Hi Stuart,
after some testing of the new scheme, I have two minor and one major
comment. Minor stuff first:
* how is the cloud density slider supposed to influence the clouds
generated by add-cloud? Heiko claims that he gets to see an effect, I
tried to reproduce that but all that happened is
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Hi Stuart,
after some testing of the new scheme, I have two minor and one major
comment. Minor stuff first:
* how is the cloud density slider supposed to influence the clouds
generated by add-cloud? Heiko claims that he gets to see an
Hi Stuart,
This should now be fixed, and the clouds should be white once more.
Thorsten R. - regarding the 3000ft altitude offset problem, can you
check that you haven't got an altitude set for the layer itself?
Offsets as such are okay. I used to have some models with internal
coordinates
2011/10/10 thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
callsign Previous waypoint Cruise Departure airport 0xb85b380 Leg 5
target_speed 1004.05 speedFraction 0.00287666 Currecnt speed 1004
Segmentation fault
I got same segfault when stay solid in UFO.
May be its Durk's traffic?
--
---
WBR, Vadym.
Hi All,
On 10 Oct 2011, at 10:55, Vadym Kukhtin wrote:
2011/10/10 thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
callsign Previous waypoint Cruise Departure airport 0xb85b380 Leg 5
target_speed 1004.05 speedFraction 0.00287666 Currecnt speed 1004
Segmentation fault
I got same segfault when stay solid in
Side remark: we now seem to have a speed limit: Whenever I exceed ~ 1600
kt with the ufo I get
Okay, the speed limit on the intergalactic highway has been liftted. Make sure
to have your towel ready and count to 42. :-)
Cheers,
Durk
Thanks for the reports. I suspect something has gone wrong with my merge.
Unfortunately I wont be able to look at it until tonight.
Sorry for breaking the build.
-Stuart
On 7 Oct 2011, at 23:35, syd adams adams@gmail.com wrote:
Me too , with ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250
On Fri, Oct 7,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reports. I suspect something has gone wrong with my merge.
Unfortunately I wont be able to look at it until tonight.
Sorry for breaking the build.
-Stuart
I've identified what's gone wrong - the
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:53 PM, I wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan I wrote:
Thanks for the reports. I suspect something has gone wrong
with my merge. Unfortunately I wont be able to look at it until tonight.
Sorry for breaking the build.
-Stuart
I've identified
Torsten has kindly committed my recent merge requests.
So, not only should the curved field be fixed, but there are also many
more shading parameters available for the top/middle/bottom/shaded
part of the cloud. See README.3Dclouds for details.
Thanks, I'll pull this right away!
* Thorsten
So, not only should the curved field be fixed, but there are also many
more shading parameters available for the top/middle/bottom/shaded
part of the cloud. See README.3Dclouds for details.
Somehow, that didn't work out for me.
* clouds are now black
(see also
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Somehow, that didn't work out for me.
* clouds are now black
(see also
http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=7358start=435#p139537
in the Forum - I'm not the only one with that problem - the common theme
might be an
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:01, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Me too on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest git.
It's the same for me
Me Too: (two Nvidia 9800GT cards + latest git).
--
All of the data
On Friday 07 October 2011 19:38:54 Durk Talsma wrote:
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:01, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Me too on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest git.
It's the same for me
Me Too: (two Nvidia 9800GT cards + latest git).
Me (1, 2, 3 , 4.. ok that's 5)... Me5
Me too , with ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, emili...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 07 October 2011 19:38:54 Durk Talsma wrote:
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:01, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Me too on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest git.
It's the
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:36 PM, I wrote:
Yes - I've managed to repro the problem. My previous fix was insufficient.
I've got another fix, that I think solves the problem, but unfortunately I've
got a bunch of simgear merge requests stacked up on gitorious right
now, so it may be some time
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
What's the status of the flat layer on curved Earth problem by the way?
This should have been fixed since September 12th in git.
https://gitorious.org/fg/simgear/commit/d2dfb81a0907276f36cf7582c4274fa1784972d6
Are you still seeing the
I see. So what do I do when I want to change the wind and want the
clouds
to follow the new setting? Simply do a setprop for the layer height
setting it to the same value it was?
For the moment, Yes.
At some point in the future we should fix it so that we're picking up
the wind from the
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
What's the status of the flat layer on curved Earth problem by the way?
This should have been fixed since September 12th in git.
https://gitorious.org/fg/simgear/commit/d2dfb81a0907276f36cf7582c4274fa1784972d6
Are you still seeing the
What's the status of the flat layer on curved Earth problem by the way?
This should have been fixed since September 12th in git.
https://gitorious.org/fg/simgear/commit/d2dfb81a0907276f36cf7582c4274fa1784972d6
Are you still seeing the problem?
Unfortunately yes. I've pulled and compiled
Hi Stuart,
(Apologies if I've missed this already) Are you planning put this into
git?
Should actually be in now - you might have to activate it though, because
I haven't changed the gui and some menu options cause errors with the new
rendering system because they are not implemented or
On 1 Oct 2011, at 11:25, Thorsten Renk wrote:
I see. So what do I do when I want to change the wind and want the clouds
to follow the new setting? Simply do a setprop for the layer height
setting it to the same value it was?
For the moment, Yes.
At some point in the future we should fix it
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
3) Antishading
If you can provide the parameters of a cloud that is exhibiting the
problem, that would be most useful.
Okay, I've decided over the weekend that I'll make my current code
available this week, because there's so much new
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 23:18 +0100, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
I'd really like the 3D cloud infrastructure to be used for all the
clouds, so
if there are features missing we should address them.
Would it be possible to modify the 3D
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 23:18 +0100, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Unfortunately, fixing this is going to require someone with more knowledge of
OSG than I have. The problem is that the 3D clouds are in an earlier
rendering bin
from the scenery models with transparent textures, which means that the
3) Antishading
If you can provide the parameters of a cloud that is exhibiting the
problem, that would be most useful.
Okay, I've decided over the weekend that I'll make my current code
available this week, because there's so much new stuff in which is not
related to the transition to the new
Hi,
On Monday, September 12, 2011 00:18:47 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
The problem definitely seems to be that any other objects in the scenery
with an alpha layer are rendered after the clouds, so are rendered in
front of them, irrespective of the viewpoint and their relative positions.
By
Hi Stuart,
I'd really like the 3D cloud infrastructure to be used for all the
clouds, so
if there are features missing we should address them.
Would it be possible to modify the 3D clouds so that they can be used for
the rain texture as well? For example, I could provide a sprite
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
I'd really like the 3D cloud infrastructure to be used for all the
clouds, so
if there are features missing we should address them.
Would it be possible to modify the 3D clouds so that they can be used for
the rain texture as well? For
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
1) placement in flat layer instead of curved
OK. I'll get the fix for this committed as soon as I get the
chance.
2) clouds don't obscure some objects (newly discovered)
This may be a problem related to the rendering order of objects
with
Hi Stuart,
Thorsten R. - please feel to provide a prioritized list of
fixes/enhancements you need.
A summary list of current issues ordered by priority (leaving out what
your recent commit addressed - I still need to pull that):
1) placement in flat layer instead of curved
That is currently
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, wrote:
... and yet another issue:
On a first long-range test yesterday, I observed that the cloud base of my
convective layer was continuously rising. At takeoff the clouds were
exactly as specified, later still plausible given terrain, but by the time
the
... and yet another issue:
On a first long-range test yesterday, I observed that the cloud base of my
convective layer was continuously rising. At takeoff the clouds were
exactly as specified, later still plausible given terrain, but by the time
the cloudbase had reached my curise altitude of
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Yes, the sprite is selected from the sheet randomly on the x-axis and
based on it's height in the cloud on the y-axis for precisely this
reason.
The behaviour isn't switchable at present though it could be.
For the relatively small
I've got a patch to do this that I'll submit shortly. the parameter is
height-map-texture, and it defaults to false.
I'm also taking the opportunity to change some of the defaults, so that
the
max-[cloud|sprite]-[width|height]-m parameters default to 1.5x the min
equivalent.
I suspect it
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Thanks. I have to take a look at the max-cloud-height-m - currently I'm
only setting min-cloud-height-m for the following reason:
It seems to me that the cloud *center* gets placed at (alt-ft +
layer_altitude), such that (0.5 *
That should be 1 second for most systems, so that's great. Does that
just cover the elevation queries or generating the full model?
That should be 1 sec for everything (I don't have any measurement for
how fast generating the cloud models is, but it is *very* fast.
If so, then I wonder if
Some progress and minor issues:
I am in the process of redoing textures and cloud definitions for Cu
layers (the toughest nut), about halfway through converting all available
cloud types.
I have implemented tested tile management functionality (automatic
building and removing clouds) and it
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Some progress and minor issues:
I am in the process of redoing textures and cloud definitions for Cu
layers (the toughest nut), about halfway through converting all available
cloud types.
I have implemented tested tile management
Instead there are two shadings taking place:
1) Shading based on distance of the sprite to the sun. Effectively
we compare a vector from the center of the cloud to the sprite location
with the light normal.
2) Shading based on the vertical placement of the sprite in the cloud, so
lower
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Upon further reflection - could it be the problem that I'm trying to
assemble a layer rather than fill a volume?
The bottom shading in 3dcloud.vert is controlled by a combination of
'shade' and 'cloud_height'. Your Nasal interface doesn't
I think the problem is that you are expecting the cloud height to
indicate the location
of sprite centers, wherease the code is expecting it to be the height
of the actual
cloud.
The code actually _subtracts_ the minimum texture height from the cloud
height to determine where to place
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
We should change the maximum to whatever you feel is sensible
(40km?), and leave the default as it is (20km).
I think my current maximum is 45 km, and for much more one needs a
different tile structure anyway, so if we could get 45 km
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 14:43 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to
the new
system so far here:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=7358start=390#p132335
Stuart - please help: I get anti-shadowing for
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 14:43 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to
the new
system so far here:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=7358start=390#p132335
I've finally (I guess you all know the feeling of too much other stuff to
do...) managed to start some tests with Stuart's Nasal interface for 3d
cloud generation. Right now there is only a very rough placement structure
and no real management (no removal, no distinction of cloud size, all same
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM,wrote:
I've finally (I guess you all know the feeling of too much other stuff to
do...) managed to start some tests with Stuart's Nasal interface for 3d
cloud generation. Right now there is only a very rough placement structure
and no real management (no
Even though your previous testing showed no perf difference between the
default 3d clouds and the models, I am slightly disappointed there isn't
some
intrinsic perf benefit to the default 3d versions.
It's not been a fair comparison as such. Let me try building clouds from
the same texture
Even though your previous testing showed no perf difference between the
default 3d clouds and the models, I am slightly disappointed there isn't
some
intrinsic perf benefit to the default 3d versions.
It's not been a fair comparison as such. Let me try building clouds from
the same texture
49 matches
Mail list logo
