Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-04 Thread Stuart Buchanan
--- On Fri, 3/10/08, James Turner wrote: > On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:01, Tim Moore wrote: > > Stuart has run into a bug in OSG with respect to Imposters, which > > manage the cached rendering of the individual cloud sprites. > > It's unclear if this ever > > worked well in OSG. Unfortunately I haven't

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-04 Thread James Turner
On 3 Oct 2008, at 15:06, James Turner wrote: >> >> I think this code is "original." At one point Mark Harris' clouds >> were in the >> tree, but they proved to be to expensive for the machines of the >> day, AIUI; the >> current code is a simplification of that. > > Okay, that's not my recollecti

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-04 Thread Alexis Bory - xiii
James Turner wrote: > So, I'd much rather see a concerted effort to get CVS into a > releasable state, and a schedule for some 'preview' or 'beta' > releases, rather than working on back-ports. I would also add, that it can be the right time to publicize the current endeavors and reflections,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Syd
I'll have to admit , I'm also in favor of moving forward , not backwards :). Personally I'd like to see an OSG release , to demonstrate that FG IS progressing , it seems a lot of users are trying to use CVS aircraft with version 1.0 despite warnings that they might not work :) my 2 cents cheers

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread James Turner
On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:01, Tim Moore wrote: > Working with OSG does require basic knowledge of computer graphics, > OpenGL and > C++, but otherwise it is not mysterious. So if anyone wants to pitch > in, please do. I'm torn on this front - OpenGL is something I've done lots with, and I've use

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Tim Moore
James Turner wrote: > On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:15, Heiko Schulz wrote: > >> I agree to nearly all what you said, but why not release an official >> 2.0-pre-version with OSG which shows to the world that we are still >> alive? Maybe as an advertisement to other developers? > > Yep, that's what I s

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Matthew Tippett
I would be pleased to get something formal released. A snapshot would mean publicity through Phoronix - to the Linux crowd, inclusion in the Phoronix Test Suite (for multi-display testing), and finally AMD would squeeze out a few videos of Tim Moore's great multi camera at least 12 heads (16 if I

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Heiko Schulz
Hi, > Yep, that's what I said :) Oh- o.k. ;-) > > I don't suppose anyone has the link to the > 'original' cloud code, > before it was ported to PLIB, or the technical description? > Or perhaps > there's a doc link the cloud code itself, I'll keep > digging. Harald Johnson was the man who

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread James Turner
On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:15, Heiko Schulz wrote: > I agree to nearly all what you said, but why not release an official > 2.0-pre-version with OSG which shows to the world that we are still > alive? Maybe as an advertisement to other developers? Yep, that's what I said :) > In the moment I see

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Heiko Schulz
Hi, > > So, I'd much rather see a concerted effort to get CVS > into a > releasable state, and a schedule for some 'preview' > or 'beta' > releases, rather than working on back-ports. > > James > > I agree to nearly all what you said, but why not release an official 2.0-pre-version with

[Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread James Turner
On 3 Oct 2008, at 11:50, gerard robin wrote: > We (I) must be patient, and still wait a long time before to get > within FG > most of the OSG features, probably not before at least 2010 or 2011 > (2 or 3 > years delay). > > > > Why isn't it possible to make an FG 1.1 (or at least an update