Heiko Schulz wrote > > > However, the comparison is not fair, the xml is understood > > by everybody, it is > > integrated into FG ( wind effect ) versus the OSG script > > which was difficult > > to understand, it is not integrated into FG. > > My whish is to have both :) :) > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > Gérard > > That's not quite correct, as far as I understand. > the xml-one is the translation of this into FGFS. Menas that you can > controll the properties which you know from OSG script by xml. > Unfortunately not all of the given features had been translated. > > That's why it is possible to have them reactong to the wind. >
I remain unclear what the claimed shortfall in the particle implementation actual _is_. I have just provided generic tyre smoke, tyre spray and jet spray animations in cvs the XML implementation. So far as I can see they are reasonably realistic, and were fairly straight forward to do. The xml implementation does exactly what it says on the tin. However, if someone would tell me in English that I can understand what the shortfall is, I will see if I can extend the implementation to cover this. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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