Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:29, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
After reading the glPointSize doc, I think the problem is in using point
sizes bigger than 1 and point antialiasing at the same time
I can't test it now, can someone do it? just disable GL_POINT_SMOOTH and
see it
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 10:33, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:29, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
After reading the glPointSize doc, I think the problem is in using
point sizes bigger than 1 and point antialiasing at the same time
I can't test it now,
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 12:11, you wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 10:33, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:29, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
After reading the glPointSize doc, I think the problem is in using
point sizes bigger than 1 and point
Oliver wrote
--(en/dis)able-enhanced-lighting
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
Very nice.
But i suggest to move the enhanced-lighting option into the advanced menu
or at
Vivian Meazza wrote:
On a Pentium 4 2.8 with a GeForce 5200 I get similar results. In addition,
checking this option during run-time changes the colours in the cockpit of
the some 3d models (I haven't tested them all). Unchecking it doesn't change
the colour back. Is this a viable option, or is
Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
On a Pentium 4 2.8 with a GeForce 5200 I get similar results. In
addition,
checking this option during run-time changes the colours in the cockpit
of
the some 3d models (I haven't tested them all). Unchecking it doesn't
change
the colour
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederic Bouvier schrieb:
Erik Hofman wrote :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
If you're going this path
Erik wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Thanks for this explanation. Why does it only seem to work one way? The
description 'enhanced lighting' is not particularly helpful.
Oh, this is about enhanced (runway) lighting. That's a different story,
I was talking about specular highlights which
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Right, so ignore all the foregoing - why does 'enhanced lighting (runway)'
change the colour of some 3d panels? Perhaps an artifact of the video card?
And why isn't it reversible?
I'm not sure about the change in color of the 3d panels, I've never
noticed that myself.
Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Right, so ignore all the foregoing - why does 'enhanced lighting
(runway)'
change the colour of some 3d panels? Perhaps an artifact of the video
card?
And why isn't it reversible?
I'm not sure about the change in color of the 3d panels, I've
On Monday 24 January 2005 11:05, Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Thanks for this explanation. Why does it only seem to work one way? The
description 'enhanced lighting' is not particularly helpful.
Oh, this is about enhanced (runway) lighting. That's a different story,
I was
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 13:37, Oliver C. wrote:
On Monday 24 January 2005 11:05, Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Thanks for this explanation. Why does it only seem to work one way? The
description 'enhanced lighting' is not particularly helpful.
Oh, this is about enhanced
On Monday 24 January 2005 15:05, Dave Martin wrote:
I've also been confused by the monumental frame drop that even the simple
runway lighting can produce at airports such as EGLL.
And I do have a fairly hefty system which has been known to run graphical
behemoths like Doom3 at a fair lick.
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 13:37, Oliver C. wrote:
On Monday 24 January 2005 11:05, Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Thanks for this explanation. Why does it only seem to work one way?
The
description 'enhanced lighting' is not particularly helpful.
Oh,
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
On Monday 24 January 2005 15:05, Dave Martin wrote:
I've also been confused by the monumental frame drop that even the simple
runway lighting can produce at airports such as EGLL.
And I do have a fairly hefty system which has been known to run
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
I assume that this feature is not supported by the hardware on the consumer
video cards.
So OpenGL falls back to software mode.
That's why we get 1-3 fps here.
Well, thats interesting; would that also explain why the normal 'point'
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:24, Erik Hofman wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
I assume that this feature is not supported by the hardware on the
consumer video cards.
So OpenGL falls back to software mode.
That's why we get 1-3 fps here.
Well, thats
Erik Hofman
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
I assume that this feature is not supported by the hardware on the
consumer
video cards.
So OpenGL falls back to software mode.
That's why we get 1-3 fps here.
Well, thats interesting; would that also
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Erik Hofman
An alternative might be to use pentagonal vertex-fans and alpha blending
^^^
And in English that is ... ? :-) Is that some voodoo?
Oh sorry, just a disc constructed from five polygons.
Erik
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:47, Erik Hofman wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
How about basic poly with a tiny texture set as 'spherical' (much as is
done with the bo105 lights)
Would that allow for better performance on consumer hardware or is that
too simmilar to the method in use?
It might be
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:47, Erik Hofman wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
How about basic poly with a tiny texture set as 'spherical' (much as
is
done with the bo105 lights)
Would that allow for better performance on consumer hardware or is
that
too simmilar to
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 15:44, Vivian Meazza wrote:
It would be nice to find a 'solution' to better frame-rates at
illuminated airports tho because landing at EGLL at night can be near
impossible even on
'good' hardware.
This is a good question: just haw are people managing this one? It's
Frederic Bouvier said:
I implemented something in between :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-2.jpg
The popup on this window is modal and stay as long as FG is running :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-3.jpg
Very nice!
Best,
Jim
Dave Martin said:
Well, I'm basically showing it the sharp-end of an AMD 3200XP with 1GB
dual-channel and a 128Mb GeFarce FX5800 Ultra-Leaf-Blower and hoping for the
best. ;-)
Hehe...yeah...everyone should have one of those. My FX5700 LE, decidedly
non-ultra consumer grade, goes into
Erik Hofman said:
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
I assume that this feature is not supported by the hardware on the consumer
video cards.
So OpenGL falls back to software mode.
That's why we get 1-3 fps here.
Well, thats interesting; would that
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 17:50, Jim Wilson wrote:
Erik Hofman said:
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
I assume that this feature is not supported by the hardware on the
consumer video cards.
So OpenGL falls back to software mode.
That's why we get 1-3 fps
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 17:50, Jim Wilson wrote:
Erik Hofman said:
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:01, Oliver C. wrote:
I assume that this feature is not supported by the hardware on the
consumer video cards.
So OpenGL falls back to software
On Monday, 24 January 2005 20:32, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The opengl interface itself (for a variety of good reasons) doesn't
provide you a way to directly tell if something is implimented in
hardware or software. Note that this isn't dropping your whole card
into software rendering mode, it's
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Monday, 24 January 2005 20:32, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The opengl interface itself (for a variety of good reasons) doesn't
provide you a way to directly tell if something is implimented in
hardware or software. Note that this isn't dropping your whole card
into software
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 19:39, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Something about runway lighting has changed recently. Either newer
nvidia drivers/cards have intentionally slowed down some things, or we
are doing something different. I don't recall a change on our end, but
previously, I never saw any
Erik wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Erik Hofman
An alternative might be to use pentagonal vertex-fans and alpha blending
^^^
And in English that is ... ? :-) Is that some voodoo?
Oh sorry, just a disc constructed from five
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 20:15, Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 19:39, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Something about runway lighting has changed recently. Either newer
nvidia drivers/cards have intentionally slowed down some things, or we
are doing something different. I don't recall a
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 20:22, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Erik wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Erik Hofman
An alternative might be to use pentagonal vertex-fans and alpha
blending
^^^
And in English that is ... ? :-) Is that some
Dave Martin wrote
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 20:22, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Erik wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Erik Hofman
An alternative might be to use pentagonal vertex-fans and alpha
blending
^^^
And in English that is
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 24 Jan 2005 13:37, Oliver C. wrote:
On Monday 24 January 2005 11:05, Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Thanks for this explanation. Why does it only seem to work one way?
The
description 'enhanced
On January 24, 2005 12:50 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is anyone getting this slowdown with ATI cards?
Best,
Jim
If you mean whether I get slow down on airport at night, the answer is yes.
In external view, I get about 6-7fps. At night, the framerates get halved.
Ampere
On Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:29, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
After reading the glPointSize doc, I think the problem is in using point
sizes bigger than 1 and point antialiasing at the same time
I can't test it now, can someone do it? just disable GL_POINT_SMOOTH and
see it there is an fps
Frederic Bouvier a écrit :
To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from Curt,
I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping them
hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the command
line textfield ( it could also be
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
If you're going this path (and it certainly does look good) then you
might want to consider removing the command-line textbox
Erik Hofman wrote :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
If you're going this path (and it certainly does look good) then you
might want to consider removing the
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
If you're going this path (and it certainly does look good) then you
might want to
Fred wrote
Erik Hofman wrote :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
If you're going this path (and it certainly does look good) then you
might want to
Vivian Meazza wrote :
Fred wrote
Erik Hofman wrote :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
If you're going this path (and it certainly does look
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I implemented something in between :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-2.jpg
The popup on this window is modal and stay as long as FG is running :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-3.jpg
Much better, great work!
Erik
Erik Hofman a écrit :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I implemented something in between :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-2.jpg
The popup on this window is modal and stay as long as FG is running :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-3.jpg
Much better, great work!
If someone want to
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
Looks great Frederic, good work!
Curt.
--
Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program
Fred wrote:
Erik Hofman a écrit :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I implemented something in between :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-2.jpg
The popup on this window is modal and stay as long as FG is running :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-3.jpg
Much
Vivian Meazza wrote :
Fred wrote:
Erik Hofman a écrit :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I implemented something in between :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic-2.jpg
The popup on this window is modal and stay as long as FG is running :
--(en/dis)able-enhanced-lighting
This is in CVS now ( should show up in a few hours on SF ). In the
meantime, a screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgrun-basic.jpg
Very nice.
But i suggest to move the enhanced-lighting option into the advanced menu
or at least adding a notice in
To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from Curt,
I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping them
hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the command
line textfield ( it could also be move to the Advanced section
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Comments welcome
Great ideas, just one little concern: What measures are applied to
identify which airports should show up in the selection list ? Consider
a user has installed most of the world scenery, is FGrun then going to
parse the whole scenery to see which
Quoting Martin Spott :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Comments welcome
Great ideas, just one little concern: What measures are applied to
identify which airports should show up in the selection list ? Consider
a user has installed most of the world scenery, is FGrun then going to
parse the
On 21/01/2005 at 13:16 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from
Curt,
I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping
them
hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the
command
line textfield
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-)
The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is threaded and
doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to show all the content
of apt.dat.gz and check the availability
Erik Hofman wrote:
Now that we use apt.dat (X-Plane format) it would be possible to walk
the list and get the lat/lon of the aircraft (first two parameters of
Make that airport
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Quoting Erik Hofman:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-)
The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is
threaded and
doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to show all the
content
of
Frederic Bouvier said:
To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from
Curt,
I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping them
hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the command
line textfield ( it could also be
Stewart Andreason wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
There are a couple bugs or at least they were there a week or so
ago. One is
just a mapping typo where latitude goes into both latitude and
altitude. The
other is under linux the fg-root and fg-scenery parameters don't get
saved and
passed on to
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Stewart Andreason wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
There are a couple bugs or at least they were there a week or so
ago. One is
just a mapping typo where latitude goes into both latitude and
altitude. The
other is under linux the fg-root and fg-scenery
Norman Vine said:
but I don't see where setting the lat less then the ground elevation
has any bearing on this this sounds more like a parsing error
Norman
Well, yeah, fgrun still needs to be fixed. Just the same, fgfs should not
loop because of a command line entry if at all
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I can explain the bug to you. If you specify a lon/lat that lies on the
*exact* border between two tiles (i.e. --lat=90 --lon=45) then at
startup the ground intersection code can fail. This means that the
scenery subsystem never returns a valid groud elevation.
Oh.
I
On Friday, 21 January 2005 14:59, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-)
The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is
threaded and doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to
show all the content of
Jim Wilson wrote :
Norman Vine said:
but I don't see where setting the lat less then the ground elevation
has any bearing on this this sounds more like a parsing error
Norman
Well, yeah, fgrun still needs to be fixed.
The fix is in CVS
-Fred
63 matches
Mail list logo
