Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 à 22:37 +0100, Lee Elliott a écrit : > I had to patch FG, because i need a hight speed graphic card, > > I don't hope any come back from NVidia. > > The graphics card suplyer, don't take care with the old > > releases, they answer to the instant mass request. > > With FG Beware OpenGL 2.0. > > There is/was definite problem with the 7xxx nVidia drivers & FG. > Reverting back to the 69xx drivers works ok. There is a patch > to the nVidia supplied source code that will enable it to be > compiled on 2.6.11 kernels. > > LeeE > Thanks for your help, BUT Sorry we are not talking the same subject and the same target. For my usage i need an operational video card with Open GL V2.0 fully operational, with the higher speed. Only the last driver gives that performance (7664). About old drivers i did used it a long time ago without patch first (old linux release) and with patch after (new linux release), with an "other old NVidia Card". (just for the fun i benchmark my old video card and the new one both with the same old driver, the benchmark gave slightly the same performance) You are talking to reduce the performance of my last video card by using that old driver only to make FG running (sorry instead of degrading the video card performance, if choose to reduce the functionalities of FG). In the future, others will have to do that choice. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
On Friday 17 Jun 2005 00:12, Gerard Robin wrote: > Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 23:01 +0200, Oliver C. a écrit : > > On Thursday 16 June 2005 20:34, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two > > > effects. This would be with the arbvp1 & arbfp1 type > > > shader. Of course I won't write them in assembler by would > > > use Cg to produce the assembler source. > > > The use or arb type program should limit the dependencies > > > on standard opengl driver. > > > > The GLSL is part of OpenGL 2.0 and NVidia has allready > > OpenGL 2.0 compliant drivers for Linux and Windows. So > > OpenGL 2.0 with GLSL is IMHO the way to go. > > > > > But before starting anything like that I first want to > > > know if : 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie > > > FX5200+ or ati9500+) No need to code lot of things if only > > > 5% of the user can see them. Normaly a good percentage > > > should have correct > > > cards (or will have in the next 6 month) but I feel that > > > some still use olders cards. > > > > I have a Geforce 4 Ti but that's not a problem, i can > > upgrade later when it makes sense. :) > > The only thing that is important for me now, is an option to > > turn it off and it must stay vendor neutral and > > crossplatform compatible. So, please don't use specific > > OpenGL Extensions that only run on specific hardware. > > Instead use only what OpenGL 2.0 offers in a neutral way. > > > > > No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the user can > > > see them. > > > > You can be sure, that i will be able to see it some day (in > > a couple of months -> next videocard is allready planned). > > So this shouldn't hinder you. > > > > > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual > > > aspect of Flightgear or you think that only simulation > > > count and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) > > > > No, i like eye candy very much and see it as an important > > factor for flightgear beside the physic code and other > > things. So when you can improve it, then please, improve it. > > :) > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Oliver C. > > Whe must pay attention about the New OpenGL 2.0. > You probably remember, recently i have been fighting with my > new NVidia GT6600 (OpenGL 2.0) and the last Linux driver > (OpenGL 2.0), those are perfectly working. > BUT An Exception FG, does not. > I have found in FG itself a functionality about lighting > animation which makes the problem. > It was working with the older drivers (OpenGL 1.5). > I had to patch FG, because i need a hight speed graphic card, > I don't hope any come back from NVidia. > The graphics card suplyer, don't take care with the old > releases, they answer to the instant mass request. > With FG Beware OpenGL 2.0. There is/was definite problem with the 7xxx nVidia drivers & FG. Reverting back to the 69xx drivers works ok. There is a patch to the nVidia supplied source code that will enable it to be compiled on 2.6.11 kernels. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 21:52, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Harald JOHNSEN > > > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two > > effects. This would be with the arbvp1 & arbfp1 type shader. > > Of course I won't write them in assembler by would > > use Cg to produce the assembler source. > > The use or arb type program should limit the dependencies on > > standard opengl driver. > > > > But before starting anything like that I first want to know > > if : 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ > > or ati9500+) No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the > > user can see them. Normaly a good percentage should have > > correct > > cards (or will have in the next 6 month) but I feel that > > some still use olders cards. > > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual > > aspect of Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) > > We should have the most realism that we can collectively > produce, that's what sets us apart from other sims. (and being > open of course). > > The advice I received here when I built demanding aircraft > models was go right ahead: the hardware will soon catch up. It > has. > > Just ensure that whatever you do can be switched off or > degrades gracefully (preferably). > > V. I think that a design philosophy that incorporates backwards compatibility is A Very Good Thing. It's harder to start with but makes things much easier and more flexible in the longer term. I guess I'm thinking about how FG is pretty monolithic and wondering how much of an over-head there might be in making it more modular. Might also be worth thinking about parallelism aspects. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 23:01 +0200, Oliver C. a écrit : > On Thursday 16 June 2005 20:34, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two effects. > > This would be with the arbvp1 & arbfp1 type shader. Of course I won't > > write them in assembler by would > > use Cg to produce the assembler source. > > The use or arb type program should limit the dependencies on standard > > opengl driver. > > The GLSL is part of OpenGL 2.0 and NVidia has allready OpenGL 2.0 compliant > drivers for Linux and Windows. So OpenGL 2.0 with GLSL is IMHO the way to go. > > > > > > But before starting anything like that I first want to know if : > > 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ or ati9500+) > > No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the user can see them. > > Normaly a good percentage should have correct > > cards (or will have in the next 6 month) but I feel that some still use > > olders cards. > > I have a Geforce 4 Ti but that's not a problem, i can upgrade later when it > makes sense. :) > The only thing that is important for me now, is an option to turn it off > and it must stay vendor neutral and crossplatform compatible. > So, please don't use specific OpenGL Extensions that only run on > specific hardware. Instead use only what OpenGL 2.0 offers in a neutral way. > > > No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the user can see them. > You can be sure, that i will be able to see it some day (in a couple of > months > -> next videocard is allready planned). > So this shouldn't hinder you. > > > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual aspect of > > Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) > > No, i like eye candy very much and see it as an important factor for > flightgear beside the physic code and other things. > So when you can improve it, then please, improve it. :) > > > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. > > Whe must pay attention about the New OpenGL 2.0. You probably remember, recently i have been fighting with my new NVidia GT6600 (OpenGL 2.0) and the last Linux driver (OpenGL 2.0), those are perfectly working. BUT An Exception FG, does not. I have found in FG itself a functionality about lighting animation which makes the problem. It was working with the older drivers (OpenGL 1.5). I had to patch FG, because i need a hight speed graphic card, I don't hope any come back from NVidia. The graphics card suplyer, don't take care with the old releases, they answer to the instant mass request. With FG Beware OpenGL 2.0. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
On Thursday 16 June 2005 20:34, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two effects. > This would be with the arbvp1 & arbfp1 type shader. Of course I won't > write them in assembler by would > use Cg to produce the assembler source. > The use or arb type program should limit the dependencies on standard > opengl driver. The GLSL is part of OpenGL 2.0 and NVidia has allready OpenGL 2.0 compliant drivers for Linux and Windows. So OpenGL 2.0 with GLSL is IMHO the way to go. > > But before starting anything like that I first want to know if : > 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ or ati9500+) > No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the user can see them. > Normaly a good percentage should have correct > cards (or will have in the next 6 month) but I feel that some still use > olders cards. I have a Geforce 4 Ti but that's not a problem, i can upgrade later when it makes sense. :) The only thing that is important for me now, is an option to turn it off and it must stay vendor neutral and crossplatform compatible. So, please don't use specific OpenGL Extensions that only run on specific hardware. Instead use only what OpenGL 2.0 offers in a neutral way. > No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the user can see them. You can be sure, that i will be able to see it some day (in a couple of months -> next videocard is allready planned). So this shouldn't hinder you. > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual aspect of > Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) No, i like eye candy very much and see it as an important factor for flightgear beside the physic code and other things. So when you can improve it, then please, improve it. :) Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
Harald JOHNSEN > > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two effects. > This would be with the arbvp1 & arbfp1 type shader. Of course I won't > write them in assembler by would > use Cg to produce the assembler source. > The use or arb type program should limit the dependencies on standard > opengl driver. > > But before starting anything like that I first want to know if : > 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ or ati9500+) > No need to code lot of things if only 5% of the user can see them. > Normaly a good percentage should have correct > cards (or will have in the next 6 month) but I feel that some still use > olders cards. > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual aspect of > Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) > We should have the most realism that we can collectively produce, that's what sets us apart from other sims. (and being open of course). The advice I received here when I built demanding aircraft models was go right ahead: the hardware will soon catch up. It has. Just ensure that whatever you do can be switched off or degrades gracefully (preferably). V. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
Harald JOHNSEN wrote: 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual aspect of Flightgear or you think that only simulation count and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) There are two things very important for me; It doesn't effect rendering speed (or have the ability to turned it off) and it should be cross platform (also meaning older cards should still work with FlightGear out of the box). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:34, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two effects. > But before starting anything like that I first want to know if : > 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ or ati9500+) Personally speaking, no, I don't; I've a lowly MX420 which has been perfectly adequate for my use so far. However > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual aspect of > Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) That's not to say that if the eye candy was available in FG I wouldn't upgrade to take advantage of it! I don't think there's any doubt that the "physics" and avionics simulation is the most important thing in this particular project. At the same time, the visual aspects are not unimportant, as they are also a big part of the overall "feel". So long as the eye candy is easily disabled by those with creaking hardware, it can only be an improvement in my view. AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
