Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Melchior FRANZ writes: > > Shouldn't the far_clipping plane be tied to visibility? This slows > > down rendering and uses more memory, OTOH it doesn't make sense to > > allow far-reaching visibility but to show white tiles on the > > horizon. > > Perhaps it could be tied, but not directly, the far clip plan has to > at least include the sky dome, sun, moon, stars, planets, clouds, > etc. even when the visibility is rather low.
Wouldn't these be good candidates for a separate projection environment? The stars, planets, sun, moon, and sky (but not clouds) could very easily be rendered in that order without Z test or write, which frees them from whatever modeling environment you use for terrestrial stuff. The far plane could then be brought forward to the weather visibility number. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
