Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-08 Thread Vivian Meazza
I wrote Thorsten wrote: Meanwhile - at the cheap end of the market, Emilian and I have cleaned up most of the textures, made some of the AC3D models single-sided, reordered the objects, provided unique names, and converted everything to .dds. This has much improved

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-08 Thread thorsten . i . renk
Unless there are any objections, I intend to push Emilian's and my work to Git later today. Has been working fine for me the last days - no problems with dds textures, and I've been using your reworked texture sheets as basis to generate the regular m x n structures needed for Stuart's system.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-07 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi Stuart, I have checked in a version of the ground intersection routines that just use the bvh trees in the scenegraph. This should improove the run time behaviour for the ground queries. That should be even faster than the variant you tried since it avoids the extra computations/allocations

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-07 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich: I have checked in a version of the ground intersection routines that just use the bvh trees in the scenegraph. This should improove the run time behaviour for the ground queries. That should be even faster than the variant you tried since it avoids the extra

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-07 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi, On Sunday, August 07, 2011 12:32:36 Stuart Buchanan wrote: 2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich: I have checked in a version of the ground intersection routines that just use the bvh trees in the scenegraph. This should improove the run time behaviour for the ground queries. That should be

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-07 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: I have now seen that this has overlapped a question from yours form yesterday evening. I just got up today morning, took a look outside - still no summer in mid europe - and decided to hack something. Then I just thought that this change might be good to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-07 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: Hi Stuart, I have checked in a version of the ground intersection routines that just use the bvh trees in the scenegraph. This should improove the run time behaviour for the ground queries. That should be even faster than the variant you tried since it

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-07 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi, On Sunday, August 07, 2011 20:46:46 Stuart Buchanan wrote: I think this may have broken YASim aircraft. I've tried a selection (dc3, dc-3, a4f) and they all start at 36,000ft altitude with 0 IAS. I suspect it might be an initialization order issue, I've raised it as bug 397

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-06 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/8/2 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: So I decoupled these two structures somehow. I have put bv-trees of geometry into the userdata field of the scenegraph. So for the high level operations like tile loading, the scenery paging is used to load and get rid of the bv- trees. The whole intersectable

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-04 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/8/2 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: snip So I decoupled these two structures somehow. I have put bv-trees of geometry into the userdata field of the scenegraph. So for the high level operations like tile loading, the scenery paging is used to load and get rid of the bv- trees. The whole

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-03 Thread thorsten . i . renk
Meanwhile - at the cheap end of the market, Emilian and I have cleaned up most of the textures, made some of the AC3D models single-sided, reordered the objects, provided unique names, and converted everything to .dds. This has much improved loading/unloading, and given a much better

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-03 Thread Vivian Meazza
Thorsten wrote: Meanwhile - at the cheap end of the market, Emilian and I have cleaned up most of the textures, made some of the AC3D models single-sided, reordered the objects, provided unique names, and converted everything to .dds. This has much improved loading/unloading, and

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-02 Thread Vivian Meazza
ThorstenB wrote: On 02.08.2011 00:30, James Turner wrote: Yes - I have wondered about separately loading the BTG files, but that seems like a world of pain. In the first instance, simply having the tiles loaded in the cache would be a reasonable start. The tile manager is capable of

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread thorsten . i . renk
So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal system geodinfo(), using the groundcache instead of the current scenery method. (...) Comments? You just made me a rather happy person :-) That seems like a sizeable improvement in performance! One question - do the two methods have

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread James Turner
On 30 Jul 2011, at 20:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote: So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal system geodinfo(), using the groundcache instead of the current scenery method. I'm working on a new (C++) navigation display instrument, which I hope to add a proper EGPWS terrain

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Durk Talsma
Hi Stuart, On 30 Jul 2011, at 21:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote: So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal system geodinfo(), using the groundcache instead of the current scenery method. This sounds very interesting: As far as I can tell, the AI system still makes use of

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Stuart Buchanan
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Durk Talsma wrote: Hi Stuart, On 30 Jul 2011, at 21:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote: So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal  system geodinfo(), using the groundcache instead of the  current scenery method. This sounds very interesting: As far as

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Stuart Buchanan
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:48 AM, James Turner wrote: On 30 Jul 2011, at 20:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote: So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal  system geodinfo(), using the groundcache instead of the  current scenery method. I'm working on a new (C++) navigation display

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread James Turner
On 1 Aug 2011, at 22:35, Stuart Buchanan wrote: In both cases, are you not going to be limited by what tiles have been loaded? Yes - I have wondered about separately loading the BTG files, but that seems like a world of pain. In the first instance, simply having the tiles loaded in the cache

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread ThorstenB
On 02.08.2011 00:30, James Turner wrote: Yes - I have wondered about separately loading the BTG files, but that seems like a world of pain. In the first instance, simply having the tiles loaded in the cache would be a reasonable start. The tile manager is capable of satisfying multiple

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi, On Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:04:50 thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: I can maybe tell you what I need. Currently, Local Weather uses terrain info in three ways: 1) a presampling routine gets gross features in the vicinity of the aircraft, i.e. mean altitude, median altitude, max.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi, On Saturday, July 30, 2011 21:31:37 Stuart Buchanan wrote: Hi Mathias, Sorry not to anser in time ... Presumably this is using the ground_cache rather code rather than the scenery.get_elevation_m() code that the Nasal system uses to to get geodinfo() If so, I'll see if there's

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Durk, On Monday, August 01, 2011 11:18:02 Durk Talsma wrote: On 30 Jul 2011, at 21:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote: So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal system geodinfo(), using the groundcache instead of the current scenery method. This sounds very interesting: As far

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-08-01 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Stuart, On Monday, August 01, 2011 21:51:16 Stuart Buchanan wrote: I'm looking to see whether we should just have a single way to query the ground elevation using the groundcache, and use that everywhere. See the lenghty explanation in the response to the weather system. However, the AI call

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-30 Thread Stuart Buchanan
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: 2011/7/14 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: While being able to do a croase ground query on such a kind of regular grid might be beneficial for the weather module. I would prefer the ai module just using the already available bounding volume tree

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-29 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/7/14 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: While being able to do a croase ground query on such a kind of regular grid might be beneficial for the weather module. I would prefer the ai module just using the already available bounding volume tree that is used for the main aircrafts elevation queries.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-14 Thread thorsten . i . renk
You mentioned earlier that a lot of the performance issues would disappear if we could probe the terrain 100 times faster. I've been thinking about this for a while for ai traffic, skyop's moving map instrument, and weather. I'm thinking of storing some resolution of altitude data in the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-13 Thread thorsten . i . renk
Here, with a Core 2 Quad, 4Gb RAM, nVidia GTx285 with 2Gb VRAM there is a huge difference in performance. At EGMH and using METAR, I get 75 fps with Global Weather, but when I use Local Weather, using the same METAR, I get a little over half that. I hate to repeat myself, but what set of

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-13 Thread thorsten . i . renk
You can enable a better property to compare performance using View = Show worst-case frame delay. It shows the longest delay in between two frames within the last second of simulation (lower left corner). The lower the number, the better. In order to maintain an acceptable 25Hz simulation,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-13 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
Hi, On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 02:16:29 Peter Sadrozinski wrote: You mentioned earlier that a lot of the performance issues would disappear if we could probe the terrain 100 times faster. I've been thinking about this for a while for ai traffic, skyop's moving map instrument, and weather.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-12 Thread thorsten . i . renk
What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind of unified weather system. It does not really make sense for an average user to have two systems to choose from. Well, there's also a reason - the different design philosophy - and at some point you may want to consider

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-12 Thread Torsten Dreyer
Am 12.07.2011 10:18, schrieb thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi: Well, there's also a reason - the different design philosophy - and at some point you may want to consider that before you merge. Rest assured, there won't be any merge of the weather system without you ;-) If you compare a system that

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-12 Thread Vivian Meazza
-Original Message- From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 12 July 2011 09:18 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-12 Thread ThorstenB
On 12.07.2011 23:11, Vivian Meazza wrote: I would even sacrifice a few more fps for the sake of smoothness. For me the main issue is not so much the framerate, as the way the framerate is being delivered. Indeed. Frame rate is misleading - the number only has a meaning if all frames were

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-12 Thread Vivian Meazza
ThorstenB wrote -Original Message- From: ThorstenB [mailto:bre...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 July 2011 22:40 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System On 12.07.2011 23:11, Vivian Meazza wrote: I would even sacrifice a few more fps

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-12 Thread Peter Sadrozinski
[mailto:bre...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 July 2011 22:40 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System On 12.07.2011 23:11, Vivian Meazza wrote: I would even sacrifice a few more fps for the sake of smoothness. For me the main issue is not so much

[Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System, Was: Minor GUI layout improvements

2011-07-11 Thread Torsten Dreyer
Am 11.07.2011 14:37, schrieb Stuart Buchanan: Hi Thorsten, I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming release, but comments below. What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind of unified weather system. It does not really make sense for an average

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System, Was: Minor GUI layout improvements

2011-07-11 Thread Stuart Buchanan
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: Am 11.07.2011 14:37, schrieb Stuart Buchanan: Hi Thorsten, I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming release, but comments below. What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind of unified

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System, Was: Minor GUI layout improvements

2011-07-11 Thread Torsten Dreyer
Am 11.07.2011 22:05, schrieb Stuart Buchanan: [For a moment I thought this post was from Thorsten Renk, and got _really_ worried ;) ] Hehe - apologies for having so many T(h)orstens around here. The parents of the mid 60s were not very creative with names... Do you see this as a problem with