Alex Perry writes: > 2D objects require less textures because you don't have to stack them in > front of each other and cover up the joins. That frees up texture space > to do more interesting things in the scenery and in the panel > itself.
I don't disagree with what you have said, but would like to clarify that the current 2d panel uses the same opengl texture mechanism as a 3d panel (or any other 3d objects.) So in terms of performance and resources consumed (at least with the way our 2d panels are currently implimented) there isn't a lot of difference. > If you force panel designers to work in 3D, you will lose much casual work. > Fundamentally, most humans can work comfortably with 2D (and paper sketches), > but have trouble with 3D even when this is really only a flat structure. > Therefore, I recommend having a fully supported 2D panel file format. > > That doesn't mean that I object to having 3D panel content; we already > have the ability to do articulations and stuff in the PLIB infrastructure. > I just don't want this to be the only supported mechanism for panels. I think that is my main concern. I would like to keep instrument panel design as accessible to the 'average' folks as possible. I think the current 2d panel approach is rather nifty, although the 3d cockpit has it's advantages at times to. Not to mention that I'm involved in a side project where we will be using the 2d panel stuff. :-) Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
