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 

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 


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to