David Megginson wrote: > I'm starting to wonder if the panel should be a special case at all in > the 3D model. The currently-available model animations already cover > all of the movements of the instruments except for text displays, so > the instruments could simply be part of the 3D model and then animated > like everything else (with appropriate LOD so that they disappear not > far outside the cockpit).
This sounds elegant. I'm a little worried about ease of authoring, though. Right now, everyone understands what a 2D panel means -- it's just flat, and has obvious coordinate conventions. Making everything 3D means that panel authors have to worry about a whole new set of concerns, like whether their panel "fits" in the cockpit they're working on. Since, in reality, all cockpits are composed of a bunch of flat surfaces with instruments on them, I'd argue that the simplest way to do this is what we have right now. The addition of scene graph integration and the ability to map multiple 2D panel descriptions into the 3D world sounds like the simplest way to do things. 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
