Jim Wilson wrote:
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Changing the model would stop that working of course, as the geometry would've
changed, but it's a quick and simple way of getting a 'lite' (er) version of
a model, at least with regard to texture space requirements.
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Jim
Are you working on a low poly version of the 747 for scenery work.
Just a demonstration. If you saw the screenshot, that shows how far I got
with about 3 minutes work. It could be better.
I was working on it yesterday.Regrouping the fuse to
Jim Wilson writes
You know, I'm not sure if we have to worry about using private carrier
liveries from a copyright perspective. AFAIK Southwest is the first
one...in
fact I didn't notice the static model was Southwest until just now (duh!).
Does anyone know about this?
If it is a problem
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyway if you have a look the 747 is painted in Pakistan Airlines colors and
the A320 in Air France colors.So southwest is not the first.
I was going to say that those aren't private carriers, but a couple years
back it seems there was a news article
Jim Wilson writes:
I was going to say that those aren't private carriers, but a couple
years back it seems there was a news article about Air France
planning to go semi-private. Still Southwest is the first private
non-national livery and I think that might make a
difference...don't
Jim Wilson wrote:
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyway if you have a look the 747 is painted in Pakistan Airlines colors
and
the A320 in Air France colors.So southwest is not the first.
I was going to say that those aren't private carriers, but a couple years
back it seems
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You're thinking about something that's very specific to the U.S. As
far as I understand, the U.S. government is not allowed to copyright
(and, perhaps, trademark?) any IP -- that's why people are allowed to
copy and distribute the FAA database and the
Jim Wilson writes:
So, should we do anything differently with our models?
For now, no: if we ever get a cease-and-desist letter, we can discuss
it it then. Trademark violation is a complicated thing anyway -- I
don't think that Campbell's soup could have successfully sued Andy
Warhol even if
David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
So, should we do anything differently with our models?
For now, no: if we ever get a cease-and-desist letter, we can discuss
it it then. Trademark violation is a complicated thing anyway -- I
don't think that Campbell's soup could have
As I said earlier MSFS has been painting A/C in world airline(private and
government)colors for years.And I would think if you are going to sue
someone it might as well be someone with money and good old uncle Bill G
would the one to try and get money out of.
The whole area of copyright can
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:33:17 +0200,
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyway if you have a look the 747 is painted in Pakistan Airlines
colors and the A320 in Air France colors.So
Matevz Jekovec wrote:
But we can use a combination of both, right? If you will look at an
aircraft at range of 15 feets, you see nothing. At 100k feets, you
see a dot. At 7, you would see a triangle. At 5, you would see a
rough shape. At 25000, the next one and at 1 a complete
Matevz Jekovec writes:
My suspicions were not correct. I benchmarked the framerate again
yesterday and had 7 FPS in 24bpp mode and 9 FPS in 16bpp mode. I'm
pretty sure the 16bpp mode worked faster in all views and positions in
comparison to 24 bpp.
Yes, that has been my experience as
Matevz Jekovec writes:
In 3d cockpit view. That leads me to another question. Is there any way
we can optimize the graphic engine, not to be so slow in 3d cockpit
view? I know we had similar problems with the engine in Falcon, but were
never solved due to untouchable source code later
On Monday 28 July 2003 14:24, Jim Wilson wrote:
...aircraft already have xml that does this by selecting out the cockpit and
maybe gear when they are viewed from a certain distance. In that case the
That idea hadn't ocurred to me at all, and I hadn't spotted it in any of the
other a/c
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Changing the model would stop that working of course, as the geometry would've
changed, but it's a quick and simple way of getting a 'lite' (er) version of
a model, at least with regard to texture space requirements.
Using the reduce function in ac3d and
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 00:35, Jim Wilson wrote:
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Changing the model would stop that working of course, as the geometry
would've
changed, but it's a quick and simple way of getting a 'lite' (er) version
of
a model, at least with regard to texture
Hi Jim
Are you working on a low poly version of the 747 for scenery work.
I was working on it yesterday.Regrouping the fuse to use one texture and
removing the wing and gear textures to reduce the load.
I was planing to just apply a material to the wings, gear and horz
stabilizer.Grey(silver)
5) Around the default KFSO, the framerate is way slower than in e.g.
Slovenia. Is there any way to fix that (I know there are way more
objects, but still I think it should be faster than 6 FPS when looking
to the city or airfield)
Is that fps in cockpit view or
Jim Wilson wrote:
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1) In mode 24 bpp, FlightGear ran faster than in 16 bpp (I also switched
the Xfree depth to 24 and 16 then). Is there any known explanation (I
haven't made benchmark, but judging by the eye I thought it was faster)
Matevz Jekovec writes:
In 3d cockpit view. That leads me to another question. Is there any way
we can optimize the graphic engine, not to be so slow in 3d cockpit
view? I know we had similar problems with the engine in Falcon, but were
never solved due to untouchable source code later
man, 28.07.2003 kl. 14.03 skrev Curtis L. Olson:
- When looking at a 3d cockpit, you probably have more geometry to
draw because of the complexities of the inside of the cockpit. To
draw a lot of geometry you want a fast CPU and a fast AGP buss.
For geometry-limited situations, a fast AGP
If you are in 3D move the view to the right or left and you'll see the rate go
right back up. The reason this works is the panel items are culled from the
view and I presume their textures can be swapped out by the card. The hit in
the cockpit is primarily the texture ram, and a little bit more
Jim Wilson wrote:
If you are in 3D move the view to the right or left and you'll see the rate go
right back up. The reason this works is the panel items are culled from the
view and I presume their textures can be swapped out by the card. The hit in
the cockpit is primarily the texture ram, and
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes, LODs are a good idea. We had those in Falcon too (actually, every
more complex game uses LODs to increase the framerate anyway).
About that LOD selector, do you mean we can set a property for every
object if it should be rendered or not at certain
Jim Wilson wrote:
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes, LODs are a good idea. We had those in Falcon too (actually, every
more complex game uses LODs to increase the framerate anyway).
About that LOD selector, do you mean we can set a property for every
object if it
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes, LODs are a good idea. We had those in Falcon too (actually, every
more complex game uses LODs to increase the framerate anyway).
About that LOD selector, do you mean we can set a
It's been my personal experience on a GeForce GO based laptop that
16bpp ran faster and used less texture ram the 24bpp.
Ok, so the framerate is higher in 16 bit and there aren't any weird
assumptions? (as I said, I judged by the eye, so obviously it was the
deprivation of colours
On Friday 25 July 2003 21:56, Matevz Jekovec wrote:
I have PII 333 Mhz with GF2MX 32MB on PCI and 256 MB of SDRAM. I have
Abit LX something motherboard and SBAWE64 on ISA (I'm about to buy Live!
in the next few days). I would like to run FGFS smoothly (that's about
15-20 FPS) on GNU/Debian
Matevz Jekovec writes:
So, if I want to run FlightGear in 800x600, I should restart my X in
800x600 resolution and run FlightGear then (that's a bit of a problem
because there are some issues with my GF2MX PCI card and it takes about
4 minutes of frozen, blank computer when starting X,
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1) In mode 24 bpp, FlightGear ran faster than in 16 bpp (I also switched
the Xfree depth to 24 and 16 then). Is there any known explanation (I
haven't made benchmark, but judging by the eye I thought it was faster)
for this. I think it's the textures
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:32:07 +0200,
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So, if I want to run FlightGear in 800x600, I should restart my X in
800x600 resolution and run FlightGear then (that's a bit of a problem
because there are some issues with my GF2MX
32 matches
Mail list logo
