I agree that 3D is the way to go. Like David says, all the 3D polys in
the scene can of course be textured. We (BDG) use a resolution of
512x512 pixels for the textures of each of the main displays (art.
horizon, airspeed, VSI, boost gauge etc). The texture includes things
like the bezel, it would cost too many polygons to make these in 3D.
The two different possibilites are:
A) Have 3D polygons and textures on them for everything.
B) Have 3D polygons and textures on them for almost everything.
Have a special feature "panel" that means a non 3D person can input
coordinates and the program generates a panel.
The normal thing to do in most flightsim communities is to have
specialists for 2D and 3D. The disadvantage of A) is they have to work
together, for example the texturer needs a 3D model to test his
textures in flight in the correct type.
However, B) has to include all features of A), so B) is actually more
complex. There are lots of reasons why one flat dashboard with
textures on and no additional polys is bad:
- Switches and knobs, as already said by other people.
- Often there are several dashboards (for example overhead, on the
sides etc)
- You might want to do other crew stations that are more "3D".
- Often, the dashboard is subdivided. For example you have an "outer"
dashboard on the sides that is a bit farther back and has the engine
instruments etc and screw another dashboard on top of this with the 6
main instruments.
- I know several planes that have instruments outside the cockpit.
For example, the Ju52 ("Iron Annie") had at least one instrument on
each of the outer engines.
- You might want to animate things like rudder pedals.
With 3D, a know or a pedal is just another animated item.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
