I noticed this, too , since the landcover data actually has a large amount of landcovertypes that are currently ignored. So my question is: If somebody would brew up some new textures for these types, is there any reason for not using them? For example, if you have many textures in a scenery part, they take up alot of memory on the 3d card, wich could lead to worse performance.
Concerning the plib - OSG debate: Wouldn't it make sence to open up a page on the wiki for that? This way people could layout their suggestions for a possible transformation and by this the developers could get an estimate on how much work it really would be to change. Also this could be discussed in more detail this way. The wrapper-class discussed some days ago might be a good start? Just my ideas :) Josh Babcock wrote: >>It would be nice if Terragear was able to this automatically, as an >>interim solution, if the landcover types were available in FGSD users >>could customise areas that they want. Is it hard to add landcover types? >>Are there any other issues that I'm not aware of? >> >> > >I don't think so, there are a lot in the raw datasets that are currently >ignored just for lack of textures. The harder part would be to have >terragear assign new ones on it's own based on the slope angle and the >original landcover data in the raw dataset. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- 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://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
