On Thursday 13 January 2005 02:22, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > On January 12, 2005 04:10 pm, Wolfram Kuss wrote: > > However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would > > guess that far in excess of 90% of models are not. For > > example, each edge needs to have two neighbour faces. > > The models can be made to be "watertight". People just need > to get off their lazy behind and start creating/merging parts > poly by poly, vertex by vertex. > > > > Ampere
I'm afraid that all model objects cannot be made 'water -tight', i.e turned into closed surfaces, at least not without adding lots of redundant faces, which would then need to be set to 100% transparency. This would increase both the surface culling overhead and probably cause further problems with transparency ordering. Examples would include canopies and virtual cockpits. How would you make a closed surface cockpit canopy without adding redundant surfaces to close it? I guess you could actually give it some thickness, and close it that way, but it would increase the face count x 3 (outside faces, edge faces & inside faces). It's similar with virtual cockpits i.e. the window frames and panel. After you've made the basic interior surfaces you'd then have add additional surfaces to close them at the back, but you would never want to see them. Any particular reason you think the problem is just due to laziness? LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
