Thorsten,
> No, it is not so now (at least for me that is, maybe there are problems > with other cards/systems/... I'm not aware of). I get to see a seamless > and plausible match between sky and terrain from ground level to low Earth > > orbit, at all times of the day and under any weather condition. Scenery > and models are now rendered correctly with the sky at all locations and > all times. Really? Look at the trees- Does they blend correct here? http://www.hoerbird.net/Treeblend.jpg > Not having a particular extra effect available is not the same as having > a > graphical artefact in the scene, and I refuse to treat the two on the > same > level. The first is a missing feature, the second is a bug. There > are those of us who do not enable all available shaders even in the > default scheme and don't miss features. There are even those who use > Flightgear without shaders. If airplane X requires a shader to work at > night or under some conditions, then the problem is with airplane X > because at least as far as I am aware the development philosophy is that > > Flightgear should still run under pure CPU rendering conditions. Again, the last time, as it seems to me that even with no kids and grandparents here I don't have much time than you: We have shaders. We decided once ago to haven them. And when a user is also able to have them, as his computer allows them to have, he wants to have them all of course. The user doesn't want to check everytime which of the shaders is compatible with others. That's one BIG secret behind the success of some flightsimulators and even a requirement there. If a shader can be deselected, than just for perfomance reasons, but not due to being not compatible with other shaders. And that's exactly the problem here. We had no consistently way in developing and adding shaders. > I've really been sleeping over this. Consider this different story: > ...Hey, the XXX is now so difficult to fly! It used to be such a cool > plane, you could land on a skyscraper and it wouldn't even take any > fuel, this was so fun to use and now I can't even get it off the runway! > > Can't we keep the old version? > So, would you optionally include the YaSim FDM because someone thinks it > > was cool and misses it? 1.)Zan's shader was known that it gave artifacts on the horizon. But it wasn't plain wrong. I would call the default sky as "plain wrong" as it never matches the real colors. It worked with other shaders, but had the big issue with horizon. It was included in the hope that this issue can be solved. Now you introduced a shader which doesn't have problems with the horizon, but other shaders doesn't work. It is not really an improvement- unless you just look at the horizon and nothing else. 2.)your example is a stupid comparison: YASim and JSBSim are two different FDMs, with two different philosophies behind. Even a plain wrong, and simple YASim-fdm can be corrected later. And that's why you still see aircraft with two different fdms, Yasim and JSBSim, and users can select which one they prefer, compare it and if possible improve it. None of those FDMs are always 100% correct, they have their own issues and though they have its reasons to be there. 3.)And somehow myself as Aircraft Author feel ignored and mistreated when you say you develope a shader just for looking out the window and not at the aircraft. Why the hell spending a lot of times in trying to create an accurate exterior model? A simple box should be enough. > To say it very bluntly: To make a skydome only option available is to re-> > introduce a bug which I have spent a lot of time and effort to eliminate. That's why I hoped that we could get all three possibilities. But again: your shader has problems as well- compatibility. > Originally I started this thread asking for help how to communicate all > > this best. It seems we've introduced a regression here as well. Good that you said "we".... And to answer it finally: I don't see a way to communicate, as the horse has already been bolted. Gijs did the best to prevent upcoming questions with changing the rendering menu, but I won't be surprised when people will still come up with this issue. The big problem behind is, as I already said above: the non-compatibility between the shaders. As I heard, some people are planning to create an own Viewer, outside but compatible with FG - exactly due to this reason. Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
