Announcement

**bridgman** · 16 March 2009, 08:30 PM

What is your screen resolution and CPU speed ? Does the performance improve significantly at lower resolutions ?

**kenshi** · 16 March 2009, 09:00 PM

The processor is a dual-core 1.8 GHz. My default resolution is 1280x800. At 320x200, there's only about a 5% increase in speed in glxgears. It uses very little CPU either way.

**bridgman** · 16 March 2009, 09:42 PM

The glxgears program is so far removed from a typical application that it's barely worth running other than making sure you have some kind of 3D support. I don't think your glxgears numbers sound unreasonable.

How does the flightgear performance change at lower resolution ?

When you say "it uses very little CPU either way" is that when running glxgears ? How is the CPU load when running FlightGear ?

**kenshi** · 16 March 2009, 10:17 PM

FlightGear uses a pretty heavy load, at least on one of the cores. It mostly stays between 60 and 80%. I don't think there's a way to change the resolution while fullscreen. I dramatically reduced the window size which did give me a couple more fps, but it still only averages about 10 to 12. I suspect it's still calculating the standard resolution, whatever it is, and then scaling it down. I wish I had another 3D game installed. TuxRacer just crashes off the bat.

**bridgman** · 16 March 2009, 10:32 PM

My guess is that you are being limited by vertex shader processing being done on the CPU, but that is only a guess. A good next step would be to play with some of the options to lighten the load. Turning off AI traffic and sound might also be worth considering, just to make sure they aren't getting in the way.

http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php...ine_Parameters

I didn't see an easy way to find out what options are currently selected, unfortunately. Maybe it gets printed in a log ?

Anyways, start by nuking things like fog/haze/snow. The FlightGear documentation mentions that "in general, GPUs which rely on shared memory should be avoided" (like the X12xx) but with some tweaking it should be possible to get decent performance on your laptop.

**kenshi** · 16 March 2009, 11:11 PM

I had already tried a few options to try to increase the speed, but here you go.

fgfs --disable-random-objects --disable-ai-models --disable-sound --disable-clouds --disable-clouds3d --shading-flat --disable-textures --visibility=3000

With all of that, it's still dropping into the single digits and it's pretty dull visually.

**crumja** · 16 March 2009, 11:49 PM

The X1200 is widely known as a pretty bad chip in terms of performance. Your glxgears numbers match with the X1200 I had.

**bridgman** · 17 March 2009, 01:18 AM

Is anyone else running FlightGear that could sing out with their own experiences ? What I would expect is that X12xx is faster than the competing IGP parts of the time but slower than, say, an X300 or X1300.

The big deal with the X12xx was that you could play games on it in the first place (at a time when most IGPs were not really useable for gaming), not that it was a particularly *fast* gaming system.

One possibility is that the open drivers (which advertise fewer OpenGL functions) might force FlightGear to use a simpler code path which might, as a result, run a bit faster even though the drivers are less efficient overall. I don't want to ask kenshi to change drivers unless someone has some experience running FlightGear on similar hardware with the open drivers recently.

**kenshi** · 17 March 2009, 07:45 PM

Well I didn't know this was such a piece of crap video card. I'll just try to set the game up on my desktop. It has a decent Nvidia card.

Announcement

Acceleration with fglrx driver is very slow

Acceleration with fglrx driver is very slow

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment