On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:03:00 +0200, Paul wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote: > > We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving > > map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's > > appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some > > day. > > I forgot to add : > If we manage to create a G1000 display system we automatically have a > display system that works in scores of other aircraft thus enabling > us to create lots of cool and modern aircraft "fairly" easily. > > Here is an incomplete list : > Beechcraft Bonanza A36 (intention) > Beechcraft Baron 58 (intention) > Cessna 182 Skylane > Cessna 206H Stationair > Cessna Citation Mustang > Diamond DA40 > Diamond DA42 TwinStar > Mooney Ovation2 GX > Mooney Bravo GX > > Also FlightGear would be the only publicly available simulator that I > know of that includes a G1000 cockpit. > I know a lot of hardcore MSFS users are complaining about the lack of > glass cockpits and MSFS will also become a vintage simulator (out of > the box) if they don't do some serious work in this area. ..don't forget that the fact "there is no standard", also means we can set it. ;-) > BTW : I just did a libagg test and it renders 375000 (true type font) > glyphs per second on my Athlon XP2000+ > So if an instrument used 1000 glyphs it would manage 375 frames/second > excluding any other overheads like creating and destroying textures, > OpenGL > calls, etc. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
