> If I understand this correctly, you want to change the default behaviour > for > the scenery models while leaving the cockpit as is with the current > default > behaviour? Does it also involve changing the behaviour of the non-cockpit > parts of the aircraft model?
That depends... For most external views, one can safely assume that the plane isn't fogged and that the light is that light at the airplane position. Except for tower view if the plane is far from the tower - then it needs to be fogged. There's also usually better framerate in external views. To be on the safe side, I'd treat the external model just like scenery then and just dump the cockpit into a different class. > At first glance this seems to be a huge task to modify each aircraft > model, > but it might be automatable. I would think the work should lie where it > falls - if you want to change the default behaviour of scenery models do > just that and leave the aircraft alone. Well, how would we do that then? > Just some final thoughts - what is the framerate cost of this > enhancement? Surprisingly, so far it doesn't show much difference to the terrain haze shader without differential lighting (the new code primarily hits the vertex shader - apparently the bottleneck is the fragment part). In practical terms, with the F-16 flying over default scenery (KNID to KLSV) I get ~17-20 fps with 120 km visibility range and moderate clouds. It strongly scales with visibility and terrain vertex count - Alaska custom scenery Juneau for instance hits quite badly with 120 km visibility range dependent on whether you look into details scenery US side, or default scenery Canada side. With the X-15 in suborbital flight and 250 km visibility range I get similar figures but no clouds (too high...). But this isn't optimized shader code, for instance currently all haze is done in the fragment shader which is a must for terrain, but for models this can go into the vertex shader since they're not so large, no scattering integrals for the lower half of the skydome need to be computed, ... > And with Project Rembrandt waiting in the wings is this worth doing at > this stage at all? Project Rembrandt seems to be about something different - detailed rendering of shadows in the near zone (~15 km) - what I do is about approximate rendering of atmospheric shading in the far zone (~1000 km). The two approaches might be mutually exclusive such that you have to run one or the other, I don't know, but somehow the question itself strikes me as odd - certainly it's worth doing if only for the simple reason that I find it interesting working out what causes all the colors we see at sunrise. > I take it that whatever you do it is not for the upcoming > release? No - it's part of the terrain haze shader branch - the fate of which to be determined. Maybe it can be integrated properly, maybe it can be committed as an alternative scheme whenever the skydome scattering shader is on. Cheers, * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Mar 27 - Feb 2 Save $400 by Jan. 27 Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev2 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
