On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Cub behaves perfect- here a little video showing beside the cockpit
> shadowing also the terrain shadowing:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcj7jpuhLeU
> Please watch in HD
Very, very nice!
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www
Hello,
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> This is just designers' art. The light poles don't have hard edges.
> With a carefully designed light volume and well tune attenuation
> parameters, the hard edges will disappear after some iterations.
Thanks for the input here and on youtube. I tried your tips a
>> No moon shadows? I see a long discussion coming up about how unrealistic
>> this all is ;-)
>>
>
> Did we not have a discussion a while back about our nights being too
> dark? I
> think moonlight would be great, but we would need to take into account
> the
> phases of the moon. Something to
The phase of the moon is pretty much just the angle difference between the
sun light vector and the moon light vector. small angle = crescent moon,
zero angle = solar eclipse, 45 degree angle = 1/4 moon, 90 degree angle =
1/2 moon, 135 degree angle = 3/4 moon, 179 degree angle = full moon, 180
deg
Torsten wrote
> > The cost of shadows is the difference in fps between night and day, as
> > shadow rendering is disabled at night.
>
>
> No moon shadows? I see a long discussion coming up about how unrealistic
> this all is ;-)
>
Did we not have a discussion a while back about our nights be
> The cost of shadows is the difference in fps between night and day, as
> shadow rendering is disabled at night.
No moon shadows? I see a long discussion coming up about how unrealistic
this all is ;-)
Torsten
--
Bett
> > - Scenery-terrain seems to cast shadows. Visible especially shortly
> > before dawn or shortly after dusk. Great feature if so, but seems
> > also need a lot of perfomance. Maybe it can be made switchable?
> >
> > - Comparing different aircraft-models showed me, that not the
> > general number
> - Scenery-terrain seems to cast shadows. Visible especially shortly
> before dawn or shortly after dusk. Great feature if so, but seems
> also need a lot of perfomance. Maybe it can be made switchable?
>
> - Comparing different aircraft-models showed me, that not the general
> number of vertice
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 18:38:55 syd adams wrote:
> > I assume that users complaining about ugly models is the only means to
> > make many of the modellers fix their stuff.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin.
>
> True :). Although it would be a great help to know what needs changing
> ... apparentl
>
> I assume that users complaining about ugly models is the only means to
> make many of the modellers fix their stuff.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin.
True :). Although it would be a great help to know what needs changing
... apparently I've missed an email.
At the moment rembrandt is unusable for
Fred wrote:
> > Each aircraft in the inventory needs checking for 2 sided faces, panel
> > lights need converting, and nice to have are nav. lights and landing
> > lights. Much of the shared and scenery models need similar
> > checking: the windsock is an obvious one.
> > Can you imagine the task
> Yes, X-Plane 10 also makes use of deferred shading. They just named
> it Global Lighting/HDR. Framerates aren't better there as in FGFS as
> now.
> The difference is only that landinglights there looks much smoother
> (no hard edges)
This is just designers' art. The light poles don't have hard e
> Each aircraft in the inventory needs checking for 2 sided faces,
> panel lights need converting, and nice to have are nav. lights and
> landing lights. Much of the shared and scenery models need similar
> checking: the windsock is an obvious one.
> Can you imagine the task for USS Vinson?
Hop
"Vivian Meazza" wrote:
> [...] Much of the shared and
> scenery models need similar checking: the windsock is an obvious one.
Given the fact that QA on scenery models (shared as well as static
ones) has always been a bumpy road, I'm pretty much convinced that this
task doesn't fit into a regular
It's possible to have two layers of shadow map to separate static and
dynamic things, but at a significant cost (you need the extra buffer,
and the memory bandwidth to sample it, ...). Probably not a win on the
kind of hardware that needs a speedup here.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Vivian Meaz
Stuart wrote
> Hi All,
>
> Rembrandt works well on my GT260M, and really moves FG's graphics on
> massively. I think it's a fantastic enhancement to FG, and we should
really
> consider naming the July/August release as v3.0.0.
>
> Does anyone know whether FG is unique amongst desktop simulators
ic objects?
> > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 13:53:08 +0100
> > From: aeitsch...@yahoo.de
> > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > > Does anyone know whether FG is unique among
o: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
>
> Hello,
>
> > Does anyone know whether FG is unique amongst desktop simulators in
> > offering this? I have no experience of X-Plane nor FS-X.
>
> Yes, X-Plane 10 also makes u
Hello,
> Does anyone know whether FG is unique amongst desktop simulators in
> offering this? I have no experience of X-Plane nor FS-X.
Yes, X-Plane 10 also makes use of deferred shading. They just named it Global
Lighting/HDR. Framerates aren't better there as in FGFS as now.
The difference is
Hi All,
Rembrandt works well on my GT260M, and really moves FG's graphics on
massively. I think it's a fantastic enhancement to FG, and we should
really consider naming the July/August release as v3.0.0.
Does anyone know whether FG is unique amongst desktop simulators in
offering this? I have n
20 matches
Mail list logo
