-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 dene maxwell schrieb: > Hi all, > my reading of the situation; > a) No adjustment of the textures takes place at the moment for sloping > terrain...hence the "stretch" problem. > b) a "cylindrical" solution has been proposed(that I don't understand > the maths of) that may/will have an unacceptable performance hit. > c) x-plane and MSFS have solutions to this problem that look great and > don't have a performance hit at 50km distance (assumption; at <50km they > do have a performance hit) > d) we put up with seams with very little performance hit > > has anyone actually tested the various options to quantify the > performance hits and/or the visual effects involved in the various > solutions. Objective data would certainly be helpful?
a), b) and d) would have *no* runtime performance hit. b) has a scenery generation performance hit (that depends on the number of vertices that belong to one terrain type) d) has a little, neglectable scenery generation performance hit - but the visual results would be really ugly c) would have a runtime performance hit (i.e. the frame rate drops) I don't know the quantities of the hits though. But I'd try b) first as it's compatible to the current approach and doesn't create any runtime overhead. CU, Christian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
