Re: [Flightgear-devel] Removing Basic Weather

[Jorge P. <ja...@ms...>]

I have to agree with you Gilberto, I have an AMD Athlon II x2 3Ghz w/ 4Gb 
memory but I suffer from onboard video.  My fps is 20 with nearly everything 
disabled and turned down.

If advanced features are enabled the core devs should highly consider 
optimizing FG, and maybe SimGear, with some nasm code to minimize the losses 
and possibly make a large gain in speed/performance, not to mention reduced 
binary size.  I've only toyed with masm on windows and switching to nasm on 
linux/windows/mac is quite a lea so I dont expect the mov to register well 
with me, the instruction are the same but backwords :-S  assembler is easier 
to read and follow than c or c++ as long as you have the source and 
destination figured out.  Repetitive patterns in code are easier to spot as 
well!  I would also try to work out some bit-packing to consume the least 
amount of memory.  For instance:  2 bits to define x, y, z for each vertice of 
a model, x=00b, y=01b, z=10b instead of int/char :-O which is 
11111111-11111111-11111111-111111 (32 bits) and a total waste of CPU power, 
speed, and memory.  This is especially true if FlightGear is ever to run on 
mobile devices like Android/Win CE...

Jorge

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 01:38:17 PM Gilberto Agostinho wrote:
> On 13/08/15 09:38, Hamza Alloush wrote:
> > i get consistently better results with BW. at minimum with uncapped
> > performance i saw 3 fps difference between BW and AW.
> I think you should always talk in percentage. A 3 fps difference in your
> case is particularly small, given that you got around 80 fps. A 3 fps
> difference for someone that can barely fly (there are people flying with
> 10 fps) would be a huge loss.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel