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 blobs. 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> -Fred ideas provider _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgearemail@example.com http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d