GlowWorm

Wow that looks impressive!

Can't wait, can't wait!!! And, thanks for the background info on gamma settings. GlowWorm

Roger on the ROI re Linux. I kind of assumed that since MacOS X and Linux have unix roots, it would make the DL option easier to implement / port to Linux. On the other hand, I just know enough about the lower level of Unix to be dangerous, and am in no way a programmer. ;-) I don't think we'll have plans to do Linux on our download software. We've had a download system like this for over a year now, and the Linux stuff just doesn't behave well for this particular software. Our shipping costs outside of the US are very, very reasonable, so no worries on that! For what it's worth, I have had reports that our downloader works fine in WINE, however, I make no promises to it!

Great teasers, only makes me want it more. Can't wait. Question: in some of the screen shots of this new scenery package I notice that the contrast levels are quite high compard to the XP environment. Don't get me wrong, when the scenery is viewed by itself without any XP-object / planes, it looks great. The XP plane itself also looks great. Once combined in some scenery areas it becomes clear that 1 is out of place. I know it's a challenge to mix computer generated views with photo-material. Would it make sense to align the scenery contrast levels with the XP levels, so that the objects of XP don't pop out that much?

Woa! Another nice one. Any rough timelines for the release?

That's exciting news! Been waiting for a nice Norcal package since the Fly! era - I explore the Mendocino, SF and Monterey region most. Hopefully one day there'll be a DL option for Linux users, shipping stuff outside of US can be costly. But on the other hand, a backup can't hurt.

Ciao Alessandro, Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look for if if I got spare time. Right now, exploring the XP world at 150 fps (@ 3600x1200) is too much fun for me. (I've grown up flight simming with 4 fps on the Atari 800XL 8-bit - Anything higher than that is cool for me.) If you are refering to the nvidia driver issues for Mac - yes that's exactly why I had enough of that and created my own rig using Linux (also to get rid of the overhead of XP and especially Vista).

Roughly the concept is this: if you have 1 gfx card with 1GB vram, XP needs to work with roughly that amount of ram to supply to the gfx card. So multiply that with the qty of gfx card and you have an idea of of how much ram is used to keep the gfx cards busy. At the same time XP also needs ram to do the regular flight modelling. Current XP 32-bit executable is limited at 4GB ram (minus OS overhead); so in a 4+GB system, max is still 4GB fro XP. Another consideration is: how fast does the CPU talk to the multiple gfx cards? Feeding 3 gfx cards will require large bandwidth for the bus. And it requires the CPU cores to spend more time on deciding what objects to draw for each of the screens; at this moment XP is coded in such way 1 core does all that (objects review + flight model), and the other cores aren't really used except for background scenery loading. And then there's the question of whether the gfx card slots are available for 3 (or more) cards. Power is also a challenge. Currently my GTX 295 can draw almost 450W when flying about (idling @ 200+W). I couldn't immediately find the power consumption of the GT-120-cards. But if Apple is shipping a triple GT-120, the power draw should be certified for use in that Mac. 1 system, 3 video cards, 3 24" monitors. I'm going for exactly what you're talking about, 160 degree-ish FOV. I'm questionning how well it will perform since I won't be able to buy the crazy-uber high end cards for each slot, Apple currently limits multi-card setups like that to the slightly lower end cards I'm sure due to both the physical size of the cards and power draw. With a new 8-core MacPro, 12GB of RAM and 3 x NVIDIA GT-120 512MB cards, I'm hoping to be able to maintain > 100fps with volumetric clouds, tree hugger trees, insane objects...etc, for most areas that I fly in which is is the west coast of Canada and central Canada. -> Brock

Thanks! I didn't expect a useful manual after having read the one for XP6 that was outdated already. The one in XP8 seems to have some handy info. However, no useful links to "the studies". I am curious about that aspect. Regards. Alessandro

Aloha Mark, Nice initiative. Filed flight plan: GLOW DCT XPLN.NING

Yeah, I know the feeling. That's why I didn't care to wait for a similar performance from a Mac. My G5 dual 2.5 will continue to serve me for regular computing stuff, while the Linux rig is 100% dedicated to flight sim, w/o installing any weird tools and utilities. Flight sims will always require top hardware and software. Question is, do we want it now, or later. Are you saying you want 3 video cards in 1 system or 3 separate systems? Ultimately I want a FOV of 160 deg using 3 24" monitors - that'd give me the feeling I'm up front and looking outside.

Link? Actually glowworm, That came right off of Austin Meyers FPS Tuning guide. ;D

You got link to that experiment?

HIya tsedge, You may want to consider X-Plane with Linux and keep your current Mac next to it for non-flying stuff. My 5 year old PMG5 didn't perform for me so I found the setup below. For easy comparing, XP has a built-in frame rate tester. Based on this test, the Linux setup is almost 9x faster than the PMG5. Though I think anything higher than 25~30 FPS isn't visually going to affect the experience. Perhaps higher FPS will help rolls performed at 100 deg/sec... Practically I get between 60 to 200 with the FPS counter in cockpit view with all settings maxxed out - but milage varies dependng where I am at that moment. For further info about my setup, you may want to check my little X-Plane blog section @ http://x-plane.push-point.net See: Command line options for X-Plane: http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2006/10/howto-use-command-line-options-in-x.html Below my results using: --fps_test=[x] x=1, 2, 3 Setup" i7 920 2.66GHz, GTX 295, 6GB ram, Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit XP 9.22 @ 1920 x 1200 Test 1 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=6241 fps=208 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=7097 fps=237 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=8158 fps=272 Test 2 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=5361 fps=179 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=6080 fps=203 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=6638 fps=221 Test 3 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=4396 fps=147 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=4930 fps=164 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=5068 fps=169 And here my previous setup: Apple PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5, 4GB ram, nVidia 6800Ultra 256MB, MacOS X 10.5.6 XP 9.22 @ 1920 x 1200 Test 1 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=810fps=27 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=967fps=32 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=970fps=32 Test 2 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=694fps=23 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=783fps=26 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=786fps=26 Test 3 phase 1 was not recorded FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=204fps=7 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=221fps=7

Hiya Brock, System: i7 920 2.66GHz, 6GB ram, GTX 295, Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit XP 9.22 @ 1920 x 1200 Test 1 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=6241fps=208 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=7097fps=237 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=8158fps=272 Test 2 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=5361fps=179 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=6080fps=203 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=6638fps=221 Test 3 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=4396fps=147 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=4930fps=164 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=5068fps=169

Use an AppleScript sequence.

Hiya, Excellent work! What kinda of PC setup can handle this model with resonable FPS?

Cool, thx for the tip! Here's the results based on my rig: XP922 1920 x 850 (single mon setup) Test 1 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=6954fps=232 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=8023fps=267 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=11602fps=387 Test 2 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=5756fps=192 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=6118fps=204 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=6702fps=223 Test 3 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=3426fps=114 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=3763fps=125 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=4069fps=136 XP922 3600 x 1024 (dual monitor setup) Test 1 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=5623fps=187 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=6344fps=211 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=6422fps=214 Test 2 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=4878fps=163 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=5243fps=175 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=5311fps=177 Test 3 FRAMERATE TEST phase 1:time=30frames=3586fps=120 FRAMERATE TEST phase 2:time=30frames=3707fps=124 FRAMERATE TEST phase 3:time=30frames=3727fps=124

Both graphics cores are used to the max when I run XP 9.22. The core temp gauge for both is hovering around 60C while ambient temp is 18C. That's just doing circuits around LOWI. Unless heat at the exhaust is a wrong indicator, I think the 2nd core is adding value to the sim. No, I don't use any other application than X-Plane on this Linux rig of mine (well, besides GoodWay). It's compiled and built to serve only 1 purpose: to get the highest FPS I can afford at 3600x1200 rez. Which xp.org thread covers/confirms your assumptions that XP doesn't use both cores (or more)?

I'm using the GTX 295 (dual card) with 1780 MB @ 3600x1200 getting 60 FPS and all settings maxed and a 110 degree FOV in KSFO urban areas and 150+FPS if I'm further north above the redwood park. I don't see a performance hit that you refer too. (for list of my XP rig, see http://x-plane.push-point.net first blog section "Genesis" ) What specific cards were affected? And why would this happen?

Hiya born2beflyin , Very cool development. I was wondering what kind of storage requirement I would need if I want to cover the area that X-Plane is covering at this moment?

Hiya Ancadel, From what I understood from Austin, he claims that situation files are a memory dump of the simulator at that time. I have to add that I asked him that in XP 8.00 when I found out that 50-odd situations I created do not read at all in XP 8.21. I've not bothered relying on XP for continuation or compatibility of creations with higher versions. It is somewhat odd to realise that situation files do not have a long useful life if they are not able to transfer the settings to the next XP revision (even within the main XP release, such as XP 8). My alternative is to never update my XP set up anymore...

Hiya Indi, Cool idea to collect all that output. I think the benchmarks should be run on stock setup of XP at the same airport and airplane. The only factors that are changing would be the hardware and the cmdline parameters. Do you know which specific settings are used when running the benchmark options?

Hiya brockguntersmith, Cool script! I changed from G5 to Linux-based XP recently, and will be able to run your script in the linux command line. One question: is the script driving a pre-set rendering and whether settings as well as using a stock plane?

Hiya Gera, Are you able to create missions using the standard XP 922? Or do you need some plug-ins?