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
>
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
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 !
---
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.
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
T
Mathias Fröhlich 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,
Mathias Fröhlich 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
On June 17, 2005 01:17 am, Mathias Fröhlich 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
>
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 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 s
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
Harald JOHNSEN
>
> Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> >Mathias Fröhlich 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?
> >>>
> >>
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:23 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mathias Fröhlich 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.
> > >
> > > Thi
On June 16, 2005 01:24 am, Mathias Fröhlich 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 c
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mathias Fröhlich 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
Mathias Fröhlich 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
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On June 16, 2005 01:18 am, Mathias Fröhlich 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
On June 16, 2005 01:18 am, Mathias Fröhlich 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, th
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
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
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
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 3
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
airflo
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
Flightgea
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 re
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:
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.
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
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
2f585ee
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 13:05 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> 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 a
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 12:58 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> * Gerard Robin -- Monday 13 June 2005 12:21:
> > Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 10:29 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> > > How would you all feel about making the "old" Haris' 3d clouds code
> > > obsolete by now?
>
> > We must keep it, with
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 "
* Gerard Robin -- Monday 13 June 2005 12:21:
> Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 10:29 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> > 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 most Representative of the real
> weather the new 3D cloud
* Erik Hofman -- Monday 13 June 2005 10:29:
> How would you all feel about making the "old" Haris' 3d clouds code
> obsolete by now?
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
