Hello,I have install the rpms: flightgear-0.9.4-1grk.i386.rpmsimgear-0.3.5-1grk.i386.rpmmy system: os: rh9.0 cpu: AMD T-bird 1.2gHzgraphics card: Voodoo 5I'm using DRI and Mesa libs for graphics accelleration.I know that my accellerated Mesa libs are working.glxinfo tells me this, and there are test apps that prove it.I've also run fgfs under DRI on an older maching using a Voodoo3 cardand an old pII motherboard. That actually ran fairly well althoughit was a much older version of flightgear.Any ideas one what's wrong?Software is completely unusable (to me) the way it is now.Thanks.Robert W.

What sort of frame rates are you seeing, and are they about the same regardless of which aircraft you're flying?The area around KSFO is also rather graphics intensive, especially when you turn towards downtown SF.With an Athlon XP 1900+ and an ATI Radeon 9200 I only get around 8 fps in some aircraft when using external views if I'm flying towards downtown SF.The frame rates with internal views are a fair bit higher, in the same place, but once I'm out into open country the frame rates get much higher.As I understand it, very little optimisation has been done so far, while the developers concentrate on getting things working first.

About 1 fps or less.In some cases it apeared about a frame every few seconds.It is also using up all of my cpu time.I was not even able to fly.I tried turning off things under the render menu and restarted with a lot of options turned off. It spead things up a bit but still ran way way too slow.It seems clear to me that it's trying to render the scene using the cpu and not the graphics card accelleration hardware.Robert W.

I think you're right - it's using s/w rendering.As FG _needs_ h/w acceleration and wouldn't ever be compiled without it, and as glxinfo confirms that DRI is ok I can only suggest that there's some sort of incompatibility between your system and the pre-compiled binaries.It would be interesting to hear from anyone else using those binaries.