On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>> *Please* don't drop the z/Z key binding. This is one of the most
>> useful and direct controls we have to affect the visual experience.
> (...)
>> It's fecking difficult to operate a mouse/menu/slider while using a
>> joystick
>> unless you a
> *Please* don't drop the z/Z key binding. This is one of the most
> useful and direct controls we have to affect the visual experience.
(...)
> It's fecking difficult to operate a mouse/menu/slider while using a
> joystick
> unless you are ambidextrous
> (which I'm not)
Can anyone please explai
James Turner
>
> On 2 Mar 2013, at 17:09, Gary Carvell wrote:
>
> > I have no problem at all with disabling the keys when (say) advanced
> > weather is selected, but for several classes of users and types of
> > use, it really is an important capability and is used often.
>
> I don't see anyth
Gary Carvell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Stuart Buchanan
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote:
> >> Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the
> popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlled by
advanced
>
On 2 Mar 2013, at 17:09, Gary Carvell wrote:
> I have no problem at all with disabling the keys when (say) advanced
> weather is selected, but for several classes of users and types of
> use, it really is an important capability and is used often.
I don't see anything in your list, that wouldn'
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote:
>> Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the
>> popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlled by advanced
>> weather'.
>>
>> Another o
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Chris Calef wrote:
> Say, while you all are on the subject of key bindings, could anyone tell
> me where these keymappings are defined in flightgear? My friend is having
> a severe (to him) issue with the program, in that he loves flying in the
> sim but is runnin
Say, while you all are on the subject of key bindings, could anyone tell me
where these keymappings are defined in flightgear? My friend is having a
severe (to him) issue with the program, in that he loves flying in the sim
but is running I believe three monitors. He is able to get the view across
> So whatever we do, we can't override the ability to get low level
> granular
> control of the weather parameters, and not just so that advanced weather
> can manipulate them exclusively, also so that external tools can
> manipulate
> them without advanced weather getting in the way or overrid
Torsten wrote
>
> Am 28.02.2013 16:38, schrieb Curtis Olson:
> > We've always been able to set the individual weather parameters,
> > either through the built in weather dialog box, or by setting raw
> > property values. Setting raw property values allows nasal script
> > control over the weathe
Am 28.02.2013 16:38, schrieb Curtis Olson:
> We've always been able to set the individual weather parameters, either
> through the built in weather dialog box, or by setting raw property
> values. Setting raw property values allows nasal script control over
> the weather (as I'm sure you well know
Hi Thorsten,
Using z/Z to adjust visibility is something from the earliest days of the
simulator project, before METAR weather, probably before clouds, and the
sky dome. I don't personally mind if the z/Z key bindings go away.
What I do care about though is that FlightGear continues to be useabl
> You asked for ideas for a more descriptive text - I've gone one better
> and
> added descriptive texts to the gui. My design aim was to provide the
> average
> user with some indication of which option he should choose and in which
> circumstance. It's only a shallow redesign. It would be nic
Thorsten Renk wrote
... snip
> The design idea behind the current GUI was that the user should no longer
> be presented with two different weather options to choose from, but just
> see a single GUI which controls weather. If that is still the idea, it
works
> remarkably well. If you have an id
> 2. Slider in Advanced Weather - Advanced Settings - sets a max value .
> The
> displayed vis in the min value of this and the value derived by Advanced
> Weather. (Is this true? I'm only inferring this).
True.
> 3. Checkbox named realistic visibility in Advanced Weather - Advanced
> Settings.
Stefan Seifert wrote
>
> On Sunday 24 February 2013 18:46:08 Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> > I'm probably a day late and a dollar short here - but try as I will so
> > far I've failed to find a visibility slider under
> > environment->weather. It's probably staring me in the face - but could
> someon
On Sunday 24 February 2013 18:46:08 Vivian Meazza wrote:
> I'm probably a day late and a dollar short here - but try as I will so far
> I've failed to find a visibility slider under environment->weather. It's
> probably staring me in the face - but could someone point it out to me?
In the Weather
Emilian wrote
>
> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 07:08:41 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> >A lot of stuff, mostly deflecting the discussion to other irelevant
> >points
> >
> > * Thorsten
>
> While I should know better than to answer to this, as it will again get
> deflected to other areas, let's imagin
Let's please be honest here.
> I'll repeat it once more, I don't have a personal problem with you, I
> have a problem with your methods, and AFAIK I'm not the only one, but
> (un)fortunately, the other ones chose to stay silent...
If you refer to my methods of coding, I don't think we've had
I'll repeat it once more, I don't have a personal problem with you, I have a
problem with your methods, and AFAIK I'm not the only one, but
(un)fortunately, the other ones chose to stay silent...
I guess that's it, we all have to bow to the great leader
I'l remove myself from this list, an
Emilian, just up-front to keep this discussion focused on what it actually is
about:
Do you, or do you not agree that 20 (or 16) km terrain loaded regardless of
the visibility is a sane value? Somehow, you still haven't really answered the
question, you're just expressing unspecified 'concern
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 13:09:29 Stefan Seifert wrote:
> Why do you want the user to have to repeatedly press a key after starting
> the sim instead of setting the maximum visibility once and for all in the
> advanced weather dialog? In other words: why should the user press a key
> _n_ tim
On Saturday 23 February 2013 13:20:49 Emilian Huminiuc wrote:
> Guess what happens when memory is limited and visibility is set to 120km?
> You see the "end of the world", because no more tiles can be loaded to reach
> that distance.
> Guess what you need to adjust then, independent of what the "r
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:51:55 Stefan Seifert wrote:
> The solution is not to give crude tools like limiting visibility to the
> user. The solution is to fix FG to be consious about how much memory is
> available and make the best use of it. Yes, many games simply limit
> visibility if m
On Saturday 23 February 2013 12:21:02 Emilian Huminiuc wrote:
> So in the default scheme we load 9 tiles at startup, then we keep loading
> tiles in the direction we're traveling, and those initial tiles remain
> resident in the tile cache for a while (in case you decide to double back).
So there
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 07:08:41 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>A lot of stuff, mostly deflecting the discussion to other irelevant points
>
> * Thorsten
While I should know better than to answer to this, as it will again get
deflected to other areas, let's imagine ourselves a simple scenario:
L
> Have you ever read the getstart.pdf? apparently not.
I've read it once, a long while ago. But I don't feel bound by what it says, in
my view the logic is that we implement what's reasonable, then change the
documentation accordingly, not that we first have a documentation as god-given
and onl
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:33:17 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> > I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about
> > that) and see below for the huge value.
>
> Let me get this straight. You state that the 16 km are a pretty sane value.
> The proposal being discussed is t
Just to chime in, wouldn't rendering the base tile be "easier" for the
GPU, and then static objects, and then dynamic objects?
Saikrishna Arcot
On Fri 22 Feb 2013 03:06:37 AM CST, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 22 Feb 2013, at 07:06, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
>
>> Well, that's on the way.
>> Please d
On 22 Feb 2013, at 07:06, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Well, that's on the way.
> Please do not steer any lod ranges except may be the lod bias by any property.
> That's again cross connecting code areas that do not need to be connected and
> that then suffer from updates into the scene graph that
Hi,
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 16:43:51 James Turner wrote:
> This is moving in the right direction for sure. I'd like to go a little
> further, and make the LOD setting a simple checkbox labelled 'reduce detail
> adaptively'. Then make the LOD ranges (for trees, clouds, AI models,
> whatever
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:53:06 +, Renk wrote in message
:
> > the reason to be of the EQUIPMENT is to override the limit of the
> > EYE vision.
> > Are we doing the error to merging this two ?
>
> Would you mind reading the previous messages in the thread? I don't
> mean to be impolite, but I
> the reason to be of the EQUIPMENT is to override the limit of the EYE
> vision.
> Are we doing the error to merging this two ?
Would you mind reading the previous messages in the thread? I don't mean to be
impolite, but I really don't want to write everything twice. Thanks.
* Thorsten
On 02/21/2013 04:26 PM, James Turner wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:54, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote:
>>> Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the
>>> popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlle
On 21 Feb 2013, at 16:32, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> I think not... I was about to bring this up as well. We have a mixture of
> real visibilities and auxiliary LOD parameters
>
> * we have visibility-m and ground-visibility-m which are actually used for
> rendering, i.e. they really correspond t
> Another option would be to move the visibility control to a dialog, with
> a slider / spin box, and explicitly disable it when advanced weather is
> selection. Then we could lose the keybinding completely, which is
> something I want to move towards for options that are infrequently used,
On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:54, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote:
>> Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the
>> popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlled by advanced
>> weather'.
>>
>> Another option
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM, James Turner wrote:
> Suggestion - if z/Z are pressed with advanced weather enabled, make the
> popup-message say 'disabled since visibility is being controlled by advanced
> weather'.
>
> Another option would be to move the visibility control to a dialog, with a
Thorsten
> -Original Message-
> From: Renk Thorsten [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 21 February 2013 10:31
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues
>
> > I was not referring to a frame rate issue, but
On 21 Feb 2013, at 11:33, Emilian Huminiuc wrote:
>> 4) z/Z is disabled because weather comes with a model for the vertical
>> change of visibility as you go to different altitudes. You are allowed to
>> affect that model (that's what sliders are for), but you are not supposed
>> to micro-manage
> I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about
> that) and see below for the huge value.
Let me get this straight. You state that the 16 km are a pretty sane value. The
proposal being discussed is to load terrain to 20 km no matter what the
visibility is. Vivian ha
> I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about
> that)
Sorry this should have read:
I was talking about the 16km value (sorry for not being more clear about that)
and see below for the huge value.
---
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:13:21 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> > Why should those users be forced to give up on those goodies just
> > because one
> > part of the rendering scheme doesn't want to play by the rules? Even
> > more so when there's no indication that happens...
> >
> > The default ma
> Why should those users be forced to give up on those goodies just
> because one
> part of the rendering scheme doesn't want to play by the rules? Even
> more so when there's no indication that happens...
>
> The default max visibility value is a pretty sane default, and simply
> increasing t
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:31:18 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> > I was not referring to a frame rate issue, but FG running out of memory.
> >
> > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18913&p=177392#p17739
> > 2
> >
> > It is rare to see that happening using the current scenery, bu
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 08:44:24 Renk Thorsten wrote:
.
>
> 1) Black skies: This may either be skydome unloading which I can't reproduce
> (but we should have a property preventing that, I don't know if it's set
> only by Advanced Weather, if not then this is a Basic Weather problem, n
> I was not referring to a frame rate issue, but FG running out of memory.
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18913&p=177392#p177392
>
> It is rare to see that happening using the current scenery, but here if I
> select random buildings and objects with a high value for trees,
Thorsten wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Renk Thorsten [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 21 February 2013 06:54
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues
>
> Vivian:
>
> > There seem to
Vivian:
> There seem to be significant issues with the loading of terrain. If we
> load too much, the frame rate drops, if we load too little it looks poor, and
>
> AG radar doesn't work. Actually. We don't load enough for AG radar to work
> realistically in any case. We probably need somethi
Thorsten wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: Renk Thorsten [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 20 February 2013 08:44
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues
>
> Vivian wrote a while ago:
>
> > I&#x
On 20 Feb 2013, at 09:14, James Turner wrote:
> I would push for b) because it would also enable some other good things in
> the future; much easier to auto-hide internal features in exterior views,
> more potential to do a an early pass with internal geometry to fill Z, etc.
(Possibly includ
On 20 Feb 2013, at 08:44, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> 2) Clear circle around the plane: A while ago, I presented the problem that
> fog computations are done for the cockpit as well since they run over the
> same model shader as anything else, so we waste a lot of GPU time on
> something that is p
Vivian wrote a while ago:
> I've only tested Atmospheric Light Scattering for about 10 mins - and so
> far I've discovered that the Cat III scenario looks decidedly odd with a
> clear circle around my aircraft on the ground and black skies.
I've taken a few hours to look into low visibility
53 matches
Mail list logo
