Recently I was told that some planes have liveries of so high resolution
that you have to install low resolution versions to have a decent fps
during multiplay. But doesn't FG use mipmaps for liveries? If not then
are there plans to do so? Or should the livery be prepared in a certain
On 26 Sep 2013, at 07:18, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Mipmaps for textures are pretty generic for the rendering process. If you
would not mipmap textures, they'd create flickering Moire patterns whenever
the texture resolution is higher than the screen resolution as
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:27 AM, James Turner wrote:
Just to say, Thorsten has in this case saved me writing an email, thanks.
To re-iterate - GPU VRAM is a precious commodity, so we should spend it on
texels you can actually see.
One further point to make is that we do have the AI/Aircraft
On 26 Sep 2013, at 11:22, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote:
One further point to make is that we do have the AI/Aircraft directory
specifically
used for low-poly/resolution models.
So, if there are specific aircraft that are causing problems, arguably
the correct
way to resolve
Kindly tell me the platform and code for only simulating the some aircraft
like jaguar graphics. My interest is to simulate flight by giving string of
aircraft data necessary for flight like velocity, acceleration, roll,
pitch, yaw and control surface positions.
Thanks
Please reply on this mail-id
I'm not trying to convince anyone to use hi-res liveries. But several
people reported that hi-res aircrafts break fps in MP, and downscaling
liveries solves the problem (and this follows from Stuart's email). But if
mipmap _is_ applied to liveries, then why we have to have lo-res liveries
On 09/26/2013 12:30 PM, James Turner wrote:
Some of the folks on the fourm have been doing greta work up the AI
models of our transport-category aircraft, mostly to improve appearance
of Traffic. The A320 and A330 have had overhauls and now look great, and
I believe the Boeings are next on
I was reviewing the current menu structure and would like to propose a couple
of changes. Partly because we have too many menus, all quite short, but also to
remove some bad terminology.
Each of these changes is independent, comments explicitly requested:
- merge 'Autopilot' into the
On 26 Sep 2013, at 11:33, Erik Hofman e...@ehofman.com wrote:
On that topic, there's a static 737 on the taxi tracks that's there
since the old days when there was no AI traffic, it is probably a good
idea to remove it from the scenery now.
Mostly i agree, but it's sort of a piece of FG
On 09/26/2013 12:47 PM, James Turner wrote:
On 26 Sep 2013, at 11:33, Erik Hofman e...@ehofman.com
mailto:e...@ehofman.com wrote:
On that topic, there's a static 737 on the taxi tracks that's there
since the old days when there was no AI traffic, it is probably a good
idea to remove it from
I always thought it was a 737 hulk used for fire crew training.
I think there's no reason why mipmaps could not be pre-generated for formats
other than DDS, nothing stops FGFS from defining a texture as a combination of
a series of images and a snippet of XML code describing the way these are
Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com hat am 26. September 2013 um 12:22
geschrieben:
[snip]
Perhaps we should mandate that aircraft over a certain size should have an AI
version created?
There is an alternative to an AI Version. For Aircraft with Livery Select it is
possible to have
On 26 Sep 2013, at 13:04, Erik Hofman wrote:
On 09/26/2013 12:47 PM, James Turner wrote:
On 26 Sep 2013, at 11:33, Erik Hofman e...@ehofman.com
mailto:e...@ehofman.com wrote:
On that topic, there's a static 737 on the taxi tracks that's there
since the old days when there was no AI
Hi Satish,
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Satish Srivastava wrote:
Kindly tell me the platform and code for only simulating the some aircraft
like jaguar graphics. My interest is to simulate flight by giving string of
aircraft data necessary for flight like velocity, acceleration, roll,
Also the question to GPU gurus: I think most aircrafts that have hi-res
liveries do so because of several small signs here and there. So does it
makes sense to have a lo-res opaque texture that paints aircraft's body,
and then a hi-res transparent one that places signs on top of the first?
This
But several people reported that hi-res aircrafts break fps in MP, and
downscaling liveries solves the problem (and this follows from Stuart's
email). But if mipmap _is_ applied to liveries, then why we have to have
lo-res liveries separately? Won't one of mipmap levels do the same?
Le 26/09/2013 12:30, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:18:53 +
From: Renk Thorstenthorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Mipmapping of liveries
To: FlightGear developers discussions
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:45 AM, James Turner wrote:
I was reviewing the current menu structure and would like to propose a couple
of changes. Partly because we have too many menus, all quite short, but also
to remove some bad terminology.
Each of these changes is independent, comments
2013/9/26 Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
Full GPU memory leads to performance deterioration.
Well, I'm not entirely convinced that plus-munis some tens of MBs made a
difference in one case I heard of (tu154b, five 1024x1024 textures for the
exterior). Yet I'm convinced that mipmap alone
Keep in mind that texture resolution alone doesn't tell you much unless you
know how much surface area is fitted into it. Some planes fit both sides
of wings, fuselage, gears and much more into a single rectangle so it being
of hi-res doesn't mean that you can see every grain of sand on a tire.
Another approach could be the use of multiple UV layers, like other game
engines, err, scenegraphs use. One base texture, and one or more uv layers for
decals, with the possibility to define in the material properties if a texture
repeats or not. the limit here is posed by the use of a model
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:45:38 +0100
James Turner wrote:
The Autopilot menu change does make sense (although there may possibly be a
case for keeping such a flight-critical menu rapidly accessed at the top level?)
- potentially rename 'Environment' to 'World'
If most of the AI stuff moves to
On 26 Sep 2013, at 16:21, AJ MacLeod aj-li...@adeptopensource.co.uk wrote:
That's exactly what the word environment means though, isn't it! I really
don't think there's any point at all in changing the name of that menu entry;
the current one perfectly accurately describes things around
The Autopilot menu change does make sense (although there may possibly be a
case for keeping such a flight-critical menu rapidly accessed at the top
level?)
I don't see this need. When I'm in a hurry, I use my left hand to enter a
keyboard shortcut, rather than taking my right hand off the
Hi,
- merge 'Autopilot' into the Equipment menu, as a section (probably the
first section)
I have no objection with this.
- potentially rename 'Environment' to 'World'
Environment word looks fine to me.
A quick search on Google reveal that X-Plane use Environment but FSX use
World.
You know one of the things that needs to happen with light-year is that the
menus need to be accessible for the visually impaired it is very difficult to
get to the menus we need to see the menus on the menu bar and have a little
more accessibility to this because I use this mostly by keyboard
26 matches
Mail list logo
