On Tuesday 21 Dec 2004 07:34, Innis Cunningham wrote:
The vertex count is down from near 1800 to 1200 and the number of 512x512
textures is halved.
The static 747 and 737 at KSFO are 1100 and 400 vertices respectivley.So
that
may give you an idea how complex you think the 172 should be.
On Tuesday 21 Dec 2004 07:34, Innis Cunningham wrote:
The static 747 and 737 at KSFO are 1100 and 400 vertices respectivley.So
that
may give you an idea how complex you think the 172 should be.
Cheers
Innis
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Dave Martin wrote:
I've now got 702 vertices and still a reasonable looking model that you can
taxi past 20 feet away or fly over at 100 feet and think yes, thats a
172 ;-)
Very close inspection gives the game away but your unlikely to find an
aircraft that can taxi up to it without catching
On Tuesday 21 Dec 2004 19:28, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Dave,
Are you familiar with Level of Detail or LOD? This is a technique
where you can build multiple versions of your aircraft with different
level of details. The system then automatically picks which version to
display depending on how
Dave, you can check out the animation file (specifically: engine animation)
for the MD11 if you want to learn how to set different LOD's.
Curt, as I was working on the MD11, I get a feeling that FlightGear is loading
every single polygon into the scene graph. Is my feeling correct? If so,
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Dave, you can check out the animation file (specifically: engine animation)
for the MD11 if you want to learn how to set different LOD's.
Curt, as I was working on the MD11, I get a feeling that FlightGear is loading
every single polygon into the scene graph. Is my
Dave Martin wrote:
Now thats interesting stuff; I *had* noticed that FG has lod settings and such
but I don't know much about how it works in FG (Although I fully understand
the principal).
I'll have a go at making another version of the 172 with say, 2d wings, solid
windows and less polys in
On Tuesday 21 Dec 2004 20:17, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I would think that a super detailed version would be nice, some sort of
middle range version, and some super tiny version that might be a dot or
just a couple polygons. From there you could tune or add if you thought
you needed to. At
Hi Dave
Dave Martin writes
I've made the model look near to the normal model in quality unless you go
right up and look closely (interior textures, controls etc are gone) The
seats are still in but I've cropped a lot of vertices from the fusealage
and
wings and re-orientated the model nose-up to
