On Friday, 28 January 2005 22:14, Manuel Massing wrote:
> I completely agree with you on the integration part. I think the engine
> is technically adequate for its intended purposes (i.e. satellite-textured
> landscapes). If you have any questions concerning the technical side, feel
> free to ask.
I would love to see an alternative terrain engine that supports
I do have a few questions though :
Does the current code that you have handle texture paging?
What sort of texture resolutions will it be able to scale down to?
How is the mipmapping handled (if it currently uses mipmaps)?
What will the maximum visual range be?
Are you using any sort of texture compression like S3TC/DXTC to save space in
> In this light, its also important to see it as an alternative,
> not a replacement, for the current scenery, because each engine will have
> its own set of advantages and disadvantages.
Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of users who are happy with the current scenery
engine and one of the advantages it has is that there is no paging of huge
textures while flying. This allows for high speed flights without any pausing
and can also be run on older hardware or where CPU cycles are best used
elsewhere like instrument updates or FDM's.
Last time I tried a Mach 5 flight in FS2004 I ended up with blank/grey scenery
tiles because it couldn't build and page the textures fast enough. :)
For sub-sonic speeds and VFR flight an eye candy terrain engine would be very
Flightgear-devel mailing list