As noticed earlier, we are aware the 2.01 terrain has uneeded vertices, mostly due to OSM roads integration.
Pete pushed quite a few fixes for terragear, we'll have to schedule a new worldwide terrain generation to try to close this issue.
Programming like there is no limit to memory is wrong.
You don't need tiles out of side and no trees and other details when high in the sky.
In my opinion, scaling up is not going to be as difficult as scaling down - and for that reason, I would love FG to start up with an extremely minimal startup profile, and dynamically determine if there's hardware available to do more resource-hungry things, such as using shaders, multiple cores, many GBs of RAM etc.
The recent memory issues are a fairly "new" thing, but they are demonstrating that we need to deal with the problem on a fundamental level - not being aware of where resources are spent (CPU, RAM, VRAM) just isn't helping.
We have too many content developers (aircraft/scenery) who are much more active than core developers, so it is easy to foresee some problem developing here, as long as people have no way of knowing how much their work contributes to overall simulator load - no matter if it's highly detailed scenery, a highly detailed aircraft/cockpit/texture, or custom scripts.
Look at the number of times where some new feature turned out to be highly problematic for end-users, even with just the default settings.
but currently, our programming model is kinda broken, because we keep adding features without being aware of their footprint - and there's nobody to blame, because we are simply missing the tools that would tell us how expensive a certain feature, aircraft or scenery really is.
Someone who uses 4096x4096 texture sheets for aircraft usually knows pretty darn well that they cost lots of resources. He just thinks that that's how he wants to spend resources.
Look at the number of times where they didn't. We don't know the unproblematic cases.
So, otherwise we would keep adding features knowing fully well their footprint (I'd argue I have a very good idea how expensive stuff I'm adding is right now - and I still do it). Why would this improve the situation?
Again, I don't believe in having academic debates like these - there's a reason that all aircraft (or cars) have not only a gauge measuring your speed, but also gauges for measuring resource consumption (fuel) - you cannot expect to spend a ton of cash each day without knowing how much you have in total - and that's really what this is all about, nothing else.
kuifje09 wrote in Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:37 pm:I would like to have limit in loading tiles so my fgfs never runs out of memory.
kuifje09 wrote in Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:37 pm:Something else to think of: putting all programs ( fgfs, atlas/livemap, fgcom ... ) into 1 program, brings the max-mem used even closer.
Well, apologize, I must make my excuse. I did not want to make this a war, because of the problems I encounter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests