On Dienstag 14 Juni 2005 10:16, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> > So the last thing I remembered was that flying through clouds was much
> > better with the old code. The new clouds seem to be afraid from an
> > aircraft. They just move out of the flight path. As a result you almost
> > never fly through clouds.
> > Is this still the case?
> Nope.
... I still cannot test. Even with different/newer/older r200 modules.
My radeon on the notebook starts with enabled texture rendering, but I cannot 
see any cloud.
I think I first need to dig in the archives how to enable correctly ... 

> > If I understood right the Harris code really simulates the air. That
> > means one could extract realistic upwinds and downwinds from that
> > simulation.
> This has been added by David Culp, we just put a thundercloud and a
> ThunderStorm AIModel at the same location.
I was not talking about one single change to the winds in such a clould.

When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he simulates the 
airflow. He seems to have upwinds at mountain slopes.
When you look into that video he has on this page, you can even inject wind 
speed with the mouse into the scenery. This shows up in the clouds movement.
... one could then propably integrate the down wash of an aircraft into the 
clouds. When looking into that video, I get the impression that one could 
probably get very realistic contrails for free.
From that, I believe that Harris' code is only horribly integrated.
I did never look into the code to see if this would be easy to do.

> > It's a pity, but since I don't have the time to look into that I cannot
> > vote for keeping that ...
> I think It's safe to say the new clouds code supersedes the old one.
Not convinced when looking at the Harris' page, but also not willing to proove 
the oposite.
Ok, remove ...
May be you could tag the cvs before you remove.



Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to