On Freitag 17 Juni 2005 09:59, Erik Hofman wrote:
Are we sure that the pbuffer extension initialization/usage is entierly
correct?
It should be, The RenderTexture code is adapted from the RenderTexture
class written by Mark Harris:
http://www.markmark.net/misc/rendertexture.html
On June 17, 2005 01:17 am, Mathias Frhlich wrote:
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 21:12, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I have short circuted that with an unconditional false return in line
461 in RenderTexture.cpp.
The crash happens in the first call to glXCreateGLXPbufferSGIX a few
lines
Mathias Frhlich wrote:
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 21:12, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I have short circuted that with an unconditional false return in line 461
in RenderTexture.cpp.
The crash happens in the first call to glXCreateGLXPbufferSGIX a few
lines later.
Is the error fixable?
I just
Mathias Frhlich wrote:
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 09:58, Erik Hofman wrote:
Again, I don't believe this part of the code is actually implemented for
FlightGear and the new code has some early implementation for doings the
same. It really requires much more work to make the old code plib aware,
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I am also seeing these errors when I am running FlightGear under 16 bits
color:
RenderTexture Error: Couldn't find a suitable pixel format.
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/FlightGear/share/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172r/Models/c172-dpm.ac'
for reading
Erik Hofman wrote
Ok.
In this case sory for the noise.
No problem, there is nothing like a good discussion :-)
Erik
And this was nothing like a good discussion :-).
No, actually, I think we all developed our knowledge of this subject.
V.
Erik Hofman wrote:
http://gpgpu.sourceforge.net/
Well, now that I have an NVidia chip in the Octane - still I don't
believe FlightGear can use it for such purpose,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
http://gpgpu.sourceforge.net/
Well, now that I have an NVidia chip in the Octane - still I don't
believe FlightGear can use it for such purpose,
If you can see the 3d clouds you already are using it ...
Erik
On June 16, 2005 01:18 am, Mathias Frhlich wrote:
Look into that. I believed that this was integrated somehow. That looks
phantastic and does things like that.
Watch the video on the bottom of that page.
Greetings
Mathias
I have just finished watching the video. Yes, the
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On June 16, 2005 01:18 am, Mathias Frhlich wrote:
Look into that. I believed that this was integrated somehow. That looks
phantastic and does things like that.
Watch the video on the bottom of that page.
Greetings
Mathias
I have just finished watching
Mathias Frhlich wrote
On Mittwoch 15 Juni 2005 11:00, Vivian Meazza wrote:
When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he
simulates the
airflow.
This one?
http://www.markmark.net/clouds/
I can't find any reference in the site or the papers there to
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mathias Frhlich wrote
On Mittwoch 15 Juni 2005 11:00, Vivian Meazza wrote:
When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he
simulates the
airflow.
This one?
http://www.markmark.net/clouds/
I can't find any reference in the site or the
On June 16, 2005 01:24 am, Mathias Frhlich wrote:
I tried with 24.
On a recent Mesa CVS r200 driver I get the same error message.
With the r200 driver from my distro it just crashes.
I have short circuted that with an unconditional false return in line 461
in RenderTexture.cpp.
The crash
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:23 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mathias Frhlich wrote
On Mittwoch 15 Juni 2005 11:00, Vivian Meazza wrote:
When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he
simulates the
airflow.
This one?
Harald JOHNSEN
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mathias Frhlich wrote
On Mittwoch 15 Juni 2005 11:00, Vivian Meazza wrote:
When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he
simulates the
airflow.
This one?
http://www.markmark.net/clouds/
I can't find any
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 21:12, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I have short circuted that with an unconditional false return in line 461
in RenderTexture.cpp.
The crash happens in the first call to glXCreateGLXPbufferSGIX a few
lines later.
Is the error fixable?
I just started the debugger
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 09:58, Erik Hofman wrote:
Again, I don't believe this part of the code is actually implemented for
FlightGear and the new code has some early implementation for doings the
same. It really requires much more work to make the old code plib aware,
improve plib to
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 20:13, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
On Harris pages there is two different things.
One is about cloud rendering - physical aspect of scattering of light
and technical implementation using dynamic billboards, etc.
The other is about simulating the formation of clouds (and
On Dienstag 14 Juni 2005 10:16, Erik Hofman wrote:
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
So the last thing I remembered was that flying through clouds was much
better with the old code. The new clouds seem to be afraid from an
aircraft. They just move out of the flight path. As a result you almost
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
On Dienstag 14 Juni 2005 10:16, Erik Hofman wrote:
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
So the last thing I remembered was that flying through clouds was much
better with the old code. The new clouds seem to be afraid from an
aircraft. They just move out of the flight path. As a
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
I think I first need to dig in the archives how to enable correctly ...
Oh, one more thing, the code is disabled by default now. Use the
rendering dialog to enable it again.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Mathias Fröhlich wrote
On Dienstag 14 Juni 2005 10:16, Erik Hofman wrote:
When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he simulates
the
airflow.
This one?
http://www.markmark.net/clouds/
I can't find any reference in the site or the papers there to simulating
airflow.
Erik Hofman wrote:
There where a few reports that one would need at least 24/32 bit
colors to get it working (although it used to work with 16 bits in
previous versions).
Doesn't work here in 16 bits ... I get some sort of invalid render
context error message. FlightGear runs, but no 3d
On June 15, 2005 04:05 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
There where a few reports that one would need at least 24/32 bit colors
to get it working (although it used to work with 16 bits in previous
versions).
It used to work with 16 bits. After I upgraded from the latest CVS version,
the 3D clouds don't
Hi,
On Donnerstag 16 Juni 2005 03:20, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On June 15, 2005 04:05 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
There where a few reports that one would need at least 24/32 bit colors
to get it working (although it used to work with 16 bits in previous
versions).
It used to work with 16
Hi,
On Mittwoch 15 Juni 2005 11:00, Vivian Meazza wrote:
When browsing Mark Harris' web page I got the impression that he
simulates the
airflow.
This one?
http://www.markmark.net/clouds/
I can't find any reference in the site or the papers there to simulating
airflow. It just
On Montag 13 Juni 2005 11:03, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Probably a good idea. The old code is broken, unmaintained, and uses nasty
binary cloud definition files, while the new code yields much better
results (except when flying through clouds). The old code may be more
advanced in some respect
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
So the last thing I remembered was that flying through clouds was much better
with the old code. The new clouds seem to be afraid from an aircraft. They
just move out of the flight path. As a result you almost never fly through
clouds.
Is this still the case?
Nope.
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Both the old 2D clouds (note the TWO) and the new 3D clouds consider METAR.
The old 3D clouds that Erik is talking about do AFAIK not. They are ugly and
broken, and aren't representative for anything. It sounds as if you are mixing
up 2D and 3D.
As far as I know the old
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 12:58 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a crit :
* Gerard Robin -- Monday 13 June 2005 12:21:
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 10:29 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit :
How would you all feel about making the old Haris' 3d clouds code
obsolete by now?
We must keep it, with Metar it is the
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 13:05 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit :
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Both the old 2D clouds (note the TWO) and the new 3D clouds consider
METAR.
The old 3D clouds that Erik is talking about do AFAIK not. They are ugly and
broken, and aren't representative for anything. It
Gerard Robin wrote:
Oh sorry if you mean _bumped_ clouds it can be removed.
Eh, no. It's yet another one...
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
32 matches
Mail list logo
