David wrote:
>Wolfram Kuss wrote:
>
>> Are you serious ?? Did you ever try this? That would be completely
>> awesome!
>
>It works fairly well, and lets you preview the results in case you don't
>like them. Give it a spin.
Holy cow !! I wonder why no one else uses it! I know that it is VERY
time
Wolfram Kuss wrote:
Are you serious ?? Did you ever try this? That would be completely
awesome!
It works fairly well, and lets you preview the results in case you don't
like them. Give it a spin.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
David wrote:
>It's not a hard task. Blender has a face-reduction function built in that
>does a wonderful job simplifying models -- the only problem is that you lose
>the UV mappings, so you have to spend an hour or so remapping textures.
Are you serious ?? Did you ever try this? That would be
On Wed 24. March 2004 19:28, you wrote:
> Martin Dressler wrote:
> > Could you be so glad and provide also source of your excelent panel
> > background image. Did you made it in blender, didn't you?
>
> I think it's inside the pa28-161 directory.
Oh sorry, I missed it. Really nice work. Don't you
On 3/24/04 at 9:54 AM David Megginson wrote:
>D Luff wrote:
>
>> Could you mail me the pa28 and c172dpm (the yellowish one) source
>please, and I'll have a
>> play at some point. The low poly versions can loose their textures
>anyway - over half a mile
>> away it shouldn't matter.
>
>[I'm rep
Martin Dressler wrote:
Could you be so glad and provide also source of your excelent panel
background image. Did you made it in blender, didn't you?
I think it's inside the pa28-161 directory.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EM
On Wed 24. March 2004 15:54, you wrote:
> D Luff wrote:
> > Could you mail me the pa28 and c172dpm (the yellowish one) source please,
> > and I'll have a play at some point. The low poly versions can loose
> > their textures anyway - over half a mile away it shouldn't matter.
>
> [I'm replying pub
D Luff wrote:
Could you mail me the pa28 and c172dpm (the yellowish one) source please, and I'll have a
play at some point. The low poly versions can loose their textures anyway - over half a mile
away it shouldn't matter.
[I'm replying publicly in case anyone else wants them.]
Sorry for the l
On 15 Mar 2004 at 15:11, Erik Hofman wrote:
> D Luff wrote:
>
> > c172, and possibly more involved, is there any chance of putting a range LOD on
> > the whole
> > model that swaps it out for a very low poly version from a certain distance away?
> > I have no
> > idea of the work involved to
On 15 Mar 2004 at 9:41, David Megginson wrote:
> D Luff wrote:
>
> > Couple of requests - could the pa28 instruments get a range lod in the same manner
> > as the
> > c172, and possibly more involved, is there any chance of putting a range LOD on
> > the whole
> > model that swaps it out for
D Luff wrote:
Couple of requests - could the pa28 instruments get a range lod in the same manner as the
c172, and possibly more involved, is there any chance of putting a range LOD on the whole
model that swaps it out for a very low poly version from a certain distance away? I have no
idea of
D Luff wrote:
c172, and possibly more involved, is there any chance of putting a range LOD on the whole
model that swaps it out for a very low poly version from a certain distance away? I have no
idea of the work involved to create a low poly version from an existing model, so please forgive
t
I'm currently using the pa28-161 and the c172-dpm models for the AI traffic, both of
which I
believe are David M's models. These are great models, but there can be quite a few
flying
around in the field of view within a few miles, and this can have quite an impact on
frame rates.
And that's
13 matches
Mail list logo
