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