Durk Talsma wrote: > On Friday 04 November 2005 23:40, Christian Mayer wrote: > >>Durk Talsma schrieb: >> >>>To get AI traffic going in the forseeable future, we could use quite >>>a few low-polygon count aircraft models in various paint schemes. So, I'd >>>be interested to know if anybody with reasonable 3d modeling skills would >>>be interested in contributing in this field. Although the traffic system >>>shouldn't be limited to commercial airliners, this is probably the area >>>I'd be working on mostly initially. So, for starters, I would like to >>>explore some models of the more popular airliners series, i,e., the >>>Boeing 7[0-8]7, Airbus A3[0-8]0, and any [McDonnel] Douglas aircraft (and >>>Fokkers of course :-)). >> >>Wouldn't it be better to add those models to the existing (and yet to >>come) "high"-poly models as a different LOD? >> > > > Would be possible, but aircraft loading and unloading time is going to be an > issue. Unless we can move the aircraft loader into a separate thread, or come > up with a very sophisticated multiframe aircraft loader, I would prefer to > start with using something that is simple from the start. > > Cheers, > Durk > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d >
Good point, but I still like Christian's idea. Maybe we should settle on a standard name for low poly models. I already like to include lots of LOD in my models, and it is no problem to simply pull out the low poly versions and save them under a different xml file. If we could come up with a standard that included the following, it wouldn't be that hard to follow through: - a naming convention for the AI/multiplayer version XML file - how many levels of detail to include and how many polys each - how much animation is acceptable to include, and what properties will drive those animations (gear and control surfaces basically, maybe some other stuff can be passed for common animations like wing sweep, engine exhaust and the concord's nose) That way, flyable planes get all the heavy stuff: panels, high poly count, sounds, extensive animations, neat Nasal routines, and all the models get a completely separate slimmed down version that can be used for planes that don't need to cater to a pilot (on the local machine at least) So for instance, I could create b29-low-poly-set.xml and b29-low-poly.ac to go along with the myriad other stuff that the b29 is made up of. The xml file would contain nothing but a description, the basic animations and "none" or some such listed as the FDM. The ac file would have however many LOD levels we settle on, and be referenced by the xml file. Once someone has gone to the trouble to make a plane that has LOD, moving this stuff over should be trivial. We just need to standardize it so that the AI and multiplayer systems know how to use them. And there's nothing to stop you from making a model that's nothing but the slimmed down version. With the "none" FDM it could just be filtered out in any frontends, and additionally FG would refuse to load it for flying. If this sounds feasible, I can cook up an example for you all to review. Josh _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
