Jim Wilson writes: > Fly! uses a 3D cockpit. They use 2D for most of the > instrumentation, switches and knobs, and 3D models for the things > that really need it like levers.
I have no experience with FLY2K or FLY2, so I cannot comment on those, but FLY1 definitely uses a 2D cockpit. Granted that there might be a couple of small, animated 3D objects, but the panel is a flat picture projected in its own coordinates that slides in the X/Y axes independently of the outside scene -- that's exactly the definition of a 2D panel. Unlike FlightGear, FLY1 limits the viewing direction to fixed viewpoints and has a separate 2D picture to project for each one. The pictures are beautiful, but there is nothing 3D about it. > More than likely the legability problem is your LCD at 1600x1200 > ;-) No, it's a 1600x1200 LCD trying to do 1024x768. Unlike CRTs, LCDs have a fixed number of pixels, so they have to double or leave out individual pixels when changing resolutions. The picture is clearer in some ways when I change FLY! to 800x600, but now I've lost 75% of my resolution. Again, I cannot comment on later FLY! versions, except that when I go to window mode (and lose 3D acceleration), the panel becomes clear. > In any case we'd be doing great to come up with something as nice > and usable as the Fly! cockpits. Artistically, I agree -- they're beautifully rendered and pay a lot of attention to detail. From a modelling perspective, however, they're years out of date, and I think we should aim a lot higher than fixed 2D renditions. Try the Battle of Britain demo to see what a 3D cockpit is like, and you won't want to go back. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
