Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 18:02 +1000, Chris Wilkinson a écrit : > Hi there, > > Gerard ROBIN wrote: > > Again an other example which demonstrate the bad results with 3D > > Clouds. If we want to suit to reality, 2D is the only one solution. > > > > http://ghours.club.fr/Clouds-2D-3D.jpg > > Your screenshot is taken from below at a fairly tight FOV. > That is not a good screenshot to compare clouds with since > your camera looks almost straight up (with scattered clouds > you are less likely to see a cloud looking straight up). > > Try this one... > > http://users.tpg.com.au/blobster/fgfs-clouds.jpg > > Each shot uses the exact same view and weather scenario, > but with 3D clouds on and then off. Thats a more sensible > external view to use in my opinion, because it allows you > to see the aircraft, ground, sky, and clouds, all together > in perspective. The 3D clouds are not perfect (I'd love for > them to cast shadows on the ground and my aircraft!), but > its a good start for so early on... > > Kind regards, > > Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia. > OK The result is not bad for every situations.
With my specific example Elevation ft 5697 scattered thickness 600 we must have some clouds. I did use that FOV mainly to show we had nothing, and you can believe me i had nothing, not any cloud ( from the side and from below) You did not say which values you had, when taking your snapshot, this very important for a good comparison. I worry to conclude 3D clouds are beautiful but no yet realistic. Cheers -- Gerard _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
