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

Reply via email to