Thorsten wrote: > Vivian: "I'm sure this is all very well and good - but what are we meant to be > testing/doing/patching? Your last patch was all very good - except it only > worked with advanced weather, so I was forced to abandon it." > > Needless to say, the last patch did not 'only work with advanced weather', it > just used a single property to summarize cloud coverage instead of > computing the cloud coverage inside the shader as I had explained all along. > It is a few line Nasal computation to set the property for Basic Weather if > needed, a property rule can do the same job I guess, it is a change of one > number to make the patch run with the 'cover' parameter in the current > version of the shader instead... >
There's the problem Thorsten. I didn't have the info or the knowledge to do the second bit. I tried the patch you proposed, and as I said, what I had only worked with the Advanced Weather. The code inside the shader was always a workaround to compensate for the fact that we were not getting consistent stuff from the 2 forms of weather. If you fix the weather stuff, I'll fix the shader right away. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
