On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: > gerard robin wrote > > > On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > > * Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 28 September 2008: > > > > The change wasn't/isn't even necessary (see above). > > > > > > Another reason for the patch was that we could use OSG's > > > model embedded particles in the same scenery. Now that > > > we have XML configured OSG particles, this reason is > > > obsolete, too. No reasons left, as far as I can see. > > > > > > m. > > > > Not fully right, the XML doesn't give ( all) the features which are into > > OSG, . > > So to me the paricles.osg object with animations is longer necessary. > > For instance, the Catalina and some others that i am working on. > > > > The OSG animation particles models could be very accurate within XML, > > but unfortunately there is missing a lot of features ( more than a lot > > :) ) which are there within OSG native model. > > I haven't noticed anything critical missing from the XML particles, and > they do put the particles in the right frame of reference, and they do get > the right wind, which the osg solution does not. > > What do you see as missing? Perhaps we can get on the case. > > There is an update to particles in osg in the pipeline, which I'm currently > using, and that does improve the look of the .xml particles. I'm not aware > of the current position of that patch. > > Vivian > Since i don't know what is new in the pipeline, i can't precisely answer the question.
I only can get some comparison with the actual CVS process ( we had a talk about it before ) The xml which is there, don't give the same result than we have with the .osg effects, and, my models (which are in CVS) are not perfect, i am working on a huge improvement regarding the wake.osg which will increase more the differences. Yes, a long line of trailing smoke is not possible, because there is not any interaction from .osg to .ac and/or externals ( like winds). So, i don't say that the xml is wrong, i only say that it don't give the same eye candy. To remember the first talk we had about it here the link : http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=200808121328.41260.ghmalau%40gmail.com&forum_name=flightgear-devel =================> >Are we sure that, all the Particle features which are within OSG, are > available with the new XML coding <particlesystem> ? > > When translating one of my .osg file to <particlesystem> .xml file, i > don't > get the same quality of result. > > It could be just me. I can be wrong. :( > > Or that new XML coding is may be a first step, and others improvements are > coming :) > No, all the features of particles are not available with the xml version, but I don't think that should affect performance. Tim recently fixed a bug which only showed up under MSVC9, and other bugs have been reported, in particular that the particles "jitter". There are no further enhancements planned to the xml stuff that I am aware of, unless Tiago is doing something. SNIP Vivian <===================================== Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ "J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire " ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
