Well some areas of FG could be improved a lot with little effect on frame rates.
For instance a nice big library of tileable textures and a scenery builder that knows how to build tiled scenery based on land class data. i.e. The type of thing you see in FS2002/04 where the textures seem to blend together and you can't see where one polygon starts and another stops. Fly2 also used this principle and it really looked nice and ran on my system better than FG does at the moment. That would require no changes to FG and would not impact frame rates very much unless your graphics card doesn't have enough memory for all the textures. In which case you can just carry on using default scenery. I'm planning on doing this and seeing how well it works. If it's a success I'll let you all know about it. However I do agree with you about optimizing FG. It has scenery comparable with FS98 but runs about 1000% slower. I'm sure that some of that has to do with the processing that goes into rendering the nice gauges,etc but there probably is plenty of room for tweaking the terrain rendering code amoungst other areas. I haven't noticed any scenery popping like I see in FS2002 which almost makes me wonder if there are any LOD algorithms in FG. Paul On Saturday, 8 November 2003 16:31, Innis Cunningham wrote: > While eye candy might be nice I think the main effort would be better used > to write > as tight a code as we can. > Can I write code?. Not a line of it. > I am now getting the same frame rates in FG that I was getting in FS2K2 and > that was > with full AI and about 30 A/C at the airport some of which were quite > detailed models. > If you want to bring FG to a grinding halt try putting 30 static A/C around > KSFO and see > what your frame rates are.Unless KSFO is much smaller than I think it > is(and I live half way around > the world from KSFO)then I would think that 30 A/C would fit on one > terminal finger. > If you ask me if I would rather have cars moving around or a more realistic > taxiway > texture system including airfield signage. > Or plenty of static A/C and buildings at the expense of some good aircraft > panels. > Then I am afraid I would pick the latter in both in both cases. > If you want eyecandy them the process already exists just take any of the > 3D models > and put them into the scenery.You can even make your own models of anything > you > like and put them in your scenery.But it won't be long before you realise > that at its > current state of development FG will choke on the extra content. > So while I am all for eyecandy I would think that energies would be but put > to getting > the best performance from the sim with a good level of detail. > Lets do some crawling before we try the walk or run. > > Just my opinion > > Cheers > Innis > The Mad Aussi _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
