Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/citation_instruments.png
It turns out these are in fact contained in a single 3D model for the
entire aircraft, so it has nothing to do with 2D. Apparently the
problem is in the models. ...
FWIW I'd like to suggest that it is a good idea for 3D modelers to
test their work at 16 bit depth buffer settings since a lot of folks
are still running modern laptop, consumer grade and Intel embedded
chips at 16 bit for performance reasons. Even though it involves
moving layers further appart, adjusting 3D instrument models to
support 16 bit generally does no harm to the appearance of the model
at the normal viewing distance.
I disagree on changing the models or instruments. Looking at the code
the problem is obvious.
We ask for a depth buffer precision that is impossible to achieve.
From FG/Model/acmodel.cxx :
FGAircraftModel::FGAircraftModel ()
: _aircraft(0),
_selector(new ssgSelector),
_scene(new ssgRoot),
_nearplane(0.01f),
_farplane(1000.0f)
{
}
Jim, if you can compile FG, can you try with a near plane of 0.03
and/or a far plane of 250.0 ?
For what it's worth, changing the far plane has little affect on the
depth buffer precision. The near buffer value is what dominates the
amount of depth buffer precision.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
