Quoting Erik Hofman:

> Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > I know this is preliminary code, but is there a reason why 100% cloud
> density
> > doesn't give us overcast rather than scatered/broken as it is now ?
> I don't think we want to draw overcast (and cirrus) using 3d clouds but
> rather using the existing code, don't we?

So the 3d code shouldn't exclude 2d clouds but fade into them.
But if we want to model front one day, it is a thing to ponder now.
Overcast layers are flat at the base but often show towers from the top, at
altitude a 737 or an Airbus are supposed to fly.
I wish we could one day see really big clouds in FG and not only small cumulus
I agree cirrus can stay 2d.

BTW: how are computed cloud shapes ? In the M. Harris code, they are modeled
with a tool he never released and stuck to the same set of shape ( stored in a
binary format file ). Is it a procedural function or something fixed ?
I am dreaming loudly here but we could envision in a distant future that clouds
could be reshaped at runtime by wind and current. So implementing a very simple
procedural function rather than something fixed could be seen as the first step
of something more ambitious later. In fact I was thinking about implicit
surfaces ( see http://www.unchainedgeometry.com/jbloom/papers.html ) aka
metaballs in blender to picture the sky at a rough level and refine individual
clouds with impostors like M. Harris' or now Harald's code. </dreaming>

ideas provider

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to