Yes I agree it would need to be done from scratch. I'm considering
giving it a go. Another aspect of LOD rendering is you can't use OpenGL
lighting since geometry is always changing, so lightmaps must be used
for lighting. Vertex morphing is required so the terrain looks not
changing.
In
David Luff writes:
Its 10 meter per pixel.
Ouch -- no wonder all the screenshots are at high altitude.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The CLOD techniques are really slick, and I've seen some cool demos.
However, I personally so far (and maybe something exists, I dunno)
have not seen anyone pull all the pieces of this together and handle
all the issues/needs required by a flight sim.
Not saying it's
Per Liedman writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The CLOD techniques are really slick, and I've seen some cool demos.
However, I personally so far (and maybe something exists, I dunno)
have not seen anyone pull all the pieces of this together and handle
all the issues/needs required by a flight
Per Liedman writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The CLOD techniques are really slick, and I've seen some cool demos.
However, I personally so far (and maybe something exists, I dunno)
have not seen anyone pull all the pieces of this together and handle
all the issues/needs required by a
Curt,
Does FS2002 ship with the entire world or do you need to download
portions as add ons as various 3rd party groups make them?
FS200 comes with the whole World in the box. This includes all the main
rivers, lakes, streets (in Germany all Federal streets), coast lines, all
cities (down to
Per Liedman writes:
Not saying it's easy, not saying it's the right way to go, and
*absolutely* not volunteering to code one for FGFS, but MSFS2002
definitely has CLOD which works for the whole globe, and yes - MSFS2002
*is* a flight sim ;-) It has some quite visible pops and isn't
On 1/23/03 at 3:01 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, there are certains areas (i.e. in Germay) where streets/rivers
obviously are misplaced. This means if you buy a better high res mesh
(whcih
are available) rivers will flow downhill etc.
And
David Megginson wrote:
Per Liedman writes:
Not saying it's easy, not saying it's the right way to go, and
*absolutely* not volunteering to code one for FGFS, but MSFS2002
definitely has CLOD which works for the whole globe, and yes - MSFS2002
*is* a flight sim ;-) It has some quite
Dave,
are available) rivers will flow downhill etc.
Sorry. Uphill. You guessed it ;-)
I haven't done any rigorous back to back viewing, but taking off from
Nottingham the roads, rivers and urban areas look uncannily identical in
layout to Flightgear's (the Riley scenery). I wouldn't be at
On 1/23/03 at 4:10 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
are available) rivers will flow downhill etc.
Sorry. Uphill. You guessed it ;-)
Sorry - couldn't resist :-)
That's well possible. That artifact is obviously not present in the
original
data. It's just that all the stuff like rivers, roads
Dave
Hmm, maybe they've got their co-ordinate systems mixed up? From memory
(which I'm not trusting any more!), I seem to recall that a typical
difference between OSGB36 lat lon and WGS84 lat lon is in the order of
200m. Perhaps something along those lines has happened with their data
David Luff writes:
I haven't done any rigorous back to back viewing, but taking off
from Nottingham the roads, rivers and urban areas look uncannily
identical in layout to Flightgear's (the Riley scenery). I
wouldn't be at all surprised to here they'd used the same data, at
least for
Michael Basler writes:
That's well possible. That artifact is obviously not present in the original
data. It's just that all the stuff like rivers, roads etc. is systematically
shifted by 200 m or so. Quite annoying in narrow canyons. BTW, the Grand
Canyon and otehr US canyons do not
David,
If everything in MSFS is off by the same amount, then it may be a
problem with Microsoft's spheroid code (or lack thereof). I know that
Norm did a lot of work to get the WGS84 stuff right in FlightGear, and
I'm amazed by how often roads and rivers *do* end up at the bottoms of
Michael Basler writes:
My take is MS just screwed up something in the calculation/conversion of
European scenery. Neither a problem with raw data nor with the general
procedure. Just my guess.
Note that for both GLOBE and VMAP0 the data for each country
was provided by the national
Falcon4 is a good example of a sim that uses a combination of progressive
meshing and LOD.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
Megginson
Sent: January 23, 2003 8:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel
I did some profiling of flightgear because I'd like to
optimize performance of the terrain culling + rendering which is bad
when terrain fog is far, that mean when there is a lot to render and
cull in the scene graph.
Performance is fine with the default fog distance though but it gets
very bad
There are a couple things to bear in mind.
The further you push out the visibility, the more tiles you have to
load into memory to cover the expanded visible area. These tiles
consume memory.
The more area you are drawing, the more polygons you are rendering.
This puts a bigger load on your cpu
Michael,
I am very glad to see that you are willing to tackle increasing the
efficiency of the scenery system. I for one, would like to increase the
visibility to see where I am flying. (Perhaps, that is why I fly in the
North West.)
There was a discussion quite a while back
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 16:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
There are a couple things to bear in mind.
The further you push out the visibility, the more tiles you have to
load into memory to cover the expanded visible area. These tiles
consume memory.
The more area you are drawing, the more
Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
There was a discussion quite a while back about decreasing the
terrain level of detail (LOD) as the terrain distance increased so
that frame rates could be increased. Do you know if that LOD
concept looked promising for FG?
Continuous LOD is probably a
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 17:14, David Megginson wrote:
Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
There was a discussion quite a while back about decreasing the
terrain level of detail (LOD) as the terrain distance increased so
that frame rates could be increased. Do you know if that LOD
concept looked
I did some profiling of flightgear because I'd like to
optimize performance of the terrain culling + rendering which is bad
when terrain fog is far, that mean when there is a lot to render and
cull in the scene graph.
Performance is fine with the default fog distance though but it gets
very bad
Michael Pujos writes:
Yes I agree it would need to be done from scratch. I'm considering
giving it a go. Another aspect of LOD rendering is you can't use OpenGL
lighting since geometry is always changing, so lightmaps must be used
for lighting. Vertex morphing is required so the terrain
David Megginson writes:
Continuous LOD is probably a non-starter for us -- at least, the
implementations I've read about assume a regular elevation grid with a
simple texture mapped on top, and that doesn't describe the way we
model scenery. If someone wants to try that, you'll probably want
Michael Pujos wrote:
Yes but there are techniques to sustain high poly count, none of which
would be easy to integrate in flightgear. One great demo of high poly
count terrain rendering with LOD is the chunked LOD demo from Thatcher
Ulrich (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tu-testbed). This
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 18:56, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David Megginson writes:
Continuous LOD is probably a non-starter for us -- at least, the
implementations I've read about assume a regular elevation grid with a
simple texture mapped on top, and that doesn't describe the way we
model
Michael Pujos writes:
You're absolutely right and IMHO it should be a long term goal to have a
terrain renderer (in a terrain interface architecture why not) that
supports long viewing distance and very detailed terrain with good
performance at high flying speeds and altitude (for example for
Curtis L. Olson
One idea would be to generate the entire earth in different levels of
detail and switch based on altitude. At higher altitudes, all your
tiles will likely cover more area and contain less information, so you
could make a scheme like that potentially work. However, then
Norman Vine writes:
Here is some *excellent* global data for a start on this
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/
Here is the home page of a viewer
http://www.andesengineering.com/BlueMarbleViewer/
an *unsupported* beta native Win32 port lives at
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Norman Vine writes:
Here is some *excellent* global data for a start on this
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/
WARNING THE COMPLETE SET OF DATA FILES IS HUGE
and will require an additional download of approx 70 MB
for the minimal
- Original Message -
From: Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance analysis
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Norman Vine wrote:
FWIW It has always seemed pretty big to me and I definately am
Jon Stockill writes:
Take a look at this:
http://www.visualflight.co.uk/photoscenery/intro.htm
It appears a company has decided to tackle the whole of the UK in FS2002.
Just to give you some idea of the data involved - the first volume they
released, which is just the east and
On 1/22/03 at 9:20 PM Norman Vine wrote:
Very nice :-)
Yes, it appears to have created quite a stir among the MSFS users here in
England. I'll almost certainly buy a copy myself once Northern England
comes out.
Hard to tell but it looks like their scenery is cutoff at ~15 miles
and you can't
David Luff writes:
On 1/22/03 at 9:20 PM Norman Vine wrote:
Yes, it appears to have created quite a stir among the MSFS users here in
England. I'll almost certainly buy a copy myself once Northern England
comes out.
Hard to tell but it looks like their scenery is cutoff at ~15 miles
From: Norman Vine
FWIW - for comparison purposes here is a non-overzoomed
10m pixel image of an area I am quite familiar with :-)
Very nice. I zoomed way in.
BTW, you have a thread hanging off your collar in the back. Nice shirt.
;-)
smime.p7s
Description:
On 1/22/03 at 10:09 PM Norman Vine wrote:
David Luff writes:
Hard to tell but it looks like their scenery is cutoff at ~15 miles
and you can't really tell from jpegs and don't know what LOD
is being shown in the 'snaps' but I would guess that this is
several 2 - 4 meter per pixel imagery
Jon Berndt writes:
From: Norman Vine
FWIW - for comparison purposes here is a non-overzoomed
10m pixel image of an area I am quite familiar with :-)
Very nice. I zoomed way in.
BTW, you have a thread hanging off your collar in the back. Nice shirt.
You have some powerful
39 matches
Mail list logo
