Hooray wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:15 am:Let me reiterate that: These will NOT be Nasal tutorials, these will be CORE programming tutorials illustrating step by step how to implement certain features in C and C++. You get personal programming support, provided by someone who's making a living as a software engineer coding in C and C++. For free, I may add!
Because of what exactly? You mentioned the required numerical stability and the lack of thread-safe property tree access - I think I illustrated how these limitations can be circumvented?
I still think it'll take less effort (coding and time-wise) to use a Nasal prototype for starters.
I had tested Your patch with everything off and Earthview on. It had rise mean fps from 5 to 10,
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:07 am:At the same time, the garbage collection is an unsolved problem so far, and if we start writing the whole space environment in Nasal, that is going to bite us really hard. I've seen where the limits in moving a large number of objects in Nasal are, and it doesn't scale just as well as C++ code.
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:14 am:I'm usually getting framerates between 24 and 32 with Vostok in orbit. In fast-forward time, this slows down to ~8 fps at 16x fast-forward. After an extended period of that I had ~4 fps for a time of 30 seconds or so, but it recovered to 28 fps afterwards.
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:14 am:At this rate time rate, the spacecraft covers ~130 km/sec in fast-forward time, this may really tax the scenery manager so that it has stuff to catch up with.
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:14 am:I have not seen any framerate drops outside fast-forward time in orbit. Is this a MP issue or does it also occur offline?
Again, let's see which computer You have. I suppose it's not of mean level.
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:27 am:It's a 4-year old laptop, which back then was top notch, but I doubt it is very competitive now.
Aury88 wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:29 am: Thorsten, Vitos , I want to congratulate you and thank you for the impressive project you are pursuing.
Hooray wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:38 pm:thanks for keeping your responses constructive, I was slightly afraid when looking at the length of the replies
besides, I really wasn't aware that you had asked for core programming help a year ago, I wasn't really on line during that time, for about 6 months, so I might have missed quite a lot of stuff. I am going to shut up now, for the sake of the effort.
vitos wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:03 am:Aury88 wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:29 am:I suppose it's too early to congratulate someone.
statto wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:56 pm:Well, you and Thorsten have helped extend FlightGear in a way which I would have thought impossible when I began contributing to the project, even if it is at alpha level. That in itself deserves some acclaim.
also I want to ask Thorsten if it is possible to use something like normal mapping to make the earth more realistic (less "flat") in very low orbit.
Thorsten, I assume Your "old laptop" have 1.5...2 times more memory than mine "recently upgraded computer".
That memory leaks problem shoulda be solved somehow else.
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:01 pm:4 GB of it actually.
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:01 pm:Agreed. But people are hunting those on a regular basis. They tend to appear as new features are added to GIT, and they tend to disappear during bug hunting season before a stable release. I have had some pretty serious memory issues and crashes with 250 km visibility tests before 2.6, but after 2.6 they are gone. So it's not a hopeless cause.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest