Hi,
They have mentioned FlightGear as a candidate simply for the reason that it
can be modified and changed to do whatever we want it to do. No restrictions
on functionality.
Yes, that's the advantage of open source. BTW, I have lately heard
people call Targetware and MSFS/CFS open source
We need some nice development tools.
In particular a full blown scenery editor that one can use to lay down 3D
objects (trees/buildings), taxiways, aprons, roads, rivers, etc.
If it's done in OpenGL then you can make it WYSIWYG.
Look at http://fgsd.sourceforge.net
-Fred
Paul Surgeon writes:
On Friday, 7 November 2003 02:58, David Megginson wrote:
What release is it? The 172 changed a release or two ago.
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer.
It's the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
I would run it
Jim Wilson writes:
Recently I aquired a copy of the latest MSFS. It's the first I've
bought since MS took it over from SubLogic! (No I haven't gone
crazy and joined the other side. It was USED and very cheap so my
rational was it would not put money directly into the pockets of the
Norman Vine writes:
Paul Surgeon writes:
I hope FG doesn't tie textures to every single polygon in the scenery files.
(faster rendering because the calculations don't have to be done at render
time but larger scenery files because of all the texture co-ords tied to the
vertices)
Curtis L. Olson writes:
If you are running low on video ram, enlarging the window can kill
your performance (due to needing to reallocate and shuffle ram.) You
can try starting with the window maximized and see if that works.
There's also a problem with the NVIDIA drivers on some systems,
Paul Surgeon writes:
Well what do you define as eye candy? If people don't want eye
candy then why do we have ground textures in FlightGear? They are
just wasting framerates.
I'm not taking a stand in the eye-candy-vs-simulator debate, but this
particular statement is not true. Textures
On Friday 07 November 2003 18:23, David Megginson wrote:
Paul Surgeon writes:
Well what do you define as eye candy? If people don't want eye
candy then why do we have ground textures in FlightGear? They are
just wasting framerates.
I'm not taking a stand in the
Paul Surgeon writes
I would love to have a poll on this topic to see how many people would like
some eye-candy and those that don't care much about it.
If no one want's any visual improvements in FlightGear then I better not
waste
my time.
While eye candy might be nice I think the main
Well said Lee
Now why didn't I think of that.LOL
Cheers
Innis
The Mad Aussi
Lee Elliott writes
I think an eye-candy vs. dynamics/procedureal accuracy debate is a bit
pointless in the context of FlightGear.
Ultimately, the trend for any simulator will be towards improvements in
both areas and
Well some areas of FG could be improved a lot with little effect on frame
rates.
For instance a nice big library of tileable textures and a scenery builder
that knows how to build tiled scenery based on land class data.
i.e. The type of thing you see in FS2002/04 where the textures seem to
Paul Surgeon wrote:
However I do agree with you about optimizing FG.
It has scenery comparable with FS98 but runs about 1000% slower.
I'm sure that some of that has to do with the processing that goes into
rendering the nice gauges,etc but there probably is plenty of room for
tweaking the
Which means that as soon as someone adds a nice medium to high res elevation
mesh FG is going to die.
Either that or TerraGear is going to have to throw away a lot of nice detail
when building the scenery.
Well let's take it as it comes.
Create the problem and then solve it. :)
Paul
On
Paul Surgeon writes:
Well some areas of FG could be improved a lot with little effect on frame
rates.
For instance a nice big library of tileable textures and a scenery builder
that knows how to build tiled scenery based on land class data.
That is basically what is done now
i.e. The
On Saturday, 8 November 2003 18:13, Norman Vine wrote:
Paul Surgeon writes:
For instance a nice big library of tileable textures and a scenery
builder that knows how to build tiled scenery based on land class data.
That is basically what is done now
Yes but at the moment there is no
I forgot to add:
There is another way of blending textures but it requires using alpha maps
which would mean a change to the rendering code.
It's a better way of doing it but there will be a performance penalty if an
extra rendering pass needs to be done.
Paul
On Saturday, 8 November 2003
Paul Surgeon writes:
I hope FG doesn't tie textures to every single polygon in the scenery files.
(faster rendering because the calculations don't have to be done at render
time but larger scenery files because of all the texture co-ords tied to the
vertices)
This is exactly what
On Saturday, 8 November 2003 21:27, Norman Vine wrote:
This is exactly what Flightgear does for several reasons but
Don't let this discourage you because I can't think of any thing
in the code that would really have to change outside of the terrain
parser and the low level tile class and
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
snip
It seems to me, therefore, that debating eye-candy vs. dynamic/procedureal
accuracy is a waste of time, and possibly harmful because the people who
want to work in the area expounded by the side that loses the debate
aren't suddenly going to start
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I welcome all improvements to FG.
I secound that motion.
Ah I was too late ;-)
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Paul Surgeon writes:
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer. It's
the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
That's pretty ancient. Our current 172 looks a fair bit better.
U... that
Jim Wilson writes:
That's pretty ancient. Our current 172 looks a fair bit better.
U... that release is less than two weeks old ;-).
I'm losing track of release numbers, then, but the clunky 172 model
with the yellow tint on wings has not been our default for a long
time. Maybe he
On Friday, 7 November 2003 06:39, Nick Coleman wrote:
As a counterpoint, I would like to request that this either not take
priority, or that it be an option in the configure stage. I want fast
framerates as the priority. For me, this is a _flight_ sim and I don't
see the point of eyecandy. (
David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
That's pretty ancient. Our current 172 looks a fair bit better.
U... that release is less than two weeks old ;-).
I'm losing track of release numbers, then, but the clunky 172 model
with the yellow tint on wings has not been our default for
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Friday, 7 November 2003 06:39, Nick Coleman wrote:
As a counterpoint, I would like to request that this either not take
priority, or that it be an option in the configure stage. I want fast
framerates as the priority. For me, this is a _flight_ sim and I don't
see the
4:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some thoughts and ideas (LONG)
On Friday, 7 November 2003 06:39, Nick Coleman wrote:
As a counterpoint, I would like to request that this either not take
priority, or that it be an option in the configure stage. I want fast
framerates as the priority
Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would love to have a poll on this topic to see how many people would like
some eye-candy and those that don't care much about it.
If no one want's any visual improvements in FlightGear then I better not
waste my time.
There are several people working on
- Original Message -
From: Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are several people working on this stuff and more is certainly
welcome.
If you keep looking I think you'll find some pretty amazing visual work
already in FlightGear. Have you headed north from the default runway yet
Paul Surgeon writes:
On Friday, 7 November 2003 06:39, Nick Coleman wrote:
I disagree with this assessment. I think lower spec machines should be
able to run a _flight_ sim and shouldn't be excluded just for the sake
of eyecandy.
I don't for a minute think that lower speced machines
On Saturday, 8 November 2003 02:08, David Luff wrote:
And with a .za address, you might like to dig out FALA's runways from their
trench ;-))
Haha!
Not only FALA but FAJS and many others too.
I found the approaches rather exciting although not very realistic. :)
Paul
Nick Coleman wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:46 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Preface
==
I would like to see the sim become more friendly to casual users
especially on the eye candy side
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:30 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:31:29 -0500
From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some thoughts and ideas (LONG)
To: FlightGear developers discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: priority on fast
On Saturday, 8 November 2003 01:05, Nick Coleman wrote:
totally agree that eyecandy should be able to be included, as long as
it is a configurable option for those who don't want it,either in the
make stage or in the startup stage.
What about in the menu system?
Switch it off and it stays off
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Saturday, 8 November 2003 01:05, Nick Coleman wrote:
totally agree that eyecandy should be able to be included, as long as
it is a configurable option for those who don't want it,either in the
make stage or in the startup stage.
What about in the
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:22:54 +0200
Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The menu systems could do with some major enhancments.
A nice menu system for picking airports and aircraft, joystick configuration
and key mappings would go down well.
Getting everything menu driven will help a lot.
Suggestion 2
---
We need at least one properly/accurately modeled aircraft that we
can show off.
I'm talking nice visually (high poly count) and with an accurate
flight model.
Most people using recent commercial flightsims are running 1.5
GHz PCs with
at least 64MB
Paul Surgeon writes:
BTW : I took the Cessna 172 for a flip and was dissapointed. The
visual model is really rough - looks like it taxied into a brick
wall to get into those funny shapes.
What release is it? The 172 changed a release or two ago.
At full throttle and a 1500 fpm decent
At full throttle and a 1500 fpm decent it wouldn't go over 140
knots. In real life it would hit VNE very quickly.
Is that true? I've never taken a 172 that fast in real life, but they
are very draggy. In fact, when someone in a slick gets into a spiral,
one of the recommended emergency
On Friday, 7 November 2003 02:58, David Megginson wrote:
What release is it? The 172 changed a release or two ago.
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer.
It's the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
I would run it under Linux except that last
Paul Surgeon writes:
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer. It's
the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
That's pretty ancient. Our current 172 looks a fair bit better.
All the best,
David
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:46 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Preface
==
I would like to see the sim become more friendly to casual users
especially on the eye candy side of things.
This does not need to
41 matches
Mail list logo
