I wrote > gerard robin wrote > > > > > On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > Since i don't know what is new in the pipeline, i can't precisely > answer > > the > > question. > > > > I only can get some comparison with the actual CVS process ( we had a > talk > > about it before ) > > The xml which is there, don't give the same result than we have with the > > .osg > > effects, and, my models (which are in CVS) are not perfect, i am > working > > on > > a huge improvement regarding the wake.osg which will increase more the > > differences. > > > > Yes, a long line of trailing smoke is not possible, because there is not > > any > > interaction from .osg to .ac and/or externals ( like winds). > > So, i don't say that the xml is wrong, i only say that it don't give the > > same > > eye candy. > > > > > > To remember the first talk we had about it here the link : > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=200808121328.4126 > > 0.ghmalau%40gmail.com&forum_name=flightgear-devel > > =================> > > >Are we sure that, all the Particle features which are within OSG, are > > > available with the new XML coding <particlesystem> ? > > > > > > When translating one of my .osg file to <particlesystem> .xml file, i > > > don't > > > get the same quality of result. > > > > > > It could be just me. I can be wrong. :( > > > > > > Or that new XML coding is may be a first step, and others improvements > > are > > > coming :) > > > > > > > No, all the features of particles are not available with the xml > version, > > but I don't think that should affect performance. > > > > Tim recently fixed a bug which only showed up under MSVC9, and other > bugs > > have been reported, in particular that the particles "jitter". > > > > There are no further enhancements planned to the xml stuff that I am > aware > > of, unless Tiago is doing something. > > > > SNIP > > > > Vivian > > > > <===================================== > > > > So, if I understand you correctly, there are no missing features, just the > 2 > bugs: z buffer and jitter. Tim has submitted a fix for both those to OSG. > I've been using it for some time now. Works perfectly, but AFAIKS have not > been taken aboard by OSG. > > Before: > > ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles.jpg > > After: > > ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/bucc-particles-2.jpg > > Vivian >
Wouldn't you just know it - post appears, and I now know what the situation is. It is in current osg sources - revision 8881. However, I don't think there has been a version bump since it has gone in. Tim is waiting for that before enabling enabled the corresponding code in SimGear, which is already in cvs head. So if you want to try it update osg and simgear then uncomment this: #define OSG_PARTICLE_FIX 1 in simgear\source\simgear\scene\model\particles.cxx at about line 110 No guarantees - I haven't tested revision 8881. 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
