Am Mittwoch 11 Mai 2005 09:18 schrieb Martin Spott:
> Dave Culp wrote:

> I don't believe that cutting holes into the scenery at runtime meets
> the performance expectations of FlightGear users. Therefore we already
> have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite
> airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw.
> On the other hand I'd be willing to maintain a PostGIS database where
> we could store hand-tuned scenery shapes that don't fall into the
> regime of TaxiDraw. Maybe this could somehow be coupled with the
> FlightGear Scenery Designer for input if someone adds the required bits
> to let TerraGear read the output.
> Unfortunately we can't store elevations in such a database but Norman
> promised to be he would give us an update as soon as progress is made
> in this area  ;-);-)

Well I would say that rather the half of all have a more or less high-end 
machine avaible.

And those whoose machine isn't able to render the scene  properly arent forced 
to use this feature at all. If they don't load a custom mesh-file, they never 
will have to deal with that.

But were you are right is the fact of recompiling the whole at runtime. (even 
for the more faster machines.)
Probably a good idea would be to compile your own Mesh as a btg-file for 
example or something other equal. So that you already have calculated the 
vectors of the border. If you keep them quite straight you shouldn't feel 
such a great perfomance loss - This all just happens when intializing the 
object - Not every frame.

The idea with a PostGIS Database is a quite good idea indeed. would be cool in 
addition to the real custom objects ;)

But this data also needs to get involved into the FlightGear Scenery - Not 
just to every local one compiling at your own.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to