On Monday 07 November 2005 14:20, Josh Babcock wrote:
> 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,
> >>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.
>
> 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:
>
I've been playing a lot with the organization of some FS98 MDL files I
downloaded over the weekend, and came to the conclusion that this might
indeed be a good idea. One thing I thinking about aiming for is to create an
{aircraft}-set.xml like file for the AI aircraft, that acts as both a wapper
for the animations, models, textures, and also contains the traffic pattern
associated with these aircraft. More specifically, what I'm thinking of is
one xml file, that associates a model with a particular texture directory
(a.k.a. paint scheme, a.k.a. skin, a.k.a. livery :-), which also contains the
routing table for all aircraft of this type/livery.
I'm trying to work out this idea a bit further and then we can see how it
combines with the animations code. The most important animation is probably
gear up/down, because that's quite visible. Flap extension/retration would
probaly also be quite visible.
Cheers,
Durk
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
