Hi all,
my reading of the situation;
a) No adjustment of the textures takes place at the moment for sloping
terrain...hence the "stretch" problem.
b) a "cylindrical" solution has been proposed(that I don't understand the
maths of) that may/will have an unacceptable performance hit.
c) x-plane and MSFS have solutions to this problem that look great and don't
have a performance hit at 50km distance (assumption; at <50km they do have a
performance hit)
d) we put up with seams with very little performance hit
has anyone actually tested the various options to quantify the performance
hits and/or the visual effects involved in the various solutions. Objective
data would certainly be helpful?
or we could all join the flat earth society <g>
Cheers
Dene
From: Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sunday 15 January 2006 12:08, Christian Mayer wrote:
> (*) unless you want to get fancy with blending the textures, etc. pp.
> But this will create an big overhead.
Well yes but a half decent scenery engine using texture blending like the
one
in X-Plane and MSFS would do just fine and they actually run faster than FG
when I increase the visibility to about 50km or greater.
We must be doing something wrong to get the worst of both worlds.
Paul
_________________________________________________________________
Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
