI 92x0 cards are based on the R200 ...R280, which I understand is a derated R200 variant. architecture (the Radeon 8500) and will work fine with the DRI drivers. People who prefer running free software drivers to high end cards will want to use these, as they're currently the best ones available under DRI. Any recent linux distribution will support them out of the box. Don't get a 9500 or X800 card, however, and expect it to work with DRI. ATI stopped handing out programming information on their cards after the R200. :( ..which is why they should be boycotted. ..go with Nvidea. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:46:44 -0600, Andrzej wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2. I run latest version of the FG on both Win 2K and Mandrake 10.0 (with Nvidia drivers of course). However I note very strange behavior under Linux. When the FG starts in the default window (I guess it is 640x480 or so), it performs quite well but when I try to resize/make bigger/maximize the window everything starts crawling. I do not observe it under Windows where it runs smoothly even under really high resolutions. I am not sure if it is due to the Linux and Windows use that 32MB of my poor GeForce differently or what? Any insight? First thx for all the replies. They helped me to narrow down the scope of the problem and I finally got the culprit. It turned out that under both Linux and Windows very low FPS were related to the 32-bit color. Once I changed it to 16-bit the improvement was dramatic. Also under Linux that trouble with resizing the FG window is gone now. Here are some other observations: -I pretty much do not see any correlation between window size and the FPS (unlike with some games) -CPU often hits 100%, but especially when I fly close to ground, it drops to even 60%, all rendering options are on -glxgears cranks around 12000 FPS (which is definitely higher than 32-bit colors) -I have got FG FPS from 60 to 90. Completely sufficient and some room for future. ..you cut your colors from 32bit to 16bit, ATI's cards are all 24bit, how are your 24bit framerates? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Geoff Reidy wrote: Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: Next question, which model of Nvidia. I am not going to skim on every $ since I upgrade hardware every 3-4 years, but do not want to overkill. FX5200 128MB was mentioned, is it sufficient to what FG requires and still have some processing marging to be used in future? What do you guys use? Andrzej Be careful, some 5200s only have a 64 bit memory bus and would be little improvement over a Geforce 2. Check some hardware reviews first. The performance is pretty much identical (I have both cards) - the only advantage you get with the 5200's is that they generally have more RAM (I got one when I was experimenting with photo scenery for just this reason). -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:32:20 +0100, Kees wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Monday 14 March 2005 07:52, Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: Hi, 3. Last question, having in mind Linux as a target platform, ATI or Nvidia, which way to go? ATI is a disaster : horrible installation procedure. Nvidia on the other hand is superb : they did an excellent job and so their driver is probably the best (commercial) driver in the whole Linux world ;) (No, I'm not employed by Nvidia, just a happy user ;-) ..I use an ATI 9250 (Sapphire's 128bit AGP w128 memory) on standard Debian Sid X86Free DRI code, all I did was edit the driver line in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 to use the radeon driver, and restart X: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/cK $ cat /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 |grep Driver Driver keyboard Driver mouse Driver mouse Driver mouse ### Available Driver options are:- # Driver ati Driver radeon Driver mouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/cK $ ..it is seen as an ATI 9200 PRO, if you have more recent cards than the 9250, DRI may still see it as a 9200PRO, but you will wanna consider compiling the newest X.org release or swap it for a Nvidea (or use ATI crappy proprietary drivers) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Arnt Karlsen wrote: Kees Lemmens wrote: ATI is a disaster : horrible installation procedure. ..I use an ATI 9250 (Sapphire's 128bit AGP w128 memory) on standard Debian Sid X86Free DRI code Note that the ATI 92x0 cards are based on the R200 architecture (the Radeon 8500) and will work fine with the DRI drivers. People who prefer running free software drivers to high end cards will want to use these, as they're currently the best ones available under DRI. Any recent linux distribution will support them out of the box. Don't get a 9500 or X800 card, however, and expect it to work with DRI. ATI stopped handing out programming information on their cards after the R200. :( Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Jon Stockill wrote: Geoff Reidy wrote: Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: Next question, which model of Nvidia. I am not going to skim on every $ since I upgrade hardware every 3-4 years, but do not want to overkill. FX5200 128MB was mentioned, is it sufficient to what FG requires and still have some processing marging to be used in future? What do you guys use? Andrzej Be careful, some 5200s only have a 64 bit memory bus and would be little improvement over a Geforce 2. Check some hardware reviews first. The performance is pretty much identical (I have both cards) - the only advantage you get with the 5200's is that they generally have more RAM (I got one when I was experimenting with photo scenery for just this reason). So which model would guarantee decent improvements? A. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
2. I run latest version of the FG on both Win 2K and Mandrake 10.0 (with Nvidia drivers of course). However I note very strange behavior under Linux. When the FG starts in the default window (I guess it is 640x480 or so), it performs quite well but when I try to resize/make bigger/maximize the window everything starts crawling. I do not observe it under Windows where it runs smoothly even under really high resolutions. I am not sure if it is due to the Linux and Windows use that 32MB of my poor GeForce differently or what? Any insight? First thx for all the replies. They helped me to narrow down the scope of the problem and I finally got the culprit. It turned out that under both Linux and Windows very low FPS were related to the 32-bit color. Once I changed it to 16-bit the improvement was dramatic. Also under Linux that trouble with resizing the FG window is gone now. Here are some other observations: -I pretty much do not see any correlation between window size and the FPS (unlike with some games) -CPU often hits 100%, but especially when I fly close to ground, it drops to even 60%, all rendering options are on -glxgears cranks around 12000 FPS (which is definitely higher than 32-bit colors) -I have got FG FPS from 60 to 90. Completely sufficient and some room for future. Thx, A. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: Hi, 1. I have Athlon 1700+ XP + 0.5GB RAM + GeForce2Ti with 32MB RAM. In most cases the performance of FG is adequate, but there are situation when it becomes very slow. So I am planing to upgrade the system, but not sure what to focus on first. FG maxes out the CPU to 100% so to some extend it is a bottleneck, but as somebody mentioned here before, that 32MB of the video card also imposes some limitations. 2. I run latest version of the FG on both Win 2K and Mandrake 10.0 (with Nvidia drivers of course). However I note very strange behavior under Linux. When the FG starts in the default window (I guess it is 640x480 or so), it performs quite well but when I try to resize/make bigger/maximize the window everything starts crawling. I do not observe it under Windows where it runs smoothly even under really high resolutions. I am not sure if it is due to the Linux and Windows use that 32MB of my poor GeForce differently or what? Any insight? 3. Last question, having in mind Linux as a target platform, ATI or Nvidia, which way to go? Please advice, Thanks, Andrzej ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I would definitely go with nvidia. They just released a new linux driver ... and it works great ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Monday 14 March 2005 07:52, Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: Hi, 3. Last question, having in mind Linux as a target platform, ATI or Nvidia, which way to go? ATI is a disaster : horrible installation procedure. Nvidia on the other hand is superb : they did an excellent job and so their driver is probably the best (commercial) driver in the whole Linux world ;) (No, I'm not employed by Nvidia, just a happy user ;-) Kees Lemmens. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
I would definitely go with nvidia. They just released a new linux driver ... and it works great The only reason I mentioned ATI was very good quality of rendering and the signal for flatscreens (see Tom's Hardware site). So far I also like my GeFroce 2. Besides it is slow sometimes I would keep it. Okay so I will go Nvidia again. Next question, which model of Nvidia. I am not going to skim on every $ since I upgrade hardware every 3-4 years, but do not want to overkill. FX5200 128MB was mentioned, is it sufficient to what FG requires and still have some processing marging to be used in future? What do you guys use? Andrzej ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Andrzej Leszczynski wrote: Next question, which model of Nvidia. I am not going to skim on every $ since I upgrade hardware every 3-4 years, but do not want to overkill. FX5200 128MB was mentioned, is it sufficient to what FG requires and still have some processing marging to be used in future? What do you guys use? Andrzej Be careful, some 5200s only have a 64 bit memory bus and would be little improvement over a Geforce 2. Check some hardware reviews first. Geoff ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Dave Culp wrote: FX5200 128MB was mentioned, is it sufficient to what FG requires and still have some processing marging to be used in future? What do you guys use? I use an old MX4000 and get decent frame rates, so the FX5200 should be fine. Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I 'upgraded' to a Geforce FX4000 (go ahead , laugh :) ...the 6692 driver didnt work with that one . I would ( and am ) going with something a little better ... though I average 25 fps in FlightGear.Not to bad , I think. Thats with a 1.1 gig AMD Athalon I'll research better next time I get a new card :) ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
Hi, 1. I have Athlon 1700+ XP + 0.5GB RAM + GeForce2Ti with 32MB RAM. In most cases the performance of FG is adequate, but there are situation when it becomes very slow. So I am planing to upgrade the system, but not sure what to focus on first. FG maxes out the CPU to 100% so to some extend it is a bottleneck, but as somebody mentioned here before, that 32MB of the video card also imposes some limitations. 2. I run latest version of the FG on both Win 2K and Mandrake 10.0 (with Nvidia drivers of course). However I note very strange behavior under Linux. When the FG starts in the default window (I guess it is 640x480 or so), it performs quite well but when I try to resize/make bigger/maximize the window everything starts crawling. I do not observe it under Windows where it runs smoothly even under really high resolutions. I am not sure if it is due to the Linux and Windows use that 32MB of my poor GeForce differently or what? Any insight? 3. Last question, having in mind Linux as a target platform, ATI or Nvidia, which way to go? Please advice, Thanks, Andrzej ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
