Developer's Backdoor > GSX Backdoor

How long have you been working on project ''GSX''

<< < (2/3) > >>

virtuali:

--- Quote from: lionking on May 24, 2012, 12:10:40 am ---is the performance that might occur some crashing computers, but when couatl and all the rest are running on another thread than FSX and you even can get 4GB ram if available, than why is it still so difficult to find/make a frames friendly solution? My question was not meant in the way that you're in a bad spot, but only because I'm quite wondering.
--- End quote ---

We don't affect FSX performance when we run our code, which does calculations, path finding, read/write files, etc.

But the moment we create a graphic object like an animated vehicle or human character, it WILL affect performances just the same as if it was created by a module running inside FSX, and will force FSX to allocate the memory required for it from its own memory.

lionking:

--- Quote from: virtuali on May 24, 2012, 12:33:36 am ---But the moment we create a graphic object like an animated vehicle or human character, it WILL affect performances just the same as if it was created by a module running inside FSX, and will force FSX to allocate the memory required for it from its own memory.

--- End quote ---


So am I right by assuming that you kind of send the objects and animations to the FSX by sending its the GSX's data? And so, at the moment when it's creating all those objects, the FSX is actually working only and not couatl as it has already sent its data? 

virtuali:

--- Quote from: lionking on May 25, 2012, 11:47:31 pm ---So am I right by assuming that you kind of send the objects and animations to the FSX by sending its the GSX's data? And so, at the moment when it's creating all those objects, the FSX is actually working only and not couatl as it has already sent its data? 
--- End quote ---

Not exactly, GSX is always working in the background even after the object has been created, because it's coordinating all the animations and the synchronization between different objects and their actions. It also handle their sounds, since all GSX sounds are made entirely independently from the FSX sound engine, since GSX includes its own surround sound engine, based on OpenAL.

This processing doesn't impact FSX performances at all. Making GSX "smarter" and doing more sophisticated calculations is entirely possible, without risk affecting FSX fps.

The actual display of objects, which is made using the FSX graphic engine, can affect performances, but not any different has having a couple of AI airplanes more on screen.

lionking:
But GSX puts vehicles and animations into FSX that aren't standard at all. Why is it then still not possible to create software that animates a second or even third jetway docking system? How does AES handle this? Could you do the same with your engine? The last question is not a request question to do that, but only a possibility question.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: lionking on May 26, 2012, 06:27:54 pm ---But GSX puts vehicles and animations into FSX that aren't standard at all. Why is it then still not possible to create software that animates a second or even third jetway docking system?
--- End quote ---

Who said it's "not possible" ? We never said that, we said we don't want to enter in the business of individually support each 3rd party scenery with missing jetways, because that will mean having to *charge* separately for every airport. It's a business model we'll happily leave to AES.


--- Quote ---How does AES handle this?
--- End quote ---

In its own way, which it's different than what we might do on FSX, since AES have to be compatible with FS9 too.


--- Quote ---Could you do the same with your engine? The last question is not a request question to do that, but only a possibility question.
--- End quote ---

Yes, of course we can do it, and we'll likely to do it, but probably for our own sceneries only.[/quote]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page