On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote: > Personally, I'm not using it since it makes my system just a bit too slow to > enjoy and I can't really see how to port lightfield development to Rembrandt > (I guess we're not quite there yet as far as infrastructure is concerned, and > I'd have to learn a few things, but also if Rembrandt + lightfield becomes > even 20% slower than Rembrandt alone, then I can't fly it any more - > Rembrandt costs me more than 50% of my framerate ). So personally, I really > need it as optional, and I'd drop out of shader development if it weren't > because if I can't enjoy it, I somehow lose the motivation to do it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting making Rembrandt anything other than optional, just like all the other graphical features we have. > I have also continuing concerns with 'converting' things to Rembrandt - do > they still work for non-Rembrandt? I know some people create optional > Rembrandt and non-Rembrandt versions. I'd ask everyone who has no problems > with Rembrandt to really be aware that there are people who can't run it on > their hardware at all and that there are others who may not want to run it > but may want to use Flightgear and their favourite planes nevertheless. Converting aircraft to Rembrandt will still mean that they work perfectly well with non-Rembrandt. Making an aircraft "Rembrandt-compatible" just involves marking transparent surfaces as such, and has no effect on the non-Rembrandt systems. Adding Rembrandt lighting similarly can be done in such a way that there is no effect on non-Rembrandt systems. The c172p provides an example of this. There are only two areas where aircraft maintainers need to be careful IIRC: - Some aircraft have textures with Ambient Occlusion baked into them. Rembrandt provides its own ambient occlusion so the textures used for a aircraft in Rembrandt should not have this included,. - Some aircraft have "shadows" as additional models. They need to be disabled when Rembrandt shadows are enabled. > Is the implication of this that Rembrandt is considered the default and > aircraft maintainers are expected to switch? When did we make this decision? > I know all people for whom Rembrandt runs well would like to see everything > converted asap, but what for these where it really means a lot of performance > drain? As mentioned above, it's not a question of "switching". Rather it's ensuring that aircraft are compatible by marking transparent surfaces. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
