On 10/06/2009 01:51 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:19 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote: > > On Monday 05 October 2009 22:34:01 Thomas Betka wrote: > >I really didn't hear many > > people even mention the IFR training opportunity that is being missed > > with FG; shoot, most people I talked to 1-2 years ago (when I was > > trying to learn how to modify the 2D panel in the 172) couldn't > > understand why I was even wasting my time by not going 3D! > > We understood and understand perfectly what you were trying to > achieve, and > having plenty of experience in the task knew that it was not only > possible to > achieve it with "3D" instruments, but that it would be easier, > quicker and > more flexible. > > You're always welcome to ignore good advice and plod on doing things any > sub-optimal way you please... but it's fairly bad manners to dismiss > those > who give that advice as uncomprehending idiots. > > > How about precise orthogonal placement and sizing of the instruments on > the screen down to pixel level fine tuning so that you can draw them > exactly in the right place to show through a panel cutout? > > http://www.atcflightsim.com/products/820/Link/810M_001.html > > With 3d instruments you have an infinite variety of head positions > relative to instrument positions, etc. > That depends on the camera. You can certainly specify an orthographic camera that has a fixed view of the instruments... > With a 2d panel you can adjust a number in the placement xml file and > reload the panel on the fly. You can even do that over an ssh > connection with remote "eyes" giving feedback over the phone. > ... and supports positioning the instrument in an xml file down to the millimeter level (and beyond).
I don't want to oversell the 3D panels as I haven't worked much with 2D or 3D panels and I don't know for sure that 3D panels support everything you want, but the things you mention here are non-issues. Tim > I actually don't see how the additional layer of complexity involved > with passing all the geometry through an extra transform, combined with > requiring the use of a 3d modeling tool makes 3d panels easier to use, > easier to develop, and visually more precise than 2d panels. (There > could be a discussion of capability differences, but so far the 2d > panels have had all the capability I've needed for my own projects.) > > Best regards, > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
