Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an acciden tly way to landinglights; -)?
On mardi 30 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: gerard robin wrote On lundi 29 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: gerard robin wrote So, if I understand you correctly, there are no missing features, just the 2 bugs: z buffer and jitter. Tim has submitted a fix for both those to OSG. I've been using it for some time now. Works perfectly, but AFAIKS have not been taken aboard by OSG. Before: ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles.jpg After: ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles- 2.jpg Vivian Not exactly what i mean. Yes, with xml, had bug with the z buffer No ,xml don't gives every feature which are available with OSG script, The result from FG xml script is very simple ( not far from we had with PLIB effects ). OSG script can be very complex with animations into animations regarding particles shapes, particles colors ... and so on. I'm not sure I understand the problems that you describe - the xml particles do particle colour, size, transparency, texture, and the gravity, fluid, and wind programs all work (which they don't in the .osg script) - I'm not aware of anything missing? Only 2 shapes are available: QUAD and LINE. I would guess that they cover pretty much all our needs; do you have an example of requirement for another shape? For instance, the effect does not need any texture which is processed randomly, according the OSG script. Sorry you lost me there - random texture? Language difficulty perhaps? sorry, my language is not good ( out from the hospital, i need some rest :) , same problem in French :( ) To me (and today) there is only one way to get the best nice effects (more realistic): = it is to use the OSG script, but if it will be fully translated to XML (which could give some heavy coding). If you could describe what is missing in your opinion, we could perhaps at least put it on the TODO list. Don't think the coding would be too heavy. I had tried to get the effect that i get with the Catalina wakes OSG, without any success. When testing the xml scripts, i never got the same result ( may be i am wrong), the result was very poor. The content of the OSG scripts (when reading it) shows that there is an animation into an other animation, and a processing of shape colors and transparencies which avoid any texture ( the texture looks to be created randomly). We can notice that, these OSG examples are a very low level examples ( even they are better than my XML translation) With it we can have an higher complexity ( i am working on it) and i hope to get better and better effects, without any limitations, but the know how the writer and the power of the CPU. So, i concluded that only OSG script is able to answer the requested complexity. So up to now, because OSG opened a wide door to many features, i guess that we must not reduce the size of that door :) Again, i agree with the common usage of it, like trailing smoke, or some dust on the wheel when touching the ground, however we can do more than we did with PLIB. I haven't found an effect I couldn't do yet, but perhaps you have? Let us know and we will look into it. You are right, if we only want the basic ones, which answer today to most of the generic requests, in addition to it, we still have Plib which answer too ( the Catalina water bomber use it, i don't need to translate it in OSG) However with OSG we can do more and better, the wake effects , the fire effect, exploding effect are other specific cases which wants more complexity. Sorry to read that you have been in hospital - hope you are well now, Regards Vivian Thanks, I feel being like a program in CVS, when a lot of persons are working on me It is never finished :) Unfortunately the comparison stops here, because there is not any improvement, only repair. 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=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an acciden tly way to landinglights; -)?
On lundi 29 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: gerard robin wrote So, if I understand you correctly, there are no missing features, just the 2 bugs: z buffer and jitter. Tim has submitted a fix for both those to OSG. I've been using it for some time now. Works perfectly, but AFAIKS have not been taken aboard by OSG. Before: ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles.jpg After: ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles-2.jpg Vivian Not exactly what i mean. Yes, with xml, had bug with the z buffer No ,xml don't gives every feature which are available with OSG script, The result from FG xml script is very simple ( not far from we had with PLIB effects ). OSG script can be very complex with animations into animations regarding particles shapes, particles colors ... and so on. For instance, the effect does not need any texture which is processed randomly, according the OSG script. To me (and today) there is only one way to get the best nice effects (more realistic): = it is to use the OSG script, but if it will be fully translated to XML (which could give some heavy coding). So up to now, because OSG opened a wide door to many features, i guess that we must not reduce the size of that door :) Again, i agree with the common usage of it, like trailing smoke, or some dust on the wheel when touching the ground, however we can do more than we did with PLIB. 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=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an acciden tly way to landinglights; -)?
On lundi 29 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: gerard robin wrote: -Original Message- From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 September 2008 15:45 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel]Bug or Feature? Or an accidently way to landinglights; -)? On lundi 29 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: gerard robin wrote So, if I understand you correctly, there are no missing features, just the 2 bugs: z buffer and jitter. Tim has submitted a fix for both those to OSG. I've been using it for some time now. Works perfectly, but AFAIKS have not been taken aboard by OSG. Before: ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles.jpg After: ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles-2.jpg Vivian Not exactly what i mean. Yes, with xml, had bug with the z buffer No ,xml don't gives every feature which are available with OSG script, The result from FG xml script is very simple ( not far from we had with PLIB effects ). OSG script can be very complex with animations into animations regarding particles shapes, particles colors ... and so on. I'm not sure I understand the problems that you describe - the xml particles do particle colour, size, transparency, texture, and the gravity, fluid, and wind programs all work (which they don't in the .osg script) - I'm not aware of anything missing? Only 2 shapes are available: QUAD and LINE. I would guess that they cover pretty much all our needs; do you have an example of requirement for another shape? For instance, the effect does not need any texture which is processed randomly, according the OSG script. Sorry you lost me there - random texture? Language difficulty perhaps? sorry, my language is not good ( out from the hospital, i need some rest :) , same problem in French :( ) To me (and today) there is only one way to get the best nice effects (more realistic): = it is to use the OSG script, but if it will be fully translated to XML (which could give some heavy coding). If you could describe what is missing in your opinion, we could perhaps at least put it on the TODO list. Don't think the coding would be too heavy. I had tried to get the effect that i get with the Catalina wakes OSG, without any success. When testing the xml scripts, i never got the same result ( may be i am wrong), the result was very poor. The content of the OSG scripts (when reading it) shows that there is an animation into an other animation, and a processing of shape colors and transparencies which avoid any texture ( the texture looks to be created randomly). We can notice that, these OSG examples are a very low level examples ( even they are better than my XML translation) With it we can have an higher complexity ( i am working on it) and i hope to get better and better effects, without any limitations, but the know how the writer and the power of the CPU. So, i concluded that only OSG script is able to answer the requested complexity. So up to now, because OSG opened a wide door to many features, i guess that we must not reduce the size of that door :) Again, i agree with the common usage of it, like trailing smoke, or some dust on the wheel when touching the ground, however we can do more than we did with PLIB. I haven't found an effect I couldn't do yet, but perhaps you have? Let us know and we will look into it. You are right, if we only want the basic ones, which answer today to most of the generic requests, in addition to it, we still have Plib which answer too ( the Catalina water bomber use it, i don't need to translate it in OSG) However with OSG we can do more and better, the wake effects , the fire effect, exploding effect are other specific cases which wants more complexity. 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=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an acciden tly way to landinglights; -)?
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.comforum_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=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
