On 29 Dec 2012, at 09:03, Renk Thorsten <thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi> wrote:
> I guess we need to discuss just what we want to impement:
>
> Based on how we do the light, we have
>
> 1) Rembrandt (multiple light sources)
> 2) Atmospheric light scattering (only one light source, but with
> position/time differential light computations)
> 3) classic (only one light source computed for the whole scene)
> 4) a future Rembrandt + atmospheric light scattering (time/position
> differential light computations for the sun + multiple secondary light
> sources)
>
> Based on how we render terrain we have
>
> a) the classic set of effects (slope transition, landmass,...)
> b) the procedural texturing set of effects (de-tiling, hires overlay,
> dust/autumn/vegetation..., closeup bumpmapping, grain overlay,...)
>
> That gives all in all 8 possible rendering frameworks, out of which currently
> 1a), 2b) and 3a) exist. I was talking about creating 4b) (or maybe 4a) ) -
> you seem to have something else in mind (?)
What's the a / b performance impact? From you screen shots it seems like it
ought to be scalable, since we could enable certain aspects (grain,
bump-mapping) based on a performance / quality slider, while still having a
single approach. The de-tiling makes a massive visual improvement, and the
vegetation changes would be great too - especially with more work on regional
textures.
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122912
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
