Re: OpenGL / Frame-rates. The main reason that FG uses OpenGL rather than (say) DirectX is to provide open, cross-platform support. Unfortunately many graphics cards support DirectX better than OpenGL, hence you get better frame-rates with DirectX software rather than OpenGL. Intel integrated graphics cards are particularly bad in this respect. As an aside, I'm hopeful that OpenGL support will start to improve with the introduction of Steam for Linux.

 

Bill - the symptoms you report sound very strange, though I'm glad you got it running eventually! There's a joystick configuration option under Help that should allow you to configure your joystic as you wish.

 

RE: documentation - there are installation instructions on the download page, but they don't cover issues such as the 64/32 bit one mentioned (which I hadn't come across before). Obviously we should improve our installation instructions!

 

-Stuart

Well,

 

my experience and satisfaction with FG2.10 is growing from day to day.

 

Today I pushed all "sliders" to the limit and have done a few flights with RWW near Lisbon. The area, even with default autogen scenery, looks great. The ambience, lighting, weather effects, shaders, etc... plus the flight dynamics of the best aircraft and helicopters are simply astounding for such a FREE application.

 

R-E-M-A-R-K-A-B-L-E!!!!!!!

Re: OpenGL / Frame-rates. The main reason that FG uses OpenGL rather than (say) DirectX is to provide open, cross-platform support.

 

I understand that, but it means that FlightGear is quite seriously compromised fior Windows users who are the majority. This means FlightGear isn't a replacement for FSX as some seem to claim.

This means FlightGear isn't a replacement for FSX as some seem to claim.

 

Of course it isn't!

 

Even if, for me, it is an excellent replacement for both FSX and X-Plane10 :-)

mgh trash the Intel and buy a Nvidia card. Probably you were simply lucky to be able to run FSX with that. Intel might catch up in some years...

Maybe OpenGL is the wrong choice for Windows?

 

OpenGL runs just fine on Windows. At least when you have a decent GPU with good OpenGL support. Nvidia has long been excellent in this area, AMD has improved greatly and Intel is at the other end. Intel's GPUs have never been aimed at anything more than entry level 3D needs, primarily enough to support the Aero interface on Windows. On the other hand, both Nvidia and AMD have high end workstation video cards aimed directly at OpenGL based CAD and 3D modelling programs. These GPUs are usually very similar, if not identical, to the GPUs used in consumer level video cards.

 

In fact, OpenGL can even be faster than Direct3D on Windows.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-faster-than-directx-even-on-windows

 

Have to go give FlightGear another try. It's been a few years.

The fact remains the FlightGear shows inferior frames rates and inferior graphics compared with FSX on both my PCs. Whythen should I spend money replacing graphics cards that run FSX satisfactorily in order to be able to run FlightGear?

 

Can anyone demonstrate the areas where FlightGear is actually superior, not just different, to FSX?

mgh,

 

It sounds a lot like you're not too satisfied with Flight Gear. Perhaps you should ask for a refund?

The fact remains the FlightGear shows inferior frames rates and inferior graphics compared with FSX on both my PCs. Whythen should I spend money replacing graphics cards that run FSX satisfactorily in order to be able to run FlightGear?

 

Can anyone demonstrate the areas where FlightGear is actually superior, not just different, to FSX?

 

It all depends on what you're after...

 

I look in the 1st plae for good flight dynamics, and good systems modelling, weather modelling too. Scenery realism is not an essential feature for me, nor extra sharp/realistic aircraft graphics.

 

FG2.10 offered me, for the 1st time, a platform that:

 

- Does by default a much better job than either X-Plane10 or FSX in terms of weather modelling, including rendering of different cloud types according to live METAR data, a much better algorithm for generation of thermals and ridge lift sources thanyou can find in either FSX or X-Plane10, excellent low visibility effects. It's not better than FSX when you add to it 3pd weather injectors, Orbx scenery, etc... of course, but it costs €0,00 and covers the Whole World!!!!

 

- If you look seriously into designing your own aircraft, using a much more complete flight dynamics model than the one in FSX (the upcoming FSX Q200/400 Professional project uses JSBsim for the FD through simconnect), then FG2.10 is certainly the sim for you. You can also play with Yasim, build your own scenery and objects, etc... (not the kind of stuff I like to do...)

 

- It has very detailled add-on aircraft (GA, military, heavy metal, etc...) for free!!!! There are many projects going on in the FG World too...

 

- It is under continuous development, it's already 64 bit (with 32 bit version available too), and is upadated around every 6 months, usually in a way that makes many elements downward and upward compatible...

 

It's an Open Project, with tallented people supporting it!

What more exactly is it doing in the situations I illustrated?

 

Maybe it would help if I used an analogy: It's a bit like comparing the original Half-Life to Doom 3 and then complaining that OpenGL is inferior because Doom 3 doesn't give you 300 frames per second. To be frank, comparing a program released 7-years ago to current state-of-the-art software is rather ignorant. The difference in performance has absolutely nothing to do with OpenGL not being "the right choice for Windows".

 

This graphics FAQ at the official FlightGear forums might be of interest to you. In fact, it directly addresses your question:

 

* My system is unusably slow - why?

 

Nowadays there are vast differences in the processing power of GPUs. Especially laptops are usually equipped with a very modest graphics card (often just an integrated chipset) which is very good for long battery lifetime and delivers not much processing power and graphical memory, just enough to work with the laptop. On the other hand, gaming computers come equipped with graphics cards which have more than 10 times the graphical memory and 20 times more processing power (needless to say, in a laptop these are very battery-hungry). Especially Mac computers, despite their relatively fast processors, are known to have usually rather weak 3D rendering capabilities. The shaders written for Flightgear come with different quality levels - at the upper end, they run comfortably on gaming computers, at the lower end they run comfortably on low-powered laptops.

 

Flightgear does not recognize automatically which setting is appropriate for your computer, and hence this has to be configured manually. This is done in-sim in the menu View->Rendering. Bring up the detailed shader configuration dialog, switch every shader to zero and uncheck every option - this should result in a high framerate. Start switching shader effects on till you have an acceptable balance between visual quality and framerate.

mgh how the hell are you getting 50 FPS in FSX with integrated INTEL graphics ? and 122 FPS with a GT520 ? I just can't believe this !!!!

Thanks for all the healthy discussion on this, it has gained my interest. Off to download now.

mgh how the hell are you getting 50 FPS in FSX with integrated INTEL graphics ? and 122 FPS with a GT520 ? I just can't believe this !!!!

 

Maybe with all the sliders to the left?

The fact remains the FlightGear shows inferior frames rates and inferior graphics compared with FSX on both my PCs. Whythen should I spend money replacing graphics cards that run FSX satisfactorily in order to be able to run FlightGear?

 

Can anyone demonstrate the areas where FlightGear is actually superior, not just different, to FSX?

 

My observations with Flight Gear (the latest version).

 

~Install was smooth and went perfectly--even as I changed Flight Gear's default location. I ran the 64 bit install.

 

~Frame rates are excellent with all the FlightGear rendering options tweaked to their full extent. But not as good as FSX or FS9 if I dial back the detail in either sim to match the look of Flight Gear.

 

~While the new sky features look good--FS9 or FSX with my own add-on, Soft Horizons or other payware and non-payware add ons that modify the sky effects looks better. Clouds appear much more natural in those sims.

 

~The aircraft in FlightGear still don't approach FS9 or FSX default aircraft. I fly GA aircraft in VFR conditions. The aircraft have to look believable--the aircraft in FlightGear need the most attention, I feel.

 

~Water in FlightGear has fine texturing but does not look as good as FSX or FS9--reflections is where it's most lacking.

 

~Clouds in FlightGear still look unnatural.

 

~Ground texturing is still low res, especially when compared to FSX. For VFR flight, ground texturing is very important.

 

~Landclass is lacking. Cities just abruptly appear--you don't see the gradual transitions from city to countryside like you do in FS9 or FSX.

 

~FlightGear does not do "much more under the hood than FSX". It is what it is--a good open source effort which is evolving and improving with every release but not the equal of payware sims.

 

~Flight dynamics with the default 172 are very poor. The takeoff roll takes forever, for example. But once in the air the 172 seems to do a bit better. I didn't try other aircraft--I'd load some, like the Cub, but the VC just made me feel I was running a cartoon.

 

In conclusion, you won't change minds here in this forum. This is a forum for FlightGear fans--it is their domain and their place to enjoy happiness with what has been achieved in the sim to date. FlightGear is an option for those who can't run FS9, FSX or Xplane well. It does show signs of promise--the latest version is by far the best to date. Install is smooth--if it isn't working on some systems that's a mystery to me. Something must be amiss in such systems--don't know what. I do run Vista as a full admin with all of the account control features turned off. That may be the trick for a clean install, but I don't really know. I think much has been achieved in terms of making the sky look more natural. Framerates, at least on a modern system with an Nvidia graphics card, are good--I don't care whether they are better than FSX or not--they are good, smooth and make for a fluid sim. They seem better than the last FlightGear release I tried, but I am also working with the best video card I've owned to date. Based on what I've seen, I would encourage FlightGear fans to keep supporting their sim and keep supporting those who develop it. I would discourage FlightGear fans from making comparisons with commercial sims, especially XPlane or FSX. That just invites comments you probably don't want to hear and it invites developers to keep things status quo thinking they've achieved the best sim available. I think FlightGear has potential, if it stays in development.

 

John

But why make it difficult by forcing the user to respond to a Windows popup and pick Notepad for everyone of the files before they can be read?

 

You do realize they've got a Wiki with almost all necessary information, don't you?

 

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Main_Page

 

 

 

This means FlightGear isn't a replacement for FSX as some seem to claim.

 

FIMF - FlightGear isn't Microsoft Flight Simulator.

 

 

 

Can anyone demonstrate the areas where FlightGear is actually superior, not just different, to FSX?

 

Shaders.

(Which are also the reason for ###### poor graphical performance on old or onboard video chips.)

 

Demonstrations of the shader capabilities in FG:

(Terrain does not affect object lighting in FSX)

 

http://users.jyu.fi/~trenk/pics/ultra11.jpg (Puddles on the landscape after a rainshower)

http://users.jyu.fi/~trenk/pics/ultra12.jpg (Swamps)

 

And this:

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Atmospheric_light_scattering

 

 

FSX is all textures, FG is all shaders and hence more accurate, but more demanding.

 

 

 

It sounds a lot like you're not too satisfied with Flight Gear. Perhaps you should ask for a refund?

 

*Chuckle*