On 28 Dec 2008, at 15:48, Curtis Olson wrote: > In my opinion, the 2d instruments are still very useful for people > that are setting up full screen panels as part of a larger simulator > where the out-the-window view is drawn on separate monitors and the > there may be one or more displays embedded in the instrument panel > used to draw instruments only. The 3d panels are nice if you want a > virtual environment all in one single display, or if you are in a > cave type environment.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear - many of the current 3D *cockpits* are built by placing chunks of *2D* panels (hmm, really a very bad piece of terminology) onto a 3D scene. My question is about whether, going forwards, the existing format is the preferred way to be building such pieces (which might be used in a 2D cockpit or a 3D one). For example, the KR97 in Aircraft/Instruments-3D is built using an <animation> property list, which is the system defined in simgear/ scene/model/animation.cxx. Meanwhile, the 777-200 ND is defined (looking at, say, Aircraft/ 777-200/Models/Instruments/MFD/MAP.xml) using the '2d' format defined by Cockpit/panel.cxx (and panel_io.cxx). What I'm asking is, is it worth extending and modernising the code in Cockpit/panel.cxx (aka the 'layers' system) or should I focus on adding some new animation types and helpers to the 'animation' system in simgear? James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
