Jim Wilson writes: > > As of this morning, FlightGear has a new infrastructure for > > incorporating moving, animated 3D models besides the aircraft > > model. This is not intended to be a general solution for adding > > thousands of bridges, buildings, etc. to the scenery > > Why not? If we could place an xml file within the structure of the > secenery data files, we could really open this up for non-technical > people to build airports and cities.
The general solution could look a bit like this, but it would need to have some differences: 1. We would need some kind of tiling arrangement, so that FlightGear was looking only at models reasonably close to the viewpoint (i.e. don't draw the Taj Mahal when I'm near the Sears Tower). LOD isn't enough, because just running the LOD tests on thousands of out-of-range models could kill the framerate. 2. Static models should not have an FG3DModel object -- it's just a waste of time and, again, unnecessary overhead. They should simply be added to a single scene graph then managed by plib (until their tile falls out of range). It doesn't matter for a few terminal buildings, but it will matter a lot for world-wide scenery. > Are these going all going into the same scene graph? Yes. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
