Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Vivian Meazza
Thorsten wrote: -Original Message- From: Renk Thorsten [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 21 February 2013 06:54 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues Vivian: There seem to be significant issues with the loading of

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Renk Thorsten
I was not referring to a frame rate issue, but FG running out of memory. http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=18913p=177392#p177392 It is rare to see that happening using the current scenery, but here if I select random buildings and objects with a high value for trees, I can

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Emilian Huminiuc
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 08:44:24 Renk Thorsten wrote: . 1) Black skies: This may either be skydome unloading which I can't reproduce (but we should have a property preventing that, I don't know if it's set only by Advanced Weather, if not then this is a Basic Weather problem, not

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Emilian Huminiuc
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:31:18 Renk Thorsten wrote: I was not referring to a frame rate issue, but FG running out of memory. http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=18913p=177392#p17739 2 It is rare to see that happening using the current scenery, but here if I

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Renk Thorsten
Why should those users be forced to give up on those goodies just because one part of the rendering scheme doesn't want to play by the rules? Even more so when there's no indication that happens... The default max visibility value is a pretty sane default, and simply increasing that to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Emilian Huminiuc
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:13:21 Renk Thorsten wrote: Why should those users be forced to give up on those goodies just because one part of the rendering scheme doesn't want to play by the rules? Even more so when there's no indication that happens... The default max

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Emilian Huminiuc
I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about that) Sorry this should have read: I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about that) and see below for the huge value.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Renk Thorsten
I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about that) and see below for the huge value. Let me get this straight. You state that the 16 km are a pretty sane value. The proposal being discussed is to load terrain to 20 km no matter what the visibility is. Vivian has

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread James Turner
On 21 Feb 2013, at 11:33, Emilian Huminiuc emili...@gmail.com wrote: 4) z/Z is disabled because weather comes with a model for the vertical change of visibility as you go to different altitudes. You are allowed to affect that model (that's what sliders are for), but you are not supposed to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Vivian Meazza
Thorsten -Original Message- From: Renk Thorsten [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 21 February 2013 10:31 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues I was not referring to a frame rate issue, but FG running out of memory.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Stuart Buchanan
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote: Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlled by advanced weather'. Another option would be to move the visibility control to a dialog, with a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread James Turner
On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:54, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote: Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlled by advanced weather'.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Renk Thorsten
Another option would be to move the visibility control to a dialog, with a slider / spin box, and explicitly disable it when advanced weather is selection. Then we could lose the keybinding completely, which is something I want to move towards for options that are infrequently used,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread James Turner
On 21 Feb 2013, at 16:32, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: I think not... I was about to bring this up as well. We have a mixture of real visibilities and auxiliary LOD parameters * we have visibility-m and ground-visibility-m which are actually used for rendering, i.e. they

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Lorenzo Calabrese
On 02/21/2013 04:26 PM, James Turner wrote: On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:54, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote: Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues

2013-02-21 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi, On Thursday, February 21, 2013 16:43:51 James Turner wrote: This is moving in the right direction for sure. I'd like to go a little further, and make the LOD setting a simple checkbox labelled 'reduce detail adaptively'. Then make the LOD ranges (for trees, clouds, AI models, whatever)

[Flightgear-devel] Discussion culture clashes

2013-02-21 Thread Renk Thorsten
..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow. Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings? The way I see it - if you want to make a statement in a discussion, you have to read what has been said before. No