Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
Am Mittwoch, den 10.12.2008, 23:46 +0100 schrieb gerard robin: > On mercredi 10 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote: > > Hi Gerard, > > > > On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote: > > > Is it only philosophy, from me ? > > > Am i alone to think like that ? > > > Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ? > > > > I'm puzzled... > > > > As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our > > striving for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection > > of our most advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear > > toward a more game oriented audience. If you think it does, then please > > explain how. > > > > What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of > > aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at > > the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of > > beginner level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types. > > Obviously, the ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real > > life. Within these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism. > > You might remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not > > to include the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced > > it with a very hard to fly Sopwith Camel. > > > > Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to > > fly. New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the > > program "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few > > aircraft in the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive > > experience and give it a second try. Ultimately, these people may become > > permanent users, and even contributers. . > > > > > > Cheers, > > Durk > > > > Hello, Durk, > > I don't understand , that regression, the Concorde is not new. > > Yes > it it is regression since now words like "hard to fly" are used, which sound > > to me like a "criticism" of FlightGear. > These models were "hard to fly" in the past time. That is the characteristic > of the quality of the best models. > It should be used as a compliment and pushed, like in was before. > compliment to the modeler who spend time to give to his models the > most > realistic quality. > compliment to the developers of the FDMs which are more and more > accurate. > > With the most realistic quality a model is never easy to fly, even the most > simple aircraft, (if the FDM and cockpit are realistic). > Modern General Aviation Aircraft like the C172 are designed to be easy to fly. Some even take action to minimize the necessary amount of rudder usage. The tricycle landing gear is generally easier to handle than e.g a taildragger. Of course one needs a certain amount of training and familiarisation with an Aircraft, which after a certain amount of hours, makes an Aircraft "easy to fly". Noone ever talked about simplifying the FDM to suit "Gamers", so no degression here, > The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( and > they won't never be "easy to fly"). > > I hopped that with the progress of FlightGear the work of the developers , > and > the know how of the FG community , we won't never fall into that so low > level of evaluation. > > We are not selling ties , socks, or underware in a shop, these articles are > easy to > No we are not selling anything, but as an OSS Project we are constantly looking for contributers, not only Aircraft developers, but also people who create or just place scenery models. So we are in some ways competing for contributors to our project. > We are promotting the higher know how of our community, with these > models "hard to fly". > > In the real life, does a Ferrari is easy to pilot ? > > Well, i am probably alone to think like that. > Most of the users, now, are only flightsimulator people who are looking for > an other "game" , and they have chosen FG because they have not to pay for > it. > > I can see that the next base package will answer their request, glad for > them. > > Bad for us. :( > Remember, the Concorde isn't gone. It is still downloadable from the Aircraft page. And it isn't the only one dropped from the base package. The p51d and bf109 are gone too. I offered to replace the bf109 with the F4U for usability reasons, but real life time constraints didn't allow to finish the F4U, so the decision is fine with me. The interested Aviators will find the Aircraft of their choice, even if it is not present in the base package. > Regards > > > Greetings -- Detlef Faber http://www.sol2500.net/flightgear -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback
BARANGER Emmanuel wrote: > James Sleeman wrote : > >> In short, there are plenty of aircraft out there I believe that ARE easy >> to fly in real life, and just saying that the "best models" with "higher >> quality" can never be "easy to fly" is a wholly incorrect statement. > Everything is explained here. Thanks James. In fact, I've spent way too many hours to make the F-16 easy to fly, just because it is in real live.. (And it's not done by changing the flight dynamics but by counter acting on the results of the flight dynamics. So I've actually had to make the aircraft more advanced to make it easier to fly). About the discussion (a bit), I can understand that the aircraft in the default base package are such that it's easier to get them airborne. That means either one of two things; an easy startup procedure or a good guide to be able to get it in flyable state quite easily. And please don't be offended when an aircraft is not present or gets removed from the default base package. There is only room for very few aircraft and at this time not one of mine is present for example. Erik -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI traffic
Hi Alasdair, On Wednesday 10 December 2008 22:26:14 Alasdair Campbell wrote: > > Browsing through the output reveals many KLM scheduled flights, many of > which contain the (missing) destination LGPG. (And lots more interesting > stuff) > > Can I suggest that LGPG be replaced with LFPG (Charles de Gaulle > Airport) everywhere in data/AI/Traffic/K/KLM.xml if that is what the > author intended. Thanks for reporting. This was indeed a stupid typo. It's fixed in my master database. > > Furthermore, can anyone tell me if there is a way to disable AI traffic? > I am trying to locate another problem and want to declutter my log > output as much as possible. For the time being I have removed > $FG_ROOT/AI/Traffic/K/ > As you have found, disabling AI traffic doesn't help indeed. This option controls the behavior of an older AI system, which is in the process of being depricated. For your purposes, you may want to disable either /sim/traffic-manager or /sim/ai see the relevant sections of preferences.xml below. true false 1.0 true nimitz_demo Hello 11850 true Hope this helps, Durk -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] on "Best Models" and "Easy to Fly"
Changing subject, getting off the original topic a lot... gerard robin wrote: > Your definition => when if takes 5 hours that is easy to fly. > You misunderstand me I think, I probably said it badly and apologise for that. You said in your email: "The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( and they won't never be "easy to fly")." Ignoring the double negative, effectively this means you seem to say that if an aircraft is "easy to fly" it is not a good (best) model. There is a heck of a lot involved in flying a Concorde, while in a (say) 172 you can turn the key, push the throttle, keep it pointed roughly down the runway, and you are well on the way to getting the hang of it (ignoring the real world concerns which do not affect the new sim pilot, such as mortality, reset is free and infinite). This does not mean that the 172 model is bad or even "not best" (it has been discussed recently the "goodness" of this model, and you yourself classed it with the Concorde), just that the aircraft is inherently, at it's most basic level, "easy to fly". NB: By model I refer to the model in it's entirety, including visual, interactive, FDM, and aural. -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
Durk Talsma wrote: > Hi Gerard, > > On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote: > >> Is it only philosophy, from me ? >> Am i alone to think like that ? >> Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ? >> >> > > I'm puzzled... > > As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our striving > for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection of our > most > advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear toward a more game > oriented audience. If you think it does, then please explain how. > > What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of > aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at > the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of beginner > level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types. Obviously, the > ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real life. Within > these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism. You might > remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not to include > the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced it with a > very > hard to fly Sopwith Camel. > > Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to > fly. > New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the program > "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few aircraft in > the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive experience and give it > a second try. Ultimately, these people may become permanent users, and even > contributers. . > > > Cheers, > Durk > > -- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. > The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help > pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > I dont quite understand this argument over the Concorde ... I dont care much for 2d instruments pasted on a 3d panel , so I dont fly it.Not a very logical reason , I know , but the ongoing discussion doesn't make any more sense , since most new users start downloading cvs aircraft once they get bored with the included ones So as a vote of support , I'll be content with whatever Durk decides , since he IS the one putting this together . Cheers :) -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] More 3D cloud changes
Hi All, Those keeping an eye on CVS will notice that Tim Moore has committed some changes to the clouds code. His changes massively improve performance - way above what I've been achieving with my attempts to re-use cloud definitions. I am very grateful to Tim for showing me once again how performance improvements should be done! Attached is yet another clouds patch. This one - Removes the cloud type re-use code - I think they aren't worth the graphical artefacts that they cause in light of Tim's improvements - Changes the transparency of the clouds. Previously, the clouds were transparent at 0m distance, opaque at 200m, then gradually more transparent to the fog limits. This meant they were generally quite transparent. Now, they are opaque from 200m to 15km, then become transparent at 20km. A side effect of this is that the current textures could probably benefit from being made slightly transparent to improve the blending of the sprites against each other. -Stuart clouds.tar.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback
James Sleeman wrote : > In short, there are plenty of aircraft out there I believe that ARE easy > to fly in real life, and just saying that the "best models" with "higher > quality" can never be "easy to fly" is a wholly incorrect statement. Everything is explained here. Thanks James. Best regards. Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr http://helijah.free.fr/flightgear/hangar.htm http://helijah.free.fr/flightgear/H4-Hercules.htm http://helijah.free.fr/flightgear/flightgear.htm http://www.jamendo.com/fr/album/27163 -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
On jeudi 11 décembre 2008, James Sleeman wrote: > gerard robin wrote: > > With the most realistic quality a model is never easy to fly, even the > > most simple aircraft, (if the FDM and cockpit are realistic). > > > > The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( > > and they won't never be "easy to fly"). > > Can I chime in and say I have to disagree there Gerard. > > Many aircraft would be (are) "easy to fly" in-real-life --- especially > if you don't care about how you treat the aircraft, or if you survive, > as you don't in a sim (not like you do in real life at least!). > SNIP > Is this because the aircraft is "unrealistically easy to fly", no I > don't think so, it's just that it IS easy to fly, when you disregard > realities of damage, injury, death and the inability to hit "restart" > and try again. > > Note well however that "fly" and "fly well" are two different things. > Is it easy to fly some aircraft, yes, is it easy to fly well in those > aircraft, no. Some aircraft on the other hand it is not easy to "fly" > or "fly well", they are just "hard" all over (see: helicopter) and a > large investment of time is required, both in real life and in sim, to > be able to just fly the aircraft with even a fleeting glimpse of > control, let alone fly it well. > > I have only very small experience and ability in real life flying > (money, time, etc etc etc), but even me with my exceptional clumsiness > managed to fly my first solo in real life, without damaging the > aircraft, with about 5 hours dual training. What are we talking about ? You just said that you have had, in the real life to spend only 5 hours dual training ( which means somebody who explain and help you) to fly your first solo, in the cockpit of a real "easy to fly" aircraft. ===5 hours yes== (when i was young, 1962, on Stampe, which was a difficult aircraft, it tooks to me 10 hours, and that was the rule). Before answering to Durk, I have tried to understand what could be the definition of that "hard to fly" being used previously and i concluded that it wants, let's say, a least 4 hours (half of a working day) to understand how a very accurate model is done , how it can be used. Your definition => when if takes 5 hours that is easy to fly. So , now, i dare to conclude, that any Aircraft which are in the CVS today are "easy to fly" ( more or less, like my Blackbird which is very easy to fly since it has a non realistic idiot FDM). BTW: in that case, why do we remove the Concorde ? which is according to your definition very easy to fly. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
gerard robin wrote: > With the most realistic quality a model is never easy to fly, even the most > simple aircraft, (if the FDM and cockpit are realistic). > > The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( and > they won't never be "easy to fly"). Can I chime in and say I have to disagree there Gerard. Many aircraft would be (are) "easy to fly" in-real-life --- especially if you don't care about how you treat the aircraft, or if you survive, as you don't in a sim (not like you do in real life at least!). I firmly believe under those conditions in real life (which is obviously fantastical, but none the less possible) anybody who has a rudimentary knowledge of "how a plane works" could make a passable attempt at starting, taxiing, getting off the ground and something roughly approximating "control" with just a few tries in a simple single engine tricycle aircraft. Both in sim, and real life. In sim you see this sometimes on the MP server, new people come along (or even regulars [like me] in new aircraft), they make a couple of botched attempts, run off the runway, turn it over, etc, but within just a couple tries they get in the air, wobbly but doing it. Is this because the aircraft is "unrealistically easy to fly", no I don't think so, it's just that it IS easy to fly, when you disregard realities of damage, injury, death and the inability to hit "restart" and try again. Note well however that "fly" and "fly well" are two different things. Is it easy to fly some aircraft, yes, is it easy to fly well in those aircraft, no. Some aircraft on the other hand it is not easy to "fly" or "fly well", they are just "hard" all over (see: helicopter) and a large investment of time is required, both in real life and in sim, to be able to just fly the aircraft with even a fleeting glimpse of control, let alone fly it well. I have only very small experience and ability in real life flying (money, time, etc etc etc), but even me with my exceptional clumsiness managed to fly my first solo in real life, without damaging the aircraft, with about 5 hours dual training. If I hadn't cared about living or damaging the plane, or knowing what to do if the fan stopped, or... I could have done it I'm sure in much much less. In short, there are plenty of aircraft out there I believe that ARE easy to fly in real life, and just saying that the "best models" with "higher quality" can never be "easy to fly" is a wholly incorrect statement. -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
> Von: gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, i am probably alone to think like that. No, you aren't. Yesterday night I wrote a mail to the very same topic, but I discarded it cause I am unknown to most people here. I'll try to rephrase what I tried to say last night. When I started with flightgear, I had little experience with aircrafts or controling a plane. Quickly I discovered serious difficulties to cope with situations like even properly landing a c172p! I am not an english native speaking, and not a pilot, and I had to figure out a lot about planes. Wtf are magnetos? ILS? I spent hours with wikipedia, figuring out stuff. It was fun. I spent an evening to find out how to start the engines of a b1900d. But I never had the attitude "darn, those flightgear devs delivered some bad products!". I felt like "I'd like to figure out how to fire up those frickn engines!" Since there is no "gameplay", no missions, no boss mob to fight, the primary goal is to figure out things. Thats the spirit of flightgear to me! And thats the reason why I can't follow an attitude of something being to complicated to be included. If you really think a user like me has no chance to airborne and land a craft like the concorde - don't exclude the craft, include hints/documentations! If someone provides a perfect and complete space shuttle, would you exclude it because it has a few thousand switches and buttons? On the other hand, I know, I can easily download the aircrafts seperatly. So please don't take this mail as a complain. I just think there is absolutely no reason to render flightgear to an easy-to-access arcade flightsim. If someone actually isn't interested in figuring out stuff about a well modelled plane - are YOU interested in HIM using flightgear? Regards, Joe -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
On mercredi 10 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote: > Hi Gerard, > > On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote: > > Is it only philosophy, from me ? > > Am i alone to think like that ? > > Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ? > > I'm puzzled... > > As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our > striving for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection > of our most advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear > toward a more game oriented audience. If you think it does, then please > explain how. > > What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of > aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at > the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of > beginner level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types. > Obviously, the ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real > life. Within these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism. > You might remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not > to include the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced > it with a very hard to fly Sopwith Camel. > > Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to > fly. New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the > program "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few > aircraft in the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive > experience and give it a second try. Ultimately, these people may become > permanent users, and even contributers. . > > > Cheers, > Durk > Hello, Durk, I don't understand , that regression, the Concorde is not new. Yes it it is regression since now words like "hard to fly" are used, which sound to me like a "criticism" of FlightGear. These models were "hard to fly" in the past time. That is the characteristic of the quality of the best models. It should be used as a compliment and pushed, like in was before. compliment to the modeler who spend time to give to his models the most realistic quality. compliment to the developers of the FDMs which are more and more accurate. With the most realistic quality a model is never easy to fly, even the most simple aircraft, (if the FDM and cockpit are realistic). The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( and they won't never be "easy to fly"). I hopped that with the progress of FlightGear the work of the developers , and the know how of the FG community , we won't never fall into that so low level of evaluation. We are not selling ties , socks, or underware in a shop, these articles are easy to We are promotting the higher know how of our community, with these models "hard to fly". In the real life, does a Ferrari is easy to pilot ? Well, i am probably alone to think like that. Most of the users, now, are only flightsimulator people who are looking for an other "game" , and they have chosen FG because they have not to pay for it. I can see that the next base package will answer their request, glad for them. Bad for us. :( Regards -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] B-1B update
Hi all! Could someone please apply the new version of the bone: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/markus.zojer/fgfs/B-1B.tar.gz Changes/News: - weapon dialogs introduced - textures added - target display added - guided weapons system introduced - automated launch system - sniper pod added (can be turned using left/middle mouse buttons on its hull) - landing lights added - some bugs fixed Thanks in advance, Markus -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] AI traffic
Hi, all I am looking for another problem and have set --log-level=info I have also diasabled ai-models. Now I execute fgfs 2>&1 | tee Desktop/fginfo.out Browsing through the output reveals many KLM scheduled flights, many of which contain the (missing) destination LGPG. (And lots more interesting stuff) Can I suggest that LGPG be replaced with LFPG (Charles de Gaulle Airport) everywhere in data/AI/Traffic/K/KLM.xml if that is what the author intended. Furthermore, can anyone tell me if there is a way to disable AI traffic? I am trying to locate another problem and want to declutter my log output as much as possible. For the time being I have removed $FG_ROOT/AI/Traffic/K/ Kind regards, Alasdair. -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
Hi Gerard, On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote: > Is it only philosophy, from me ? > Am i alone to think like that ? > Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ? > I'm puzzled... As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our striving for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection of our most advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear toward a more game oriented audience. If you think it does, then please explain how. What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of beginner level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types. Obviously, the ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real life. Within these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism. You might remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not to include the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced it with a very hard to fly Sopwith Camel. Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to fly. New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the program "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few aircraft in the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive experience and give it a second try. Ultimately, these people may become permanent users, and even contributers. . Cheers, Durk -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source Makefile.am, 1.26, 1.27
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 20:42:26 gerard robin wrote: > On mercredi 10 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote: > > Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source > > In directory baron.flightgear.org:/tmp/cvs-serv9843 > > > > Modified Files: > > Makefile.am > > Log Message: > > Some final adjustments: > > - Remove Concorde, as announced > > Is it one way decision ? Well, ultimately, somebody has to weigh the evidence and make a decision. Based on this morning's comments, I figured that most people agree that including old faithful's Seneca and j3cup, in favor of the Concorde, would be the preferred course of action. So I acted accordingly. And mind you, this is only in preparation for release candidate two. It's at least still going to be a week until the final release will take place. If I receive an overwhelming amount of request to get the concorde included again, who knows what might happen. :-) Cheers, Durk -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source Makefile.am, 1.26, 1.27
On mercredi 10 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote: > Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source > In directory baron.flightgear.org:/tmp/cvs-serv9843 > > Modified Files: > Makefile.am > Log Message: > Some final adjustments: > - Remove Concorde, as announced Is it one way decision ? -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with F-14b liveries over MP [solved]
Csaba Halász wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Alexis Bory - xiii > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have a problem with how the f-14b liveries textures are applied > > over MP: > > Seem to be the same issue as with the dr400, but this time with the > material animation. I applied the patch and the livery problem solved. The patch is OK for me. Many thanks Jester ! Alexis -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with F-14b liveries over MP
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Alexis Bory - xiii
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a problem with how the f-14b liveries textures are applied over MP:
Seem to be the same issue as with the dr400, but this time with the
material animation.
--
Csaba/Jester
Index: simgear/scene/model/SGMaterialAnimation.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/SimGear-0.3/source/simgear/scene/model/SGMaterialAnimation.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 SGMaterialAnimation.cxx
--- simgear/scene/model/SGMaterialAnimation.cxx 16 Feb 2008 17:01:01 - 1.7
+++ simgear/scene/model/SGMaterialAnimation.cxx 10 Dec 2008 14:57:14 -
@@ -375,8 +375,10 @@
const SGPropertyNode* node = getConfig()->getChild("property-base");
if (node)
inputRoot = getModelRoot()->getNode(node->getStringValue(), true);
- if (getConfig()->hasChild("texture-prop"))
+ if (getConfig()->hasChild("texture-prop")) {
osg::StateSet* stateSet = group->getOrCreateStateSet();
+ stateSet->setDataVariance(osg::Object::DYNAMIC);
+ }
if (getConfig()->hasChild("texture")) {
std::string textureName = getConfig()->getStringValue("texture");
std::string textureFile;
--
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final (?) 3D clouds patch
Hi, > My graphics card: BFG GeForce 7800 GS OC which is an AGP 8x > 256MB GDDR3 > My system is an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ with 2G of ram. > > I typically get 70 to 80 fps with 2 D clouds and I had the > frame rate > throttled to 30 fps when I got the 1 fps with the latest 3D > clouds. But > I just tried running with 3D clouds and real weather fetch > at KLMO and > got 16 to 21 fps. > > Let me guess: the real weather showed a complete overcast with something looking like nimbustratus? Yes, with that I got the same result. But with fair weather I have no problems. Maybe we have some "cloud-modellers" beside me here, who can edit the clouds with textures and by xml which may improve the perfomance. That's why it is customizable... -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] problem with dr400 and path validation
Hello all, For information, We tested (several people) the Jester patch : http://pastebin.ca/1281126 And after patch, registrations code running again in mp. We can see the registrations of other players. So thank you to Jester. Hoping that this be included in CVS ;) Best regards. Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr http://helijah.free.fr/flightgear/hangar.htm http://helijah.free.fr/flightgear/H4-Hercules.htm http://helijah.free.fr/flightgear/flightgear.htm http://www.jamendo.com/fr/album/27163 -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final (?) 3D clouds patch
Stuart Buchanan wrote: > dave perry wrote: > > >> You were correct. I had not set the weather scenario to METAR. I ran >> fgfs once with 3D clouds and once w/o 3D clouds, both with >> real-weather-fetch and scenario METAR. I only got 1 fps with the 3D >> clouds. Earlier with 3D clouds, I got about 21 fps. >> > > I assume you mean "Earlier with 2D clouds, I got about 21fps" ? > No, that was with 3D clouds. But not via real weather fetch. > That's very low. I'd expect a drop of about 10fps. > > What graphics card are you using? > My graphics card: BFG GeForce 7800 GS OC which is an AGP 8x 256MB GDDR3 My system is an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ with 2G of ram. I typically get 70 to 80 fps with 2 D clouds and I had the frame rate throttled to 30 fps when I got the 1 fps with the latest 3D clouds. But I just tried running with 3D clouds and real weather fetch at KLMO and got 16 to 21 fps. > >> Also for both 2D >> and 3D clouds, the field elevation is not accounted for in applying the >> cloud base MSL height. The METAR for these 2 runs showed broken at 011 >> (translates to 1,100 ft AGL) but leaving KDSM field elevation of 957 ft >> MSL, I was in the clouds by 1100 ft MSL or only about 150 ft AGL. Are >> we not applying the metar field elevation + metar AGL to get the cloud >> level? >> > > This sounds like a bug, though I thought I saw something adding the field > elevation. > I'll check. Thanks for pointing it out. > > -Stuart > > > > > > -- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. > The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help > pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final (?) 3D clouds patch
Maybe add an option to do full length bubble sort each update?Or quicksort, even. It should really be that much of a cpu eater, after the clouds are sorted. It would result in a bit of frame drop on pan around, but flickering would disappear. For users with modern system it would improve visuals. I'll test that later. greetings, yon On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:26 AM, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On lundi 08 décembre 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > > Curt wrote: > > > I wonder if there is some sort of floating point resolution / rounding > > > problem with the sort? I see a lot of flickering myself. Also if I > look > > > some particular direction and the clouds get sorted ok, then look away > > > for even a second, and then look back (by changing the view direction) > > > the clouds seem to have totally lost their previous correct sort and > need > > > to be sorted again ... but that doesn't happen until the clouds come > back > > > in view. I'm not sure what the sort criteria is, but it seems strange > > > that the sort order would get messed up in a brief second of not having > a > > > particular set of clouds in view. > > > > One of the performance improvements introduced with the last patch is to > > re-use clouds rather than generating unique clouds for each position. > This > > makes a significant performance difference on my system (about 5fps > IIRC), > > but means that occasionally you end up between two instances of the same > > cloud, and the sprites need resorting as you change the view. > > > > You can avoid this by increasing the number of cloud types in the > Rendering > > Options dialog, then toggling "Enable 3D clouds" to cause re-generation. > At > > the moment the slider goes to 20, which minimizes the probability of > > hitting this issue. Obviously, we could increase the limit still further > if > > required. > > > > -Stuart > > > > Hello Stuart, > > First thanks to you and to everybody who work on it. > We have got now a huge improvement. > > However i am , now, a bit disappointed with these flickering ( too often, > may be it is my graphics cards NVIDIA 7800 GS 512 mo) which decrease > dramatically the result (mainly with Metar) . And which make me to come > back > to the 2D clouds, with the GUI preference. > > I can understand that, with that last patch you have tried to answer to the > low cpu performance, when we are using old computers. > It was the case with the old 3D clouds version and nobody apologized about > it > since we had ever the choice 2D clouds or 3D clouds. > > I did like better one of your previous version. Yes we had that ugly blue > edge > ( sometime only when we had a 2d Clouds layer behind), but now, i have > blue > edge randomly coming on and flickering, which is worth. > > Wont it be possible to have a version which will come to a better eye > candy, > even if it is more cpu "eater". ? > > Greeting > > > -- > Gérard > http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ > > J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. > Voltaire > > > > -- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. > The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help > pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] ${FG_MODELS} !?
Currently FlightGear knows about ${FG_ROOT} to find its Base Package
and ${FG_SCENERY} to find additional Scenery, two values which could
also be set via the command line "--fg-root=" and "--fg-scenery="
At least the command line lets the user point also at "additional
properties" via "--config=" and to additional aircraft with
"--aircraft-dir=" according to the output of
# ~> fgfs --help --verbose
(I didn't check this myself).
I'm now proposing to introduce yet another variable and/or flag to let
the user point at additional "Models".
Actually (obviously) it's the shared scenery models I have in mind here
and I'd like to allow the users of pre-packaged FlightGear
distributions to install not only additional terrain, airport metadata
and static 3D models but also the corresponding shared 3D models at a
place outside and independent from the Base Package - if they like.
>From my point of view this serves (at least, if not even more than) two
goals:
1.) The Base Package is shipping just a small piece of the World
Scenery and also just a fraction of our shared models collection is
being referenced from there (41 out of a total of approx. 500
shared models today). So, separating the 'remaining' shared 3D
models, which are referenced from other places in the world, out
into a separate location would allow to reduce the size of the Base
Package by some dozend MByte uncompressed (all shared models
together are occupying 84 MByte on your disk).
2.) Changes, additions and/or updates to our shared 3D models
collection happen all over the year, not just at FlightGear Base
Package release time. Usually we point our users to the
downloadable "SharedModels.tgz" package to keep up with the
progress. Installing that one into a separate location would be in
any case a really nice option to have (note, I'm just talking about
providing another option, not a requirement), PLUS:
We're already in the position to feed incremental updates to the
(above mentioned) terrain, airport metadata and static 3D models to
the users of TerraSync via the "TerraScenery" SVN repository (and
it looks like we're soon going to start doing so), therefore it
would be just a corollary to apply the same or at least a similar
procedure to the shared 3D models.
Needless to say that I'd like to see such an option being included into
the upcoming release ;-)
Comments, opinions ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
--
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary
On mardi 09 décembre 2008, Heiko Schulz wrote: > Hi, > > > Hi Everybody, > > > > Just to follow up to my previous mail regarding the > > prereleases. I hope to > > roll out another release candidate tomorrow evening (CET). > > As for the aircraft > > selection, I would like to make the following changes: > > > > - Remove Concorde and replace by the following two > > aircraft: 1) On of the > > following light aircraft, as suggested by James Sleeman: > > Lionceau, , > > Skyranger, or, J, and 2) The Piper Seneca. > > > > Note that I still intend to keep the 777-200, simply > > because it's still the > > best in it's category, that is currently in CVS. Syd, I > > hope I can convince > > you. If you really object, then by all means tell me. I do > > count your vote > > strongly. However, unless somebody can commit the updated > > 787, there currently > > isn't much competition. > > > > Comments are still welcome of course. > > > > Cheers, > > Durk > > Some additional thoughts from me: > > The base package is very often used for reviews. I really like to read > them, even they are old, but this gives a nice overview what people knows > about our project and what they wish. > > The most people are not aware of that we develope in our spare time, > between job, family and other hobbies. They only see that there is a nice > and free (cost free!) simulator but also notice the bugs. > > These reviews are advertisement for our project and the better those > reviews are, the more people will get interested on FGFS and join the > project. > > So we should be carefully what we select for the base package. We do know, > that a good looking aircraft doesn't mean that it is developed far. The 777 > is really good looking but there are a lot of glitches. The autopilot is > not working correct, the displays are buggy... I do know, That Syd is > working on that - but what will a new user think of it? He will just see an > unfinished aircraft which he don't can use like he expect. > > The concorde is really nice, but too big and too complex, though it would > be nice for the base package and reviews. But from the same author (the > ghost author...:-)) there is a ncie 747-200 with 3d-panel and a pretty good > (easy) working autopilot- and a very good jsbsim-config! > > Why not add this instea Ifnot, we should at least fix some bugs on the 777 > if we want to make a good impression! > > Just my thoughts > > Cheers > HHS > Is it only philosophy, from me ? Am i alone to think like that ? Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ? I never took FG being easy to Use and the Aircraft easy to Fly. That is because of these characteristics, that i quickly abandonned any others Flight simulators. Sure the others where not free, however, at that time, when i took my decision, the "money" was not the main argument. Yes we can change the heading, looking for more popular users ( i should say more consumers) , and give them some, never Achieved Aircraft and Toys. If that is the new target, i will definitively leave FlightGear. Why the Concorde, Bo105, C172p are not taken being the basement of FlightGear, yes in the future (a future day) they could be replaced by some others Models more achieved (if it is possible). To me that day is not today. I vote for keeping the Concorde, like we keep the Bo105 and the c172p Greeting -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Problem with F-14b liveries over MP
Hi all, I have a problem with how the f-14b liveries textures are applied over MP: I can switch livery locally without problem, there is 4 PNGs for each livery and every thing goes fine. The livery change over MP is also visible, all properties under ai/model/multiplayer/sim/model/livery (and such) seam to be ok. *But the Ai model use only one of the 4 PNGs*, applying this single texture where others should be applied, so it doesn't look good. I use ac3d groups for the texture animations, and copied from the c172p livery system which works perfectly. I commited to CVS this morning so everyone can see the problem. I feel like stuck with this problem... I think I need help :-) Alexis -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final (?) 3D clouds patch
dave perry wrote: > You were correct. I had not set the weather scenario to METAR. I ran > fgfs once with 3D clouds and once w/o 3D clouds, both with > real-weather-fetch and scenario METAR. I only got 1 fps with the 3D > clouds. Earlier with 3D clouds, I got about 21 fps. I assume you mean "Earlier with 2D clouds, I got about 21fps" ? That's very low. I'd expect a drop of about 10fps. What graphics card are you using? > Also for both 2D > and 3D clouds, the field elevation is not accounted for in applying the > cloud base MSL height. The METAR for these 2 runs showed broken at 011 > (translates to 1,100 ft AGL) but leaving KDSM field elevation of 957 ft > MSL, I was in the clouds by 1100 ft MSL or only about 150 ft AGL. Are > we not applying the metar field elevation + metar AGL to get the cloud > level? This sounds like a bug, though I thought I saw something adding the field elevation. I'll check. Thanks for pointing it out. -Stuart -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final (?) 3D clouds patch
gerard robin wrote: > However i am , now, a bit disappointed with these flickering ( too often, > may be it is my graphics cards NVIDIA 7800 GS 512 mo) which decrease > dramatically the result (mainly with Metar) . And which make me to come back > to the 2D clouds, with the GUI preference. > > I can understand that, with that last patch you have tried to answer to the > low cpu performance, when we are using old computers. > It was the case with the old 3D clouds version and nobody apologized about it > since we had ever the choice 2D clouds or 3D clouds. > > I did like better one of your previous version. Yes we had that ugly blue > edge > ( sometime only when we had a 2d Clouds layer behind), but now, i have blue > edge randomly coming on and flickering, which is worth. > > Wont it be possible to have a version which will come to a better eye candy, > even if it is more cpu "eater". ? Hi Gerard, Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. I'll put in an extra option this evening so you can toggle whether the number of cloud types is limited or not. -Stuart -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final (?) 3D clouds patch
On lundi 08 décembre 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > Curt wrote: > > I wonder if there is some sort of floating point resolution / rounding > > problem with the sort? I see a lot of flickering myself. Also if I look > > some particular direction and the clouds get sorted ok, then look away > > for even a second, and then look back (by changing the view direction) > > the clouds seem to have totally lost their previous correct sort and need > > to be sorted again ... but that doesn't happen until the clouds come back > > in view. I'm not sure what the sort criteria is, but it seems strange > > that the sort order would get messed up in a brief second of not having a > > particular set of clouds in view. > > One of the performance improvements introduced with the last patch is to > re-use clouds rather than generating unique clouds for each position. This > makes a significant performance difference on my system (about 5fps IIRC), > but means that occasionally you end up between two instances of the same > cloud, and the sprites need resorting as you change the view. > > You can avoid this by increasing the number of cloud types in the Rendering > Options dialog, then toggling "Enable 3D clouds" to cause re-generation. At > the moment the slider goes to 20, which minimizes the probability of > hitting this issue. Obviously, we could increase the limit still further if > required. > > -Stuart > Hello Stuart, First thanks to you and to everybody who work on it. We have got now a huge improvement. However i am , now, a bit disappointed with these flickering ( too often, may be it is my graphics cards NVIDIA 7800 GS 512 mo) which decrease dramatically the result (mainly with Metar) . And which make me to come back to the 2D clouds, with the GUI preference. I can understand that, with that last patch you have tried to answer to the low cpu performance, when we are using old computers. It was the case with the old 3D clouds version and nobody apologized about it since we had ever the choice 2D clouds or 3D clouds. I did like better one of your previous version. Yes we had that ugly blue edge ( sometime only when we had a 2d Clouds layer behind), but now, i have blue edge randomly coming on and flickering, which is worth. Wont it be possible to have a version which will come to a better eye candy, even if it is more cpu "eater". ? Greeting -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
