What am I doing wrong? I have sucessfully built scenery before but I
wanted to change the terrain texture to desert.rgb so I set the material
type to DryLake when using tgvpf.
$terr_prep/tgvpf/tgvpf --tile=w087n30 --work-dir=LandMass
--material=DryLake --max-segment=400 /data/vmaplv0 noamer bnd
Le lundi 11 juillet 2005 à 08:58 -0500, Corrubia, Stacie K a écrit :
What am I doing wrong? I have sucessfully built scenery before but I
wanted to change the terrain texture to desert.rgb so I set the material
type to DryLake when using tgvpf.
$terr_prep/tgvpf/tgvpf --tile=w087n30
Hi All
Tonight I thought I would texture the tail of an aircraft I am in
the process of doing.The tail consists of three objects.The vertical
stabilizer,upper and lower rudder.So as not to have one side of the fin
back the front I fragmented the three objects and then devided the
fin into left and
Innis Cunningham said:
Hi All
Tonight I thought I would texture the tail of an aircraft I am in
the process of doing.The tail consists of three objects.The vertical
stabilizer,upper and lower rudder.So as not to have one side of the fin
back the front I fragmented the three objects and then
Hi Jim
Jim Wilson writes
Innis Cunningham said:
Hi All
Tonight I thought I would texture the tail of an aircraft I am in
the process of doing.The tail consists of three objects.The vertical
stabilizer,upper and lower rudder.So as not to have one side of the fin
back the front I fragmented
otherwise FG crash on Windows
Thanks,
-Fred
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Frederic Bouvier writes:
otherwise FG crash on Windows
Updated ...
--
Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org
Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Frederic Bouvier writes:
otherwise FG crash on Windows
Updated ...
Thanks.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:27:42 +1000
Bernie Bright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we need separate low poly-count models suitable for use as AI
aircraft. FS2k2 supports such a feature. Such models wouldn't need 3D
cockpits or animations, although retracting landing gear and spinning
props
Hello all,
While we're discussing texture sizes, I'd like to hear how people get on with
high-poly models.
While I have some problems if a lot of texture space is needed, I don't seem
to have any trouble with what I'd consider to be high poly models.
What are other peoples experiences in this
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 21:58, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Lee Elliott writes:
Hello all,
While we're discussing texture sizes, I'd like to hear how people get on
with
high-poly models.
While I have some problems if a lot of texture space is needed, I don't
seem
to have any trouble
Lee Elliott writes:
Is there any way to come up with a rough guidence figure?
The untextured 737 model I just parked at KSFO has 392 vertices and
332 faces, according to Blender. That's
way too high if we're going to use a realistic number of planes.
For buildings, I try to stay under 8
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 22:22, David Megginson wrote:
Lee Elliott writes:
Is there any way to come up with a rough guidence figure?
The untextured 737 model I just parked at KSFO has 392 vertices and
332 faces, according to Blender. That's
way too high if we're going to use a realistic
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:58:26 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we have some capacity (especially on higher end systems) for
cranking more polygons. However, we need to be careful because we
might find ourselves throwing 10-100 of these aircraft into a single
scene (i.e.
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 18:45, Lee Elliott wrote:
On Wednesday 09 July 2003 00:53, Bernie Bright wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:07:06 +0100
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 21:58, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Lee Elliott writes:
Hello all,
While
Bernie Bright writes:
Just noticed those! There don't seem to be any problems, not even
much of a framerate hit.
That's good news. We'll have to keep static aircraft at least as
simple as these 737's.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Innis Cunningham wrote:
If you want to see what happens if you have a lot of AI aircraft have a look
at FS2K2.Just flying around I get about 25fps but if I goto an airport with
lots of AI A/C parked(many textures)I am lucky to get 7fps yet in FG I can
get 60+fps no
Hi Guys
I guess this leads to an interesting dilemma of were FG goes.
If you want scenery items and AI aircraft flying all over the place even
with the latest equipment you are going to have a slide show.
So do we continue to develop and hence force people to upgrade to keep up or
do you spilt
Kris Feldmann wrote:
Often times upgrading one part means going to a whole new computer,
such as when the new part isn't supported by the motherboard, OS,
or something else. With laptops it's often impossible to upgrade
anything but RAM and disk. This means that a $50 graphics card
isn't really
Lee Elliott schrieb:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. And especially I can't expect to slow down development for
the majority of the users.
I simply don't have any money to spend on anything other than bills and food,
and that's tricky.
Well,
Martin Spott schrieb:
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. [...]
I already noticed that there's a new culture on this planet that implies
continuosly upgrading of everything that is upgradable. But I think
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Lee Elliott schrieb:
I simply don't have any money to spend on anything other than bills and food,
and that's tricky.
Well, that's sad.
But I don't expect that there are many people who suffer from the same
problem.
I think the majority
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. [...]
I already noticed that there's a new culture on this planet that implies
continuosly upgrading of everything that is
Hi Folks
With regard to texture sizes for instrument guages is it better(less
demanding on the CPU/graphics card)to have a lot of small textures, or is it
better to put them all on one large texture, or does it not matter.
Cheers
Innis
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 01:00 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:41:58 +0800
From: Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Texture Sizes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hi
Darrell Walisser schrieb:
Hi Folks
With regard to texture sizes for instrument guages is it better(less
demanding on the CPU/graphics card)to have a lot of small textures, or
is it
better to put them all on one large texture, or does it not matter.
If you know all the textures will be used at
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:52:49 +0200
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO we should require a card with TL setup as minimum, i.e. GeForce
class. And they should be able to handle a reasonable texture size.
I totally disagree with this idea. Lots of life left in TNT2s. It's not good
Richard A Downing FBCS schrieb:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:52:49 +0200
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO we should require a card with TL setup as minimum, i.e. GeForce
class. And they should be able to handle a reasonable texture size.
I totally disagree with this idea. Lots of life
Christian Mayer wrote:
So go for big texture sizes.
Although my O2 can handle one texture to be up to 1024Mb, somehow I
would choose to put as many instrument(s) parts into one 256x256 texture
for the panel instruments. And if needed use a second or third texture.
Erik
Erik Hofman schrieb:
Christian Mayer wrote:
So go for big texture sizes.
Although my O2 can handle one texture to be up to 1024Mb, somehow I
would choose to put as many instrument(s) parts into one 256x256 texture
for the panel instruments. And if needed use a second or third texture.
As
On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:52, Christian Mayer wrote:
Richard A Downing FBCS schrieb:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:52:49 +0200
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO we should require a card with TL setup as minimum, i.e. GeForce
class. And they should be able to handle a
Often times upgrading one part means going to a whole new computer,
such as when the new part isn't supported by the motherboard, OS,
or something else. With laptops it's often impossible to upgrade
anything but RAM and disk. This means that a $50 graphics card
isn't really available to everyone
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. [...]
I already noticed that there's a new culture on this planet that implies
continuosly upgrading of everything that is upgradable. But I think it's not
a good
Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW Erik, does your box use an R5k or R10k (cpu)?
The CPU type itself does not make very much difference when you look at
FlightGear. Erik's box easily outperforms a fully equipped Octane MXI
that only has a 195 MHz CPU,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user
I've been playing with the new ATI linux drivers recently. It turns
out that they have a performance problem that gets tickled by plib.
Plib allows you to pick wrapped or clamped texture borders when you
create your ssgTexture. To get the clamping, it uses the original
GL_CLAMP mode, instead of
Guys!
Have some problem
I render image to some texture and got texture pointer for example texture
128x128 RGBA
I need for this texture calculate each pixel luminance and after it compare
to some value
could you please tell me functions how to retrive image map data?
Thanx in advance
Bye
36 matches
Mail list logo
