Either way, you're building a 3D object, and the level of difficulty is about the same -- you can just as easily stack and animate 2D textures using our 3D animation code. The 2D code is a legacy thing that it would be nice to dump, eventually.
I would have thought that having to build a 3D model and animate it would add another layer of complexity to the process. If we are fighting to keep the vertex count down on the A/C model why would we want to jack it up by having 20-40 other 3D objects in the scene.
I think that the "2D"/"3D" terminology is causing some confusion: they're just different ways of defining what ends up being the same thing in the scene graph (you still end up with a 3D object). A simple gauge with a rotating needle can be done with about 8 vertices using either the 2D or 3D approach, and should run about as fast; in fact, the 3D one might be faster, because you don't have to make as many layers and do as much alpha testing.
I would think the AH ball would be 2-500 vertices by itself.
No, it can still be a texture on a flat plane.
All the best,
David
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
