On Saturday, 30 October 2004 01:11, Chris Metzler wrote:
snip
have this worry that jacking up the texture sizes to do planes with
higher resolution may come back to bite us later, when we find that we
can't have as much scenery, or as many planes in the scene, as we would
like.
Maybe this is
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Hence the need for FlightGear to have a way of adjusting all these things
(preferably from inside FG).
shouldn't be a problem to start using specific nodes within the property
tree for that case, it would probably not even be involved to first add
_support_ (only) for it - one
Chris Metzler wrote:
Imagine that we decide to go from using
one ground texture for a particular surface type to four (drawn from
randomly) to decrease the 'checkerboard effect'.
Been there, done that.
See BuiltUpCover in materials.xml and notice there are two texture tags.
Erik
On Saturday, 30 October 2004 11:02, Erik Hofman wrote:
Chris Metzler wrote:
Imagine that we decide to go from using
one ground texture for a particular surface type to four (drawn from
randomly) to decrease the 'checkerboard effect'.
Been there, done that.
See BuiltUpCover in
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Saturday, 30 October 2004 11:02, Erik Hofman wrote:
Chris Metzler wrote:
Imagine that we decide to go from using
one ground texture for a particular surface type to four (drawn from
randomly) to decrease the 'checkerboard effect'.
Been there, done that.
See BuiltUpCover in
On Saturday, 30 October 2004 16:35, Erik Hofman wrote:
Well, they are not tilable because the tile edges are not rectangular.
But yes, the textures will be chosen on a round-robin base which turned
out to look much more natural than simple random (and which has other
advantages).
Hmmm ... I
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:54:13 +0200
Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:59, Lee Elliott wrote:
What's the current consensus on texture sizes? I'm currently
limiting my textures to 1024x1024 but I'd like to use larger
textures if it would be acceptable.
I'm
