gerard robin wrote > > On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > * Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 28 September 2008: > > > The change wasn't/isn't even necessary (see above). > > > > Another reason for the patch was that we could use OSG's > > model embedded particles in the same scenery. Now that > > we have XML configured OSG particles, this reason is > > obsolete, too. No reasons left, as far as I can see. > > > > m. > > > Not fully right, the XML doesn't give ( all) the features which are into > OSG, . > So to me the paricles.osg object with animations is longer necessary. > For instance, the Catalina and some others that i am working on. > > The OSG animation particles models could be very accurate within XML, but > unfortunately there is missing a lot of features ( more than a lot :) ) > which are there within OSG native model. >
I haven't noticed anything critical missing from the XML particles, and they do put the particles in the right frame of reference, and they do get the right wind, which the osg solution does not. What do you see as missing? Perhaps we can get on the case. There is an update to particles in osg in the pipeline, which I'm currently using, and that does improve the look of the .xml particles. I'm not aware of the current position of that patch. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
