--- Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > Hi, > > I had worked now for some time on an OSG port of flightgear. > > At the moment many things are already working. > - Scenery and 3d models are there. > - Animations work mostly as expected. > - The usual lights including the vasi are there. > - The 3d panel is displayed and interactive. > - The sky looks as usual - including stars and the 2d clouds. > - The HUD's. > - The usual menus. > > What is missing so far are > - The shadows > - The 3d clouds > - The lightning and rain code > - The render surface instruments > > On my notebook, where I do much of the development, I get improved frame > rates > up to a factor of two. Depending on the model and daytime.
Sounds like a significant improvement. Presumably you haven't noticed any degradation in performance anywhere? > I would like to check that into our cvs. > The usual way would be to create a cvs branch and do that work on that > branch. > In this case it would be good if we could avoid changes in the HEAD > branch > that touches anything visible. > In some private mails with Curt he directed me to an other scheme: > Create a branch for the old plib/ssg code and do the osg stuff on HEAD. > In this case we would have the plib/ssg stuff still available in that > branch > for those of us who need the well tested old stuff. We could safe some > final > merging if we do it in this way. > Thougths/Comments - where should I check in? Going on the assumption that this is the future and there isn't any question of "if" we should move to OSG, and this is just a "when"... My view is that the old stuff should be branched and this should go straight into HEAD. As I see it, the major advantages of this are 1) People don't have to check out a new branch to try the new stuff 2) Pretty much everyone will be testing it day-to-day, so we'll find problems quicker. 3) People will have an extra incentive to fix any issues (both bugs and missing features) if they are hitting them every day. If it goes into a new branch, I doubt most people will take the time to check it out, so there will only be a small band of hardy adventurers using it. While I'd like to think that I'd be one of them, chances are I wouldn't find the time to be honest - I have enough problems keeping up with HEAD. It sounds like it is almost equivalent to plib/ssg already, and personally I'm prepared to put up with a small level of feature degradation for medium term gain. I guess the only reason why we might not want it on HEAD is if we're planning a release before the OSG version is likely to be stable/complete. I don't want to open up the old chestnut of when the next release is likely to be. However, on the assumption that Curt will be the release manager, and it is dependant on his schedule, if he were to tell us that he will be busy for the next 3 months, we'll know that a release in the timeframe is unlikely :) Out of my own ignorance, I have some supplementary questions: 1) Presumably this means we no-longer use plib for graphics. Does that mean that things like landing lights are more feasible? 2) How does this affect people running Windows. Do they have to install OSG themselves, or does it get packaged up with the installer? This looks like it was a very major piece of work - thank you. -Stuart Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
