Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 and tricks, and indeed it works. Unfortunately the EC130B4 isn't well for this, as the landinglight is directly behind and under the cockpit so I didn't managed it there. The updated EC130B4 helicopter btw. is now in FGdata. Frederic Bouvier wrote: The cost of shadows is the difference in fps between night and day, as shadow rendering is disabled at night. The scene is rendered in the shadow map with front face culling on, so the terrain is only draw in the shadow map when the sun is near the horizon It seems to me that the sun don't must be quite near the horizon to have selfshadowing terrain. Sometimes I see some shadows caused by the terrain even at noon in the summer. (airport-edges...) Nethertheless- perfomance has much increased now! :-) Depending on the aircraft I can get now 30-60 fps at noon with materials-dds.xml, trees and clouds with my standard settings. That's compared with 2.6.0 only a little less. Only in regions with many objects like LOWI framerates are much, much lower compared with 2.6.0. To my surprise hight-vertice-count aircraft like the VelocityXL-RG by Gary Neely shows pretty good framerates (around 30-34fps) in cockpit mode compared with other similar aircraft with lower vertice count and lower number of instruments. No idea how he managed it... 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 Btw.: Terrain-selfshadowing was a feature only in MS Flight. It seems it was... ;-) Thanks for all the work Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck. [Cipher in a.s.r] -- For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 do as a future enhancement. I actually wanted to do that a while ago and asked for some help - there just didn't seem anyone interested around... [quote]Now that lightfields are in GIT, it occurred to me that we could have moonlight with this bit of technology relatively easy (before anyone mentions Project Rembrandt, I was thinking of rendering cloud layers in the moonlight, or snow-covered mountain ranges, i.e. for any distance from high altitude). The way I would imagine doing this is as follows: It would need the moon position passed to the shaders just like the sun, i.e. say as gl_lightSource[1].position. In addition it would need the moon phase (0: new moon, 1: full moon) as a property, to be passed as a uniform. A conditional statement would then check if the sunlight intensity is below some threshold, in which case it would simply switch over to the moon as primary light source (i.e. things are rendered either using sun or moon, but never both) with some smoothing, then simply moonlight and the different position is passed to the subsequent rendering steps, and voila - we could have relatively bright full moon nights, using the same light reduction rules on the ground due to clouds and fog which the sunlight rendering uses. Can the moon position info be passed in this way?[/quote] Cheers, * Thorsten -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
- 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 vertices or even faces is the limiting factor, but the number of objects. Especially instruments which makes use of many objects, so using non-shadow animation would be very recommended for instruments. -I do like when scenery objects cast shadows. But Do we need that in a far distance? Maybe we can have a distance limitation additional to Stuarts proposal? The cost of shadows is the difference in fps between night and day, as shadow rendering is disabled at night. The scene is rendered in the shadow map with front face culling on, so the terrain is only draw in the shadow map when the sun is near the horizon. Regards, -Fred -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
- 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 vertices or even faces is the limiting factor, but the number of objects. Especially instruments which makes use of many objects, so using non-shadow animation would be very recommended for instruments. -I do like when scenery objects cast shadows. But Do we need that in a far distance? Maybe we can have a distance limitation additional to Stuarts proposal? The cost of shadows is the difference in fps between night and day, as shadow rendering is disabled at night. The scene is rendered in the shadow map with front face culling on, so the terrain is only draw in the shadow map when the sun is near the horizon. I should add that the shadow map is rendered 4 times to preserve details in the near range while seeing shadows in a reasonable distance. Ranges are : - 0.2 - 5m, intended for the cockpit - 5 - 50m, for the outside view, - 50 - 500m - 500 - 5000m for buildings surrounding the viewer We could imagine to reduce the number of cascade. Increasing the individual ranges would result in more blocky shadows, but a small control on distances may be considered. Regards, -Fred -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 being too dark? I think moonlight would be great, but we would need to take into account the phases of the moon. Something to do as a future enhancement. Vivian -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 degrees = another eclipse. On Apr 4, 2012 8:11 AM, Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote: 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 being too dark? I think moonlight would be great, but we would need to take into account the phases of the moon. Something to do as a future enhancement. Vivian -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
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 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), the same for the shadows. But we have a really good start as a non-commercial product. Very promising, especially as an OpenSource-project. Thanks Fred for your great work! Can't tell about FS-X, but I guess it is a similar technic. I've noticed significant slowdown on my computer in the following circumstances: - Forests (e.g. KHAF). Having not looked at the code, my guess is that some NodeVisitor for the rending is delving too deeply into the OSG tree for the random vegetation. - Urban areas. My guess here is that is purely due to the number of models being rendered, each of which is casting a shadow. I know that there are still optimisations to be made, but could I suggest a property switch to limit shadowing to the user's aircraft? IMO the self-shadowing in the aircraft cockpit is the most impressive part of Rembrandt, and the combination of that plus shadowing on the ground might be an acceptable frame-rate compromise for many users. Agree to Stuart. - Forest seems to need much more perfomance than before. Other things I noticed: - 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 vertices or even faces is the limiting factor, but the number of objects. Especially instruments which makes use of many objects, so using non-shadow animation would be very recommended for instruments. -I do like when scenery objects cast shadows. But Do we need that in a far distance? Maybe we can have a distance limitation additional to Stuarts proposal? To my surprise it isn't very difficult to make aircraft rembrandt-compatible. The combined-shader is already converted and especially the IAR80 looks really cool with shadows. Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
Actually, what I wonder is, do we need the scenery cast shadows to be calculated on each frame? Is there a way that they can be stored and just updated every few minutes for static 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 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 only that landinglights there looks much smoother (no hard edges), the same for the shadows. But we have a really good start as a non-commercial product. Very promising, especially as an OpenSource-project. Thanks Fred for your great work! Can't tell about FS-X, but I guess it is a similar technic. I've noticed significant slowdown on my computer in the following circumstances: - Forests (e.g. KHAF). Having not looked at the code, my guess is that some NodeVisitor for the rending is delving too deeply into the OSG tree for the random vegetation. - Urban areas. My guess here is that is purely due to the number of models being rendered, each of which is casting a shadow. I know that there are still optimisations to be made, but could I suggest a property switch to limit shadowing to the user's aircraft? IMO the self-shadowing in the aircraft cockpit is the most impressive part of Rembrandt, and the combination of that plus shadowing on the ground might be an acceptable frame-rate compromise for many users. Agree to Stuart. - Forest seems to need much more perfomance than before. Other things I noticed: - 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 vertices or even faces is the limiting factor, but the number of objects. Especially instruments which makes use of many objects, so using non-shadow animation would be very recommended for instruments. -I do like when scenery objects cast shadows. But Do we need that in a far distance? Maybe we can have a distance limitation additional to Stuarts proposal? To my surprise it isn't very difficult to make aircraft rembrandt-compatible. The combined-shader is already converted and especially the IAR80 looks really cool with shadows. Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
Hi, We have a comics here where the main character is named Lucky Luke. He is a cowboy who run after the evil Dalton brothers and is famous to fire faster than his shadow. Do we want objects ahead of their shadows and play Lucky Luke in fg ? Rendering half the scene in the shadow map is not possible. Once the shadow map is cleared to render moving objects, you have to render everything again or it will not cast shadows. Regards, -Fred - Mail original - De: TDO Brandano tdo_brand...@hotmail.com À: Flightgear Devel List flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Envoyé: Mardi 3 Avril 2012 17:41:24 Objet: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback Actually, what I wonder is, do we need the scenery cast shadows to be calculated on each frame? Is there a way that they can be stored and just updated every few minutes for static 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 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 only that landinglights there looks much smoother (no hard edges), the same for the shadows. But we have a really good start as a non-commercial product. Very promising, especially as an OpenSource-project. Thanks Fred for your great work! Can't tell about FS-X, but I guess it is a similar technic. I've noticed significant slowdown on my computer in the following circumstances: - Forests (e.g. KHAF). Having not looked at the code, my guess is that some NodeVisitor for the rending is delving too deeply into the OSG tree for the random vegetation. - Urban areas. My guess here is that is purely due to the number of models being rendered, each of which is casting a shadow. I know that there are still optimisations to be made, but could I suggest a property switch to limit shadowing to the user's aircraft? IMO the self-shadowing in the aircraft cockpit is the most impressive part of Rembrandt, and the combination of that plus shadowing on the ground might be an acceptable frame-rate compromise for many users. Agree to Stuart. - Forest seems to need much more perfomance than before. Other things I noticed: - 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 vertices or even faces is the limiting factor, but the number of objects. Especially instruments which makes use of many objects, so using non-shadow animation would be very recommended for instruments. -I do like when scenery objects cast shadows. But Do we need that in a far distance? Maybe we can have a distance limitation additional to Stuarts proposal? To my surprise it isn't very difficult to make aircraft rembrandt-compatible. The combined-shader is already converted and especially the IAR80 looks really cool with shadows. Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 in offering this? I have no experience of X-Plane nor FS-X. I've noticed significant slowdown on my computer in the following circumstances: - Forests (e.g. KHAF). Having not looked at the code, my guess is that some NodeVisitor for the rending is delving too deeply into the OSG tree for the random vegetation. - Urban areas. My guess here is that is purely due to the number of models being rendered, each of which is casting a shadow. I know that there are still optimisations to be made, but could I suggest a property switch to limit shadowing to the user's aircraft? IMO the self-shadowing in the aircraft cockpit is the most impressive part of Rembrandt, and the combination of that plus shadowing on the ground might be an acceptable frame-rate compromise for many users. Don't get over excited. Fred is doing a great job, but there are many bugs to iron out yet. We haven't been able to port the water shader nor the ubershader completely to Project Rembrandt yet . 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? Random Vegetation is unusable. Frame rate is taking a big hit for most if not all systems . With a fair wind, and if we can jump over some of the technical hurdles, I think it might just be feasible to get something called FG 3.0.0 out of the door by the end of this year, but I wouldn't bet on it at this stage. Vivian -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote: 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 in offering this? I have no experience of X-Plane nor FS-X. I've noticed significant slowdown on my computer in the following circumstances: - Forests (e.g. KHAF). Having not looked at the code, my guess is that some NodeVisitor for the rending is delving too deeply into the OSG tree for the random vegetation. - Urban areas. My guess here is that is purely due to the number of models being rendered, each of which is casting a shadow. I know that there are still optimisations to be made, but could I suggest a property switch to limit shadowing to the user's aircraft? IMO the self-shadowing in the aircraft cockpit is the most impressive part of Rembrandt, and the combination of that plus shadowing on the ground might be an acceptable frame-rate compromise for many users. Don't get over excited. Fred is doing a great job, but there are many bugs to iron out yet. We haven't been able to port the water shader nor the ubershader completely to Project Rembrandt yet . 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? Random Vegetation is unusable. Frame rate is taking a big hit for most if not all systems . With a fair wind, and if we can jump over some of the technical hurdles, I think it might just be feasible to get something called FG 3.0.0 out of the door by the end of this year, but I wouldn't bet on it at this stage. Vivian -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 release plan - not even for those models, which are being maintained under the FlightGear umbrella. I assume that users complaining about ugly models is the only means to make many of the modellers fix their stuff. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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? Hopefully two sided issue is fixed. I don't think it was rocket science though. Regards, -Fred -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 edges. With a carefully designed light volume and well tune attenuation parameters, the hard edges will disappear after some iterations. Regards, -Fred -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 for USS Vinson? Hopefully two sided issue is fixed. I don't think it was rocket science though. Oh - I missed that one. I just wasted an hour our or 2 fixing up 2 sided faces. Never mind, it looks better done properly anyway. Regards Vivian -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More Rembrandt Feedback
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 ... apparently I've missed an email. At the moment rembrandt is unusable for me , 5 fps , but i do like the aircraft self-shadowing. Great work ! Syd AnderG suggested to me adding these two to my command line. --prop:/sim/rendering/random-vegetation=0 --prop:/sim/rendering/shaders/quality-level=0 Those bring my 8500 GT and single core semperon system up to 15 fps. Ron -- Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
