Оффтопик, но немогу удержаться..

GB: What about performance? Won't 800x600, at least, be rather too slow for a flight simulation.

DI: Well, the 800x600 mode may only be used by the front-end. One of the main design goals is to provide a clean interface to the graphics drivers so that they can be shared by both the simulation and the front-end. That was another lesson from Tornado: we ended up doing a lot of extra work because all the low-level graphics stuff - line drawing bit-block transfers and so on - all had to be done twice. Even so, we haven't by any means ruled out supporting 800x600 for simulation on fast machines with fast graphics cards. I've been doing quite a bit of experimentation as the graphics drivers develop and I'm a lot more optimistic about performance than a little while ago. Basically although the SVGA mode uses four times as much display memory it isn't turning out to be four times as slow. The kind of results I'm getting suggest a frame-rate for Tornado level graphics of about 65 frames per second at 320x240. That is with a mid- range 486 with a DRAM based localbus graphics card using the S3 chip-set. Moving to 640x480 slows things down to about 30 frames per second whilst going to 800x600 results in about 15 frames per second. If you used an ET4000W32 based video card you'd probably get things to go at least 10 per cent faster. Using high end cards with VRAM and so on would probably still a better performance at the higher resolutions.