Re: [Flightgear-devel] Runway lighting

2005-01-27 Thread Tiago Gusmo
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Paul Surgeon wrote:
I played around with some runway lighting today to see if textured 
polygons are feasible.
Here is what textured, billboard runway lights look like :
http://surgdom.hollosite.com/flightgear/screenshots/index.html

With 6 * 1 ft runways all in view at one time my frame rate 
dropped from 50 down to 20 FPS on an old Ti 4200.
I think 6 * 1 ft runways should pretty much cater for any large 
airport.
That's close to 5000 runway lights.

This is just a hardcoded test to see what the performance impact is 
if one uses a brute force approach with zero performance enhancements.
One could probably cull in between lights beyond certain distances 
which would help performance and look a bit better from a distance.

Also I'm not sure what sort of impact billboarding and distance 
scaling has on performance - it would probably be faster if I had 
fixed polygons.

If my Ti4200 can do the job then I'm sure newer video cards like the 
nVidia FX 5700 and up should handle these lights quite nicely.
 

One thing we would need to figure out before we could head down this 
path would be a way to hide runway lights that are viewed from 
behind.  Approach and runway lights are directional and pointed 
directly at aircraft arriving on the glide slope.  So as you view them 
off axis they will be dimmer and when viewed from behind you shouldn't 
see them at all.

Currently lights are actually a triangle drawn in point mode with 
two of the verticies set to zero alpha.  This way backface culling 
hides the lights from behind.

But if we switch to some sort of billboarded quad for lights, we lose 
this capability.

We would either need to come up with some clever trick, write a new 
ssg selector node with this sort of functionality, or use vertex 
shaders which plib doesn't support.

Any ideas?
Curt.
Altough the billboard itself always faces the POV, you can still set the 
normal the way the real light would be pointing to, them set a diffuse 
light on the POV and enable backface culling.
I suppose performance hit should be minimal for TnL hardware.

Regards,
Tiago
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d


Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements

2005-01-24 Thread Tiago Gusmo
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
 

On Monday 24 Jan 2005 13:37, Oliver C. wrote:
   

On Monday 24 January 2005 11:05, Erik Hofman wrote:
 

Vivian Meazza wrote:
   

Thanks for this explanation. Why does it only seem to work one way?
 

The
   

description 'enhanced lighting' is not particularly helpful.
 

Oh, this is about enhanced (runway) lighting. That's a different
   

story,
   

I was talking about specular highlights which the original was talking
about also.
   

No, i was talking about enhanced runway lightning, this is
what i get when running flightgear with this option:
--enable-enhanced-lighting
I was not talking about specular highlights.
 

Why is it so expensive of frame-rate?
 

This is very hardware and driver dependent. Some OpenGL features are
just not implemented in hardware on some display adapters.
   

The only consumer videocards we have today are from Ati and NVidia,
do their newest models support this?
If not, then we should move it to the advanced options.
I also want to mention, that MS FS2004 has something similar, but
 

without
   

framerate drop, so there must be another way to display runway lights in
such a way.
Best Regards,
Oliver C.
 

I've also been confused by the monumental frame drop that even the simple
runway lighting can produce at airports such as EGLL.
And I do have a fairly hefty system which has been known to run graphical
behemoths like Doom3 at a fair lick.
The obvious response from the 'non-programmers' perspective ie: 'user' is:
Why on earth do these little dots bring my new Model-X video card to its
knees?
So what's the crack? ;)
   

Simple answer - too many vertices. Someone will give us the right answer
-Erik
Regards,
Vivian
 

After reading the glPointSize doc, I think the problem is in using point 
sizes bigger than 1 and point antialiasing at the same time
I can't test it now, can someone do it? just disable GL_POINT_SMOOTH and 
see it there is an fps improvement

Regards,
Tiago
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d