Following a 'tradition', I'd like to remind of a few issues which I think
should perhaps be sorted out before 3.0, partially have been discussed
previously and involve me asking for some help on the C++ side.
1) rain layers still do not drift with the wind and will be eventually
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
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?
So, in V3.0 I plan to change this. Instead of using a scatter-gun
approach to placement and a mask, random building location will be
read directly from the mask, defined by a single pixel. The color
(actually blue value from 0-255) will define the size of building
(small medium, large),
- a baseline texture set that is of adequate, but not high quality
(e.g. max 1024x1024 size for landcover, or something else agreed to be
good enough) to be included by default in the installers
(this would also be friendly to people on older hardware with limited
Did a fresh install and needed all day to get ~7GB of aircrafts only to
find that my most loved the IAR 80 has gone.-
Who was ridden by hell to remove the best airplane?
The author himself. But you've downloaded 7 GB of GIT repository, not 7 GB of
aircraft, and the GIT repository contains
..another test case suggestion: if you have a radeon card, pop that
in and see how it looks with that, if you don't have a radeon card,
try swap out nvidea for nouveau in your /etc/X11/xorg.conf and
install your distro's nouveau and libdrm-nouveau2 etc drivers
alongside your nvidea drivers
A report of performance dramatically improving for advanced weather when 3d
clouds are switched off in the rendering menu (you still get to see 3d clouds)
I've played around with this, and I can't reproduce any
... to Vivian, the converted wake shader appears to be working
(not sure when I will be able to commit it, but at least the work is done).
I propose pushing out the release by a month. I've got a bit more time
for FG right now, but not as much as I did 12 months ago, and it sounds
James and Thorsten R are similarly time limited. I think it will take
longer than usual to address any issues found in the RCs.
On the risk of making myself really unpopular, but would now be a good time to
defer the release? It seems James is caught in the middle of moving, Stuart
indicated some other private things piling up, I have the maddest travelling
schedule I've ever had in my life this fall, and I haven't seen
On a related note there's also the question of the mouse modes to
consider. I no-longer use the old-style mouse modes, instead using
the right-click-to-pan-view mode instead. Should that be available
through the GUI (in which case I've got to re-write various parts of
This is terrific news. Big thanks for the hard work, and especially for going
for GPL in the end! This will easily be one of the showcase planes of FG.
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
1. I noticed some distortion in the texture placement in grass airfields
when using the ALS.
Here are some snapshots:
--basic shader: http://imageshack.us/f/15/p917.png/
The shots are from
I am seeing the same(NVidia GT450, Windows 7) . All runways are black.
If I set shader options – generic to minimum the runway is restored.
It happened within the last few days.
I've had a different sort of problem with the runway shaders since a few weeks
on my up-to-date Linux version
Having thought about this a bit more I'm going to propose we do 2.12.0
pre-announce 3.0 as the Feb 2014 release to give us just a little
to prepare and make the 3.0 as polished as possible. After all, it'll
be the third
major release in 15 years :) .
Okay, works for
That would be appreciated. Emilian already reminded me of the normalmap
feature, so it'd be interesting to compare the two and see which one I
I don't know if Emilian gave you the notion that these would be competing
options or not, but the notion isn't correct. You're not
Since the idea hasn't really caught with modelers yet, I've tried to get a more
practical demo of the virtue of a grain texture and tried to put a grain effect
on the Vinson flightdeck (I've always felt that the homogeneous grey color
doesn't justice to the details of the model otherwise).
I looked at this possibility already. The carrier deck is made up of a
number of odd-shaped areas, for historical reasons. I don't think that a
complete rebuild of the flight deck is worth it for this very nice
(just too much work). Alexis might think differently.
Do you really
Interesting! Any way we can see this example live? I'd love to
experiment with it in the 744's cockpit, but that'll have to wait till
after next weeks exams...
I'll be happy to let you have the files - but the Vinson can't go to GIT
because it doesn't really work due to the uv-mapping,
Ah yes. I remember you mentioning this before, me saying I'd add it
to my TODO list, and then failing to do so. Sorry. I've now added it
to my wiki TODO list so I don't forget again. Are you thinking about
the sprinkling of lights that we put over the terrain, the VASI/PAPI
Referring to the version number discussion, I've been given to understand here
that there have been already core developers referring to the next release as
2.12 a while ago who would now be obviously pretty annoyed about it
It would need to take in all of the, by now well known, variables -
making it by no means a simple beast to manage.
If this could be automated in some way it would be much easier to
capture, and then submit, consistent data.
Let's think this from the end. What would we like to know?
I guess the professional you are has done statistics about the FG users
world, thus you are able to be more precise about those unfortunate users
who are getting only the single frame per second, which hardware? which
operating systems ?
Strangely enough I have (you might have noticed by now
Pushing in front your supposed to be know how is not an argument ,
usually the more person' s know how is great the less they are
pretending to have it.
Please stop to pretend to be the best.
So you mean to say that actually having written all the ALS code has not in any
way given me an
- ALS now works much better with the random trees. I think
there's still work to be done with other shaders (presumably
the wake shader has still to be ported?)
Yes (if that is really a major holdup, I can probably do this within the next
weeks if it makes Vivian smile :-) ...).
Referring to my poor experience with these two computers , i conclude , i
can accept a decrease of performance, without loosing any FG facility.
I'll be far from the single frame per second your are talking about.
First of all, there are people who get a single frame per second with Rembrandt
What version number will we give to the new
release? Are we ready for a 3.0 or is it 2.12?
Looking through my list of goals for the last coding period:
* Get a high-quality model shader running under Atmospheric Light Scattering
This is now available, working for random buildings and for
A nice list and it's all worthwhile improvement, but it's all tinkering
around the edges of existing stuff. There's no step change which would
justify 3.0 IMO. For that we need something major, like new terrain
(850) or Rembrandt as the default.
This would depend on if you're a
3/ To wait for better development reaching the target to have REMBRANDT
ALS working well all together, and definitively included within FG.
The basic content remains the same, some Aircrafts are flying with
Rembrandt not with ALS , others are flying with ALS not with Rembrandt
It could help you to understand why you are getting that poor
with your pretty fast beast GTX 670M.
Thanks, though I remain mystified.
There are few differences I can spot:
* you have tree density to 0.7 in the shots, I had it at 2.4 - since there's
lots of trees in the
I've had a my first short go with Rembrandt on my new machine yesterday. The
test case was a small airport in Sulawesi (Indonesia) (WAAJ) where I'm
discovering a very nice scenery. There are no static or shared models to speak
of, there is some forest around, and that's basically it. I chose
Which screen size ?
With my old GPU Geforce 9600 GT at 1024x800 i never got less than 24 fps
(usually 30 fps). It is when using FG 2.10.
Decreasing on the fly the screen size increase the fps.
Yeah, well, fragment shader load (and hence deferred rendering) scales with the
number of pixels.
The primary increase seems to be in Textures.high/Terrain. In 2.10.0,
the size of the folder was 181 MB, while in the current git version, the
size of the folder is 300 MB.
If no one has any problems with the autumn texture versions in any rendering
scheme (i.e. nobody sees a semi-transparent
After a fresh pull and recompile today (I've not had much time for FG the last
weeks...) I've noticed that the hires runway effect of ALS appears to have been
partially broken by something - I now see a checkerboard pattern when I look at
runways and taxiways which hasn't been there before. Is
By any chance, is this a bug when using atmospheric light scattering?
The issue you see is that real terrain is drawn out to some draw distance set
by visibility and LOD range, and beyond what appears as fogged terrain is drawn
by the skydome code. And the sun is set to be always
sorry for the silence from my side, I haven't been able to start FG up for the
last week or so, I am a bit swamped in work and family issues at the moment...
I'm slightly surprised that Thorsten's
new system doesn't
support this, as evidenced from his screenshots.
The package of tree photographs is here
I will leave this online for about a week for grab. Let me know if photographs
taken that way are useful or not, I am just trying out things.
I finally got around to fly a few air-air refueling exercises with the revised
system with configurable refueling envelope. I have tested the F-16 using a 3 m
envelope and the F-14b using a 10 m envelope (I figured the hose allows a bit
more flexibility than the boom - I'm not completely sure
The downside is that I think it would require adding
test to the vertex shader, something I've been avoiding due to
concerns about performance.
General advice that I can find is that GLSL is designed as a linear
conditionals and loops are best avoided:
I have a series of tree photographs if anyone is interested in creating new
The images are 1200x1600 JPEG, taken on an overcast day in diffuse light,
outlining the trees against the bright sky, isolated as good as possible
against the background. I've experimented with
* Canvas instances can now be placed on scenery objects. This allows
for example creating animated signs/monitors. I've started to create
a Visual Docking Guidance System, which is not fully functionally yet
but should be complete enough to be used for a screenshot (eg. azimuth
I thought it'd be a nice idea to present one or two articles on the FG project
page about things to expect from the next release (3.0?). These would be
features which have appeared on GIT since 2.10 or are epected to appear before
the release. Consider the articles as advertisement material,
That's not quite right: you should be able to use one _effect_ across all
rendering schemes, but under the hood different flavours of shaders do the
We have recently broken that principle with the grain effect - it only works
Oh, so Rembrandt-declared lights do work
There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one:
I am quoting you
Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of
aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point?
Aren't you talking about stuff you don't know?
An aircraft which has been
Sorry it is not ALS Compliant.
I think we covered that one early on in the discussion last week. Quoting
You'll have noticed that the ALS ubershader (short of inserting the tangent,
normal and binormal attribute for normal maps which I understand really
_must_ be airplane-side)
I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend
hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff.
Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of the
water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't support
With the recent FG, both Linux self-compiled and Jenkins for Windows, I no
longer get compilation errors from the shaders thrown to the console - badly
formed shaders just don't work without complaining. This makes developing a
bit awkward now and will make it close to impossible to trace
However, one reason I didn't spend more time on it was that it didn't
seem particularly useful from a sim perspective. If found that to see
the effect at reason (30kt) winds you either need to be sitting on
the ground or at quite low altitude when your attention is elsewhere.
I think you
If this is the cause, it's been that way since January, and I assume you
would have compiled from source since then.
I still have the funny GPU problem under Linux that the GPU refuses to go to
high performance, so I don't actually develop shader code under Linux but use
it just to
How could you say you're both not even users of the scheme ?
which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you
don't use it.
Yes there not any contradiction ,since i said, quoting myself:
To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply.
That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric
Light Scattering scheme should have embedded in it some ac modelling
That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is your
Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a different
If something exists and works in the default scheme, but is missing or does
not work in a child scheme then that child scheme is broken or we might say
that there is a regression.
Which all would be relevant if it would be a child scheme - which it isn't.
The solution was obvious - combine
ALS is very impressive work, but things broken? Have you forgotten the
flag shader (now fixed), wake effect and rainbow effect? I don't have a
particular problem with these and hope that they will be fixed
eventually, although I note that do you seem to have raced on to other
this tree movement code is wonderful - how could you possibly not implement
I've been looking out of the window, timing the movement of trees in our
forest, and I think the time constant should rather be 1.7-2.0 and the
amplitude about 2.5 times as large - all of which
I've also taken a bit of a look at merging Rembrandt and ALS, and I think
I understand the Rembrandt pipeline enough that I could add ALS to it.
Just to provide some expectation management:
Rembrandt (as deferred rendering) is very heavy on the fragment shader. ALS at
low quality is currently
I don't think it's quite that bad. In a deferred shader like Rembrandt,
the ALS would run in the deferred lighting pass. While it's true that the
heavy work is done in a fragment shader, it only runs for each pixel on
the screen, not for every rendered fragment.
Yes - but you need to
I've thought about if I really should comment on Henri or not, and I won't
dignify most with a reply, but just this:
I don't mean i don't like ALS, i mean i don't like your approach ,
instead of working on consistency with the existing valuable features which
However your approach is questionable.
I can understand you are working on an other FlightGear variant for
It is not the Atmospheric Light Scattering, we want.
Who is the 'we' you're claiming to represent? I look at the FGUK weekly flight
screenshots in the
..yes, but we also need some patience with non-native English
writers who _should_ include their French etc original so we
don't get people wound up on questionable translations of things
that may warrant discussion
For the record, there is a repeating pattern here on and off list and I
It occurred to me yesterday that there seems to be a major misunderstanding in
the way Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) is perceived by different people. So
in order to avoid future misunderstandings, let me try to clarify my side once
Do we need to go down this road? We
Definitely looks like it. Could you provide some further details on
a) Where are you seeing this ?
b) which materials file (dds ? regions? )
c) Have you deleted the Textures.high file to use lower resolution
trees in the screenshot look even more blocky than
Actually, I had this working very nicely a couple of months ago - using
a sine function on time multiplied by wind factor to shift the top
texture coordinates so the top of the trees move. I even had a nice
larger scale effect to produce the sort of wave affect you see across
Okay, I've pushed an experimental version of a grain overlay texture for the
model ubershader to FGData. It affects Atmospheric Light Scattering only, i.e.
will be absent in the default rendering, which should make for easy comparison.
For lack of texture units, I had to take the rainbow
Removing the rainbow effect spoils the highly polished aluminium effect on
the b29 and the Lightning F1.
As I said, I don't plan to remove it for good. Quoting myself:
in any case a 2d texture lookup call seems an overkill for a simple 1d
color table, so I plan to replace that by a
Ive been thinking about this since since you posted, and now i'm curious
to see it.My initial fear was more framerate drop, but if it can be truly
disabled I think its worth a try
I think one thing we have pretty consistently implemented in the effect
framework is that all effects can be
I'd say no , its easy enough to do without yet another shader, since each
new shader 'improvement has me tweaking my aircraft
to get back the frame rates I lost.But thanks for offering.
Well, according to GLSL specifications and my experiments, texture lookups
cannot be made conditional on a
No ,Advanced weather forced 3d clouds on me even when i disable 3d clouds
so i don't use it.
Of course i could be doing something wrong , but Im not quite convinced
yet to get a new computer.
Looks like I'll have to pretty soon ;)
Interesting, I thought the 3d cloud checkbox was a
I was wondering if there is a future plan in uniting these two amazing
attributes of FG...
My development plan as outlined for the period between 2.10 and 3.0
is still valid:
After thinking about this for a while, I have decided that
Thorsten suggested  separating foilage and trunk; is this what you
have in mind?
At the moment I'm simply using 4 separate complete textures ; one for
each combination of summer/winter and clear/snow-covered.
So I 'just' need straight pictures from summer and winter. Snow-covered
I have a question to aircraft/cockpit modellers: Would a shader effect with the
equivalent of a grain texture be useful to you?
For the terrain, the grain texture is a semi-transparent overlay pattern of
grainy dots - which is superimposed on the normal texture at 25 times the
They are read from the ambient, diffuse and specular files in
fgdata/Lighting. For the default lighting scheme these do get altered,
but I think you already override that scheme completely.
Um... as they depend on the sun angle, these appear to be the light intensity
curves. I indeed
If you just want a quick and dirty way to read one property, we have
getprop / setprop - for any other use, you should be doing what the API
already supported; getting a props.Node object for the leaf, and then
manipulating it with no further string/path handling.
Using getprop on the
I've just pushed a few major modifications to the highest quality shaders of
Atmospheric Light Scattering - the lower quality levels are at present
unaltered. Please give some feedback so that I can decide what to do with the
* I've converted fog and snow overlay from
Following a forum discussion
I've done some experiments with terrain self-shading based on changing the
balance between ambient and diffuse light.
The results look fairly compelling and the illusion (even without a real
Presumably making cirrus clouds after more sprites doesn't make for
very realistic clouds because of the size of the cloud structures?
Well, they are very faint - say an alpha of 0.1 or less. If we make 10 sprites,
each of them needs an alpha of 0.01 in order to get the same visual impression,
Thanks Fred, this pretty much addresses all my questions.
Light objects are built in simgear/scene/tgdb/pt_lights.cxx
There effect is built in C++ in the getLightEffect function. It is not
configurable as it is now. Ideally, this function should be replaced
by a lookup in the material file to
If I may bother everyone again - here's my current list of open questions. Any
help or pointers would be appreciated:
* Where do the runway and taxiway lights enter the rendering scheme? They need
to be fogged consistently with the rest of the scene, but I do not know where
to set this -
I suspect they are just using the default terrain effect, if anything.
They are generated from the C-code when the tile it loaded (IIRC
simgear/scene/tgdb/obj.cxx though I'm not at my FG computer to check)
If you want any changes I'd be happy to make them, though I'd expect
it's the sort
In addition to what Heiko said, Nasal script loops can be used to print any
properties or functions of properties under any set of pre-defined conditions
with adjustible sampling interval on-screen. If you re-direct console output to
a file, you also get something that is plottable with
head tracking is one of the most important aspect of flight sim.
It's fine that people are interested in something, but could we please
tone down the rhetorics and refrain from arguments 'I am interested in X,
hence it must be one of the most important aspects of flight
head tracking is one of the most important aspect of flight sim.
It's fine that people are interested in something, but could we please tone
down the rhetorics and refrain from arguments 'I am interested in X, hence it
must be one of the most important aspects of flight
sorry if I sound overly pessimistic, but... several of the potential issues are
structurally not that different from problems I've encountered in painting
terrain or setting up credible weather. it doesn't mean that I am in any way
against your plan, but I want to see if you have any
I've been playing with populating my home airport's area with buildings
derived from OSM floorplan data. I think having many buildings in the
correct place greatly improves realism over the current random
buildings/sparse static models, especially when you know the area.
This becomes a
Often airports are in or
near very scenery-intensive areas and reducing visibility can help a lot
in making the sim run usably for take-off, whereas once you're up and
away it's nice to be able to open the view back up again for
This is applying a sledgehammer
Did you test your airfield grass with some of the newer generated
(LOWI in my case)?
No, I didn't. Shouldn't make a difference for rendering purposes how you
created it, at this stage it's all vertices and pixels and the shaders
don't care where they come from or how they
This feels like a moderately large issue to me, because out of the box,
we select basic weather, and hence we're going to get bug reports about
clouds not appearing. We could make basic weather drive the real
visibility based on altitude, but then we're moving away from 'basic
I need someone to reset my brain on this, explain to me what
functionality is required, show me the Nasal code and Vivian's version,
and so on.
Rain layers and Cirrus clouds are not shader-generated 3d stacks of sprites
like the 3d clouds but normal, Nasal-spawned models.
3d clouds are
*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
unless you are ambidextrous
(which I'm not)
Can anyone please explain to
So whatever we do, we can't override the ability to get low level
control of the weather parameters, and not just so that advanced weather
can manipulate them exclusively, also so that external tools can
them without advanced weather getting in the way or overriding
I've pushed some updates to Advanced Weather and the cloud shader of
Atmospheric Light Scattering.
Clouds now fade to transparent at distances between the visibility and 3 times
the visibility. This gives a much better impression when in heavy groud fog
(CAT I to CAT III) and shouldn't be a
That's really good to hear - but if we are falling behind in some
then we will make an effort to improve. I am reminded that the flag and
wake shaders are inoperative when Atmospheric Light Scattering is activated.
With the departure of Emilian, I see no prospect
You asked for ideas for a more descriptive text - I've gone one better
added descriptive texts to the gui. My design aim was to provide the
user with some indication of which option he should choose and in which
circumstance. It's only a shallow redesign. It would be nice, I
A small addition: what has always bothered me about terrain in FG is that
roads and rivers are all the same size.
Good point. That wasn't really apparent from the FSX demo (not so many roads of
different size in the Caribbean).
I think rivers are less of an issue in CORINE based custom
Thorsten, work is halted as my co-ordinates must be wrong, can you tell
me the dimensions I need to use?
Bruce, I'm not sure I understand your question - the coordinates in the
conditional used to define a region are latitude and longitude in degrees (but
I guess you know that, so probably
Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's
mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with respect
to the cockpit model.
(I'd really appreciate if you guys would call me on first-name basis
That's a question of what a fair
Following a forum discussion, I finally became curious and tested the FSX demo
version yesterday. I've spent about two hours flight with it, testing 3
different planes (the ultralight, the Baron and the Learjet) and had a look at
different weather conditions and daytimes around TNCM.
I've just committed some small changes to the AI air-to-air refueling
Had a short look yesterday - nice! I like the option to customize the envelope.
Does anyone know what realistic numbers are - I guess the boom can be moved
somewhat, so there must be a tolerance of few meters
2. Slider in Advanced Weather - Advanced Settings - sets a max value .
displayed vis in the min value of this and the value derived by Advanced
Weather. (Is this true? I'm only inferring this).
3. Checkbox named realistic visibility in Advanced Weather - Advanced
Actually, I think what he tried to suggest was, that the needs of
visuals and the needs equipment like radar should not be mixed. For visuals
the terrain and all the objects like trees and buildings which are hard on
It's a fact that the distances out to which we
1 - 100 of 405 matches
Mail list logo