On Wed, 4 May 2005 16:12:46 -0700, Roman wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:51
> AM
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tile sizes (was Re: SGBucket::sgBucketDiff
fix)
> Roman Grigoriev wrote:
>
&g
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
Also I think we should use LOD shemes for tiles - it's easy to implement and
we can use visibility up to 64 km w/o performance penalty.
What approach would you suggest, a textured (incl. a normal map texture)
quad, a simplified and textured tile or something different?
Erik
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tile sizes (was Re: SGBucket::sgBucketDiff
fix)
> Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>
>
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
So my question is this ... what would people think of perhaps doubling
the equatorial tile width, and then keeping the width of all tiles fixed
to the same value at all latitudes.
One *huge* bug that would be fixed is that we would eliminate the
unsightly cracks at the bo
I've been staring at this a bit this afternoon, and I think this issue
could stand a bit of discussion.
Originally I came up with this bright idea of doubleing the tile width
at various increasing latitude thresholds in order to maintain a minimum
tile width. That way the tile loader/pager cou
