> Actually, I think what he tried to suggest was, that the needs of > visuals and the needs equipment like radar should not be mixed. For visuals > we need > the terrain and all the objects like trees and buildings which are hard on > performance.
It's a fact that the distances out to which we draw trees and buildings are considerably less than how far we potentially draw terrain (120 km max.) So these things are separated even now - we don't attempt to render random buildings in 80 km distance even if we render terrain. Nobody proposed to render buildings to the visibility range either. Also let me quote what James said immediately before: > This is moving in the right direction for sure. I'd like to go a little > further, and make the LOD setting a simple checkbox labelled 'reduce > detail adaptively'. Then make the LOD ranges (for trees, clouds, AI > models, whatever) internal properties, and crucially, enable OSG's > LOD-bias feature. This effectively scales the 'visible distance' used to > select LOD by a factor, and we can use a PID controller to adapt it > based on target and actual frame-rate. (Of course I didn't try it for > real yet). This ought to nicely adjust the LOD bias, and hence the final > LOD, to keep a target rate (say 30 or 60fps). So this doesn't lead to any more gracious interpretation. * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
