On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
Aw, that looks bad... I've never seen anything like, so my first guess would
be that it's one of these NVIDIA vs. ATI issues (which are really tough to
understand from my side with just NVIDIA cards available). For reference -
I've seen it
On Friday, December 14, 2012 10:15:16 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
Aw, that looks bad... I've never seen anything like, so my first guess
would be that it's one of these NVIDIA vs. ATI issues (which are really
tough to
understand from my side
On Friday, December 14, 2012 10:15:16 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
Aw, that looks bad... I've never seen anything like, so my first guess
would be that it's one of these NVIDIA vs. ATI issues (which are really
tough to
understand from my side
Hi Adrian,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Adrian Musceac wrote:
As most of you know, the main performance issues come from having to
repeatedly sample terrain elevation for a large number of points.
This is done though and osg::NodeVisitor, which traverses all nodes within the
scenegraph
On Friday, December 14, 2012 13:09:54 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Hi Adrian,
I haven't looked at your code, and I'm sure you've already taken care
of this, but:
The use of the SG_NODEMASK_TERRAIN_BIT by the random trees and buildings
is probably due to my ignorance when writing the code, and I
Oh one more thing, The random buildings and trees definetly receive shadows,
but they don't cast it.
Is that the way it should be? Asking because I'm about to push the
modifications to my simgear clone.
Cheers,
Adrian
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Adrian Musceac wrote:
Oh one more thing, The random buildings and trees definetly receive shadows,
but they don't cast it.
Is that the way it should be? Asking because I'm about to push the
modifications to my simgear clone.
The trees were definitely both
On Friday, December 14, 2012 15:05:59 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
The trees were definitely both casting and receiving shadows under
Rembrandt in the
past. I remember this as I was pleasantly surprised that it worked!
I haven't tested recently though, so it's possible that it has been
broken
On Friday, December 14, 2012 12:33:52 Renk Thorsten wrote:
Thorsten, from discussion on irc, it seems you're assigning to a varying
in
the fragment shaders. See this log: http://dpaste.com/845317/
Most likely the other errors will go away once you fix that.
Thanks, the log was very
Those are fixed, but you still have some implicit casts/coversions in
there,
those are tolerated by the nvidia compiler but not by other drivers:
http://dpaste.com/845842/
Aw, a forgotten decimal point - that's picky. Okay, how about now?
* Thorsten
On Friday, December 14, 2012 15:05:59 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
The trees were definitely both casting and receiving shadows under
Rembrandt in the
past. I remember this as I was pleasantly surprised that it worked!
I haven't tested recently though, so it's possible that it has been
broken
On Friday, December 14, 2012 13:28:08 Renk Thorsten wrote:
Those are fixed, but you still have some implicit casts/coversions in
there,
those are tolerated by the nvidia compiler but not by other drivers:
http://dpaste.com/845842/
Aw, a forgotten decimal point - that's picky. Okay, how
Hi Adrian,
you are doing an excellent job at marketing your product ;-)
As I do not have the time to proof you wrong, you deserve the chance to
proof me wrong! I'll shut up now and stop objecting against merging your
code. I won't be able to merge it myself before we enter the feature
freeze
Am 13.12.2012 16:28, schrieb geneb:
Um, no he's not. He just happens to be a contributor like the rest of us.
:) There is no herder for the Free Range Cats that make up the FlightGear
project. :)
How disappointing ;-)
Frankly, I think your addition to FlightGear is fantastic and a needed
On Friday, December 14, 2012 18:09:04 Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Hi Adrian,
you are doing an excellent job at marketing your product ;-)
As I do not have the time to proof you wrong, you deserve the chance to
proof me wrong! I'll shut up now and stop objecting against merging your
code. I
On 14 Dec 2012, at 16:09, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
As I do not have the time to proof you wrong, you deserve the chance to
proof me wrong! I'll shut up now and stop objecting against merging your
code. I won't be able to merge it myself before we enter the feature
freeze but probably someone
On 14 Dec 2012, at 17:27, James Turner wrote:
As I said to Adrian offline, I know there's plenty of code already checked
in, of a similar quality / design / pattern to his submission, but I'd like
to set a higher standard for new code than what we had previously.
And it case it wasn't
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, James Turner wrote:
On 14 Dec 2012, at 17:27, James Turner wrote:
As I said to Adrian offline, I know there's plenty of code already checked
in, of a similar quality / design / pattern to his submission, but I'd like
to set a higher standard for new code than what we
Hi Thorsten
- no errors on the console
- latest drivers for the ati card (tested with all ati drivers from 2012
for win7 64bit)
- the artifacts show up if the landmass shader is over 3 (counting from
left / starting with 0)
- the artefacts show up if the transition shader is over 1 / at 2 only
- no errors on the console
- latest drivers for the ati card (tested with all ati drivers from 2012
for win7 64bit)
- the artifacts show up if the landmass shader is over 3 (counting from
left / starting with 0)
- the artefacts show up if the transition shader is over 1 / at 2 only
the
20 matches
Mail list logo
