On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 21:52, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Harald JOHNSEN > > > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two > > effects. This would be with the arbvp1 & arbfp1 type shader. > > Of course I won't write them in assembler by would > > use Cg to produce the assembler source. > > The use or arb type program should limit the dependencies on > > standard opengl driver. > > > > But before starting anything like that I first want to know > > if : 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ > > or ati9500+) No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the > > user can see them. Normaly a good percentage should have > > correct > > cards (or will have in the next 6 month) but I feel that > > some still use olders cards. > > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual > > aspect of Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) > > We should have the most realism that we can collectively > produce, that's what sets us apart from other sims. (and being > open of course). > > The advice I received here when I built demanding aircraft > models was go right ahead: the hardware will soon catch up. It > has. > > Just ensure that whatever you do can be switched off or > degrades gracefully (preferably). > > V.
I think that a design philosophy that incorporates backwards compatibility is A Very Good Thing. It's harder to start with but makes things much easier and more flexible in the longer term. I guess I'm thinking about how FG is pretty monolithic and wondering how much of an over-head there might be in making it more modular. Might also be worth thinking about parallelism aspects. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgearfirstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d