Hi,
> > > The result from FG xml script is very simple ( > not far from we had with > > > PLIB > > > effects ). > > > OSG script can be very complex with animations > into animations regarding > > > particles shapes, particles colors ... and so > on. > > > > I'm not sure I understand the problems that you > describe - the xml > > particles do particle colour, size, transparency, > texture, and the gravity, > > fluid, and wind programs all work (which they > don't in the .osg script) - > > I'm not aware of anything missing? Only 2 shapes > are available: QUAD and > > LINE. I would guess that they cover pretty much all > our needs; do you have > > an example of requirement for another shape? > > > > > For instance, the effect does not need any > texture which is processed > > > randomly, according the OSG script. > > > > Sorry you lost me there - random texture? Language > difficulty perhaps? > > > > > To me (and today) there is only one way to get > the best nice effects > > > (more realistic): > > > => it is to use the OSG script, but if it > will be fully translated to > > > XML > > > (which could give some "heavy" coding). > > > > If you could describe what is missing in your opinion, > we could perhaps at > > least put it on the TODO list. Don't think the > coding would be too heavy. > > We can notice that, these OSG examples are a very low > level examples ( even > they are better than my XML translation) > With it we can have an higher complexity ( i am working on > it) and i hope to > get better and better effects, without any limitations, but > the know how > the "writer" and the power of the CPU. > > So, i concluded that only OSG script is able to answer the > requested > complexity. > > > So up to now, because OSG opened a wide door to > many features, i guess > > > that we > > > must not reduce the size of that door :) > > > > > > Again, i agree with the common usage of it, > like trailing smoke, or > > > some dust on the wheel when touching the ground, > however we can do more > > > than we did with PLIB. > > > > I haven't found an effect I couldn't do yet, > but perhaps you have? Let us > > know and we will look into it. > > > However with OSG we can do more and better, the wake > effects , the fire > effect, exploding effect are other specific cases which > wants more > complexity. > > My point of view: Other sims and some games shows what is possible with particles - and that's a lot! The particle system we have now, is a great step compared to plib, but there is still plenty to do! Beside the known bugs (jitter, transparency) it is not yet possible to controll it completely. As an exapmle the transparency of the particles are static - thye can't be controlled by any properties. Well at least I don't know how... I found some very extreme pics of a dust cloud made by a helicopter which landed on a clay so tell me if exactly this possible with our particle system already: http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1009389&postcount=1379 http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1009390&postcount=1380 http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1009391&postcount=1381 http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1009392&postcount=1382 http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1009394&postcount=1384 Regards HHS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
