Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering during nighttime and the Sun
> By any chance, is this a bug when using atmospheric light scattering? Yes. The issue you see is that real terrain is drawn out to some draw distance set by visibility and LOD range, and beyond what appears as fogged terrain is drawn by the skydome code. And the sun is set to be always visible on the skydome - so it becomes visible through skydome posing as terrain. I'm not quite sure, the same issue should also appear in the default rendering scheme then, although the colors are less dramatic, the default scheme retains a lot more red light for the sun below the horizon. The problem is that the sun (moon,...) code is outside ALS and doesn't seem to run via a shader, so I can't fix it. A related issue is the sun shining through overcast sky (fog becomes so dense that the clouds are faded, in essence looking up you see the skydome drawn in grey, and the sun is never fogged. The sun rendering would have to be made to respect the angle with the horizon and some fogging settings better in order to address this properly. A cheap 'fix', as you realized, is to draw terrain further out. * Thorsten -- AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering during nighttime and the Sun
Hi, Photos: https://plus.google.com/photos/103387392510447269112/albums/5879491608548672161?authkey=CK30jsGwlYPEwgE By any chance, is this a bug when using atmospheric light scattering? This was taken over the east US, and local time was around 8 PM. The sun appears to show from below the ground. I have an Intel GPU, though, so it could very well be the GPU's fault. That being said, in the third picture, it appears that the sun halo is blocked in regions where tiles are loaded, so I might have to increase the draw distance. Is there a way to do this? -- Saikrishna Arcot -- AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Fri, 3 May 2013, grtuxhangar team wrote: > Arnt, > > OK > I have a question, when you are flying with FG how do you aim your camera ? > > Your answer is my answer . > grtuxhangar team, you're basically trying to have a logical conversation with a fence post. You'll be a lot happier if you just add his email address to your killfile. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
t; > > > > > There are other settings used to start Flightgear and > > > > > > prepare the scene. To replicate the same problem we need > > > > > > the entire setup for each screenshot. He never claimed > > > > > > that F3 was a custom screenshot > > > > button. > > > > > > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as > > > > > > you > > > > said", > > > > > > and would be obvious to anyone using the English language > > > > > > regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not > > > > > > a very pretty language. But it is effective in helping > > > > > > communication, because compared to most other options it > > > > > > is fairly easy to > > > learn. > > > > > > It still baffles me that there are people working with > > > > > > computers around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even > > > > > > attempt to learn > > > a > > > > > > little English out of pure campanilism. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 > > > > > > From: hohora...@gmail.com <mailto:hohora...@gmail.com> > > > > > > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > <mailto:flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light > > > > > > Scattering > > > > > > > > > > > > Arnt > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. > > > > > > I know at the beginning we could have some problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. > > > > > > > > > > > > you will notice at the line 1134 > > > > > > the key > > > > > > > > > > > > F3 > > > > > > Capture screen > > > > > > > > > > > > That file is very useful to understand what are the > > > > > > specific keys within FG. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen > > > <mailto:a...@iaksess.no>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > q0lktoweqnr2avdx+8gshhz...@mail.gmail.com > > q0lktoweqnr2avdx%2b8gshhz...@mail.gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arnst > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > > > > > > > so we can try reproduce them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave you the answer before > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not > > > > > > > any others tools, that's done. > > > > > > > > > > > > ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at > > > > > > KSFO. > > > > > > > > > > > > ..so, my question is, how do you se
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:17:17 -0500, Saikrishna wrote in message <5182d7dd.9040...@gmail.com>: > He's asking you from what view you take the screenshot. Do you take > it in the fly-by view? Do you take it in the model view? What is the > zoom/FOV that you use? > > There are several ways/views from which I can take a screenshot of a > Boeing 777. I can take it from the model view, where I'm positioned > right behind and above the plane with a zoom/FOV of 40. I can take it > from the co-pilot's seat looking at the cockpit panel. I can take it > from a passenger seat looking at the left wing. ..and, you can use e.g. these command line options to aim your "FG screenshot camera": --fov=degreesSpecify field of view angle ... --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) --altitude=value Starting altitude (in feet unless --units-meters specified) --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) ..'fgfs -v -h |less ' for a full list, there's probably a way to use --prop:[type:]name=value to start FG paused, but I'm running an improvised desktop box now with a disk from a dead laptop that used X.org's radeon driver set up for its 256MB 128bit pcie ATI FireGL V5200, on a much older 128MB 64bit pci ATI Radeon 9250, which doesn't work with firmware for the V5200. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:14:46 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message : > Arnt, > > OK > I have a question, when you are flying with FG how do you aim your > camera ? > > Your answer is my answer . ..no. I said one final chance, and you blew it. > > Regards > > > > On 2 May 2013 23:17, Saikrishna Arcot wrote: > > > He's asking you from what view you take the screenshot. Do you take > > it in the fly-by view? Do you take it in the model view? What is the > > zoom/FOV that you use? > > > > There are several ways/views from which I can take a screenshot of a > > Boeing 777. I can take it from the model view, where I'm positioned > > right behind and above the plane with a zoom/FOV of 40. I can take > > it from the co-pilot's seat looking at the cockpit panel. I can > > take it from a passenger seat looking at the left wing. > > > > Saikrishna Arcot > > > > On Thu 02 May 2013 11:20:11 AM CDT, grtuxhangar team wrote: > > > Hi Arnt > > > > > > Sorry i don't understand your question. > > > Screenshot is screenshot of your FG SCREEN , nothing else. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 17:07, Arnt Karlsen > > <mailto:a...@iaksess.no>> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:57:00 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in > > > message > > > > y7k9d-%2b2o9v461al4b59cgt...@mail.gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > If i have offended somebody with my not fluent English, my > > > apologizes > > > > for it. > > > > > > > > No i/(we) don't use Google , there is not any (free) good > > > > translator from English to several language including those > > > > officially in use in the middle east and north-africa. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, i was surprised by the Arnt question regarding: how > > > > to get > > a > > > > screenshot. > > > > > > ..one final chance: Think of the F3 button as you do with > > > your camera trigger button, and think of your "mainframe" and FG > > > as "your > > camera." > > > > > > ..now, whenever you take a picture camera, you first aim your > > > camera towards whatever you want to take a picture of, then you > > > push down the camera's "F3" trigger button to actually take the > > > picture and record it onto disk or film. > > > > > > ..so, my question is, _how_ do you aim your "camera"? > > > > > > > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 11:01, TDO Brandano > > <mailto:tdo_brand...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google > > > translate is > > > > > obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced > > > meanings and > > > > > contexts. > > > > > Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will > > > > > produce a picture of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. > > > > > There are other settings used to start Flightgear and > > > > > prepare the scene. To replicate the same problem we need > > > > > the entire setup for each screenshot. He never claimed > > > > > that F3 was a custom screenshot > > > button. > > > > > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as > > > > > you > > > said", > > > > > and would be obvious to anyone using the English language > > > > > regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not > > > > > a very pretty language. But it is effective in helping > > > > > communication, because compared to most other options it > > > > > is fairly easy to > > learn. > > > > > It still baffles me that there are people working with > > > > > computers around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even > > > > > attempt to learn > > a > > > > > little English out of pure campanilism. > > > > > > > > > > ---
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Arnt, OK I have a question, when you are flying with FG how do you aim your camera ? Your answer is my answer . Regards On 2 May 2013 23:17, Saikrishna Arcot wrote: > He's asking you from what view you take the screenshot. Do you take it > in the fly-by view? Do you take it in the model view? What is the > zoom/FOV that you use? > > There are several ways/views from which I can take a screenshot of a > Boeing 777. I can take it from the model view, where I'm positioned > right behind and above the plane with a zoom/FOV of 40. I can take it > from the co-pilot's seat looking at the cockpit panel. I can take it > from a passenger seat looking at the left wing. > > Saikrishna Arcot > > On Thu 02 May 2013 11:20:11 AM CDT, grtuxhangar team wrote: > > Hi Arnt > > > > Sorry i don't understand your question. > > Screenshot is screenshot of your FG SCREEN , nothing else. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 17:07, Arnt Karlsen > <mailto:a...@iaksess.no>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:57:00 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > > > y7k9d-%2b2o9v461al4b59cgt...@mail.gmail.com>>: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > If i have offended somebody with my not fluent English, my > > apologizes > > > for it. > > > > > > No i/(we) don't use Google , there is not any (free) good > > > translator from English to several language including those > > > officially in use in the middle east and north-africa. > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, i was surprised by the Arnt question regarding: how to get > a > > > screenshot. > > > > ..one final chance: Think of the F3 button as you do with your camera > > trigger button, and think of your "mainframe" and FG as "your > camera." > > > > ..now, whenever you take a picture camera, you first aim your camera > > towards whatever you want to take a picture of, then you push down > > the camera's "F3" trigger button to actually take the picture and > > record it onto disk or film. > > > > ..so, my question is, _how_ do you aim your "camera"? > > > > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 11:01, TDO Brandano > <mailto:tdo_brand...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google > > translate is > > > > obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced > > meanings and > > > > contexts. > > > > Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will produce a > > > > picture of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. There are other > > > > settings used to start Flightgear and prepare the scene. To > > > > replicate the same problem we need the entire setup for each > > > > screenshot. He never claimed that F3 was a custom screenshot > > button. > > > > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as you > > said", > > > > and would be obvious to anyone using the English language > > > > regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not a very > > > > pretty language. But it is effective in helping communication, > > > > because compared to most other options it is fairly easy to > learn. > > > > It still baffles me that there are people working with computers > > > > around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even attempt to learn > a > > > > little English out of pure campanilism. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 > > > > From: hohora...@gmail.com <mailto:hohora...@gmail.com> > > > > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > <mailto:flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > > > > > > Arnt > > > > > > > > Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. > > > > I know at the beginning we could have some problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. > > > >
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
He's asking you from what view you take the screenshot. Do you take it in the fly-by view? Do you take it in the model view? What is the zoom/FOV that you use? There are several ways/views from which I can take a screenshot of a Boeing 777. I can take it from the model view, where I'm positioned right behind and above the plane with a zoom/FOV of 40. I can take it from the co-pilot's seat looking at the cockpit panel. I can take it from a passenger seat looking at the left wing. Saikrishna Arcot On Thu 02 May 2013 11:20:11 AM CDT, grtuxhangar team wrote: > Hi Arnt > > Sorry i don't understand your question. > Screenshot is screenshot of your FG SCREEN , nothing else. > > Kind regards > > Ahmad > > > On 2 May 2013 17:07, Arnt Karlsen <mailto:a...@iaksess.no>> wrote: > > On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:57:00 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > <mailto:y7k9d-%2b2o9v461al4b59cgt...@mail.gmail.com>>: > > > Hello, > > > > If i have offended somebody with my not fluent English, my > apologizes > > for it. > > > > No i/(we) don't use Google , there is not any (free) good > > translator from English to several language including those > > officially in use in the middle east and north-africa. > > > > > > Anyhow, i was surprised by the Arnt question regarding: how to get a > > screenshot. > > ..one final chance: Think of the F3 button as you do with your camera > trigger button, and think of your "mainframe" and FG as "your camera." > > ..now, whenever you take a picture camera, you first aim your camera > towards whatever you want to take a picture of, then you push down > the camera's "F3" trigger button to actually take the picture and > record it onto disk or film. > > ..so, my question is, _how_ do you aim your "camera"? > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 11:01, TDO Brandano <mailto:tdo_brand...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google > translate is > > > obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced > meanings and > > > contexts. > > > Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will produce a > > > picture of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. There are other > > > settings used to start Flightgear and prepare the scene. To > > > replicate the same problem we need the entire setup for each > > > screenshot. He never claimed that F3 was a custom screenshot > button. > > > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as you > said", > > > and would be obvious to anyone using the English language > > > regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not a very > > > pretty language. But it is effective in helping communication, > > > because compared to most other options it is fairly easy to learn. > > > It still baffles me that there are people working with computers > > > around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even attempt to learn a > > > little English out of pure campanilism. > > > > > > -- > > > Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 > > > From: hohora...@gmail.com <mailto:hohora...@gmail.com> > > > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > > > > Arnt > > > > > > Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. > > > I know at the beginning we could have some problem. > > > > > > > > > NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. > > > > > > > > > Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. > > > > > > you will notice at the line 1134 > > > the key > > > > > > F3 > > > Capture screen > > > > > > That file is very useful to understand what are the specific keys > > > within FG. > > > > > > That is. > > > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen <mailto:a...@iaksess.no>> wrote: > > > >
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hi Arnt Sorry i don't understand your question. Screenshot is screenshot of your FG SCREEN , nothing else. Kind regards Ahmad On 2 May 2013 17:07, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:57:00 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > : > > > Hello, > > > > If i have offended somebody with my not fluent English, my apologizes > > for it. > > > > No i/(we) don't use Google , there is not any (free) good > > translator from English to several language including those > > officially in use in the middle east and north-africa. > > > > > > Anyhow, i was surprised by the Arnt question regarding: how to get a > > screenshot. > > ..one final chance: Think of the F3 button as you do with your camera > trigger button, and think of your "mainframe" and FG as "your camera." > > ..now, whenever you take a picture camera, you first aim your camera > towards whatever you want to take a picture of, then you push down > the camera's "F3" trigger button to actually take the picture and > record it onto disk or film. > > ..so, my question is, _how_ do you aim your "camera"? > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 11:01, TDO Brandano wrote: > > > > > I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google translate is > > > obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced meanings and > > > contexts. > > > Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will produce a > > > picture of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. There are other > > > settings used to start Flightgear and prepare the scene. To > > > replicate the same problem we need the entire setup for each > > > screenshot. He never claimed that F3 was a custom screenshot button. > > > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as you said", > > > and would be obvious to anyone using the English language > > > regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not a very > > > pretty language. But it is effective in helping communication, > > > because compared to most other options it is fairly easy to learn. > > > It still baffles me that there are people working with computers > > > around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even attempt to learn a > > > little English out of pure campanilism. > > > > > > -- > > > Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 > > > From: hohora...@gmail.com > > > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > > > > Arnt > > > > > > Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. > > > I know at the beginning we could have some problem. > > > > > > > > > NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. > > > > > > > > > Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. > > > > > > you will notice at the line 1134 > > > the key > > > > > > F3 > > > Capture screen > > > > > > That file is very useful to understand what are the specific keys > > > within FG. > > > > > > That is. > > > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > > : > > > > > > > Arnst > > > > > > > > > > > > you wrote > > > > > > > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > > > > > > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > > > > so we can try reproduce them. > > > > > > > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > > > > > > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > > > > > > > I gave you the answer before > > > > > > > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others > > > > tools, that's done. > > > > > > ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at KSFO. > > > > > > ..so, my question is, how do you set up your FG screenshot scene, > > > _before_ you use the F3 button to take the screenshot? > > > > > > > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxha
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:57:00 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message : > Hello, > > If i have offended somebody with my not fluent English, my apologizes > for it. > > No i/(we) don't use Google , there is not any (free) good > translator from English to several language including those > officially in use in the middle east and north-africa. > > > Anyhow, i was surprised by the Arnt question regarding: how to get a > screenshot. ..one final chance: Think of the F3 button as you do with your camera trigger button, and think of your "mainframe" and FG as "your camera." ..now, whenever you take a picture camera, you first aim your camera towards whatever you want to take a picture of, then you push down the camera's "F3" trigger button to actually take the picture and record it onto disk or film. ..so, my question is, _how_ do you aim your "camera"? > Ahmad > > > On 2 May 2013 11:01, TDO Brandano wrote: > > > I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google translate is > > obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced meanings and > > contexts. > > Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will produce a > > picture of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. There are other > > settings used to start Flightgear and prepare the scene. To > > replicate the same problem we need the entire setup for each > > screenshot. He never claimed that F3 was a custom screenshot button. > > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as you said", > > and would be obvious to anyone using the English language > > regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not a very > > pretty language. But it is effective in helping communication, > > because compared to most other options it is fairly easy to learn. > > It still baffles me that there are people working with computers > > around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even attempt to learn a > > little English out of pure campanilism. > > > > -- > > Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 > > From: hohora...@gmail.com > > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > > Arnt > > > > Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. > > I know at the beginning we could have some problem. > > > > > > NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. > > > > > > Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. > > > > you will notice at the line 1134 > > the key > > > > F3 > > Capture screen > > > > That file is very useful to understand what are the specific keys > > within FG. > > > > That is. > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > : > > > > > Arnst > > > > > > > > > you wrote > > > > > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > > > > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > > > so we can try reproduce them. > > > > > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > > > > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > > > > > I gave you the answer before > > > > > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others > > > tools, that's done. > > > > ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at KSFO. > > > > ..so, my question is, how do you set up your FG screenshot scene, > > _before_ you use the F3 button to take the screenshot? > > > > > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > > > : > > > > > > > Here you will find both files content which answer your > > > > > request: > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc > > > > > > > > ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the > > > > same models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same > > > > sim weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to > > > > make exactly the same screen shots. > > > > > > > > ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... > > > > --on-ground Start at ground
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hello, If i have offended somebody with my not fluent English, my apologizes for it. No i/(we) don't use Google , there is not any (free) good translator from English to several language including those officially in use in the middle east and north-africa. Anyhow, i was surprised by the Arnt question regarding: how to get a screenshot. Ahmad On 2 May 2013 11:01, TDO Brandano wrote: > I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google translate is > obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced meanings and > contexts. > Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will produce a picture > of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. There are other settings used to > start Flightgear and prepare the scene. To replicate the same problem we > need the entire setup for each screenshot. > He never claimed that F3 was a custom screenshot button. > That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as you said", and > would be obvious to anyone using the English language regularly. Now, I am > the first saying that English is not a very pretty language. But it is > effective in helping communication, because compared to most other options > it is fairly easy to learn. It still baffles me that there are people > working with computers around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even > attempt to learn a little English out of pure campanilism. > > -- > Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 > From: hohora...@gmail.com > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > Arnt > > Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. > I know at the beginning we could have some problem. > > > NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. > > > Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. > > you will notice at the line 1134 > the key > > F3 > Capture screen > > That file is very useful to understand what are the specific keys within > FG. > > That is. > > Ahmad > > > On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > : > > > Arnst > > > > > > you wrote > > > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > > so we can try reproduce them. > > > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > > > I gave you the answer before > > > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others tools, > > that's done. > > ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at KSFO. > > ..so, my question is, how do you set up your FG screenshot scene, > _before_ you use the F3 button to take the screenshot? > > > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > > : > > > > > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc > > > > > > ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same > > > models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim > > > weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make > > > exactly the same screen shots. > > > > > > ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... > > > --on-ground Start at ground level (default) > > > --in-air Start in air (implied when using > > > --altitude) > > > > > > ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial > > > Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. > > > --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also > > > specify an airport) > > > ... or directly with e.g. these: > > > --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) > > > --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) > > > --altitude=value Starting altitude > > > (in feet unless --units-meters > > > specified) > > > --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) > > > --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) > > > --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) > > > > > > ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, > &
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Let me incline into discussion. Rembrandt doesn't support stereoscopic view. I'm waiting for Oculus Rift and hope, that it will be supported in FG. So for me it is important. 2013/5/2 Renk Thorsten > > That's not quite right: you should be able to use one _effect_ across all > > rendering schemes, but under the hood different flavours of shaders do > the > > work. > (...) > >We have recently broken that principle with the grain effect - it only > works > >in ALS. > > Oh, so Rembrandt-declared lights do work properly to illuminate cockpits > also in other rendering schemes? Because otherwise it seems like there are > rendering effects which are not supported in every scheme quite outside of > ALS. > > Come on... > > First of all there is no stated principle that every effect must work in > every scheme except in your messages, second that's not what Rembrandt does > or ever has done with lightmaps vs. Rembrandt lights either. > > * Thorsten > > -- > Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET > Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. > Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> That's not quite right: you should be able to use one _effect_ across all > rendering schemes, but under the hood different flavours of shaders do the > work. (...) >We have recently broken that principle with the grain effect - it only works >in ALS. Oh, so Rembrandt-declared lights do work properly to illuminate cockpits also in other rendering schemes? Because otherwise it seems like there are rendering effects which are not supported in every scheme quite outside of ALS. Come on... First of all there is no stated principle that every effect must work in every scheme except in your messages, second that's not what Rembrandt does or ever has done with lightmaps vs. Rembrandt lights either. * Thorsten -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
I strongly suspect we need a French interpreter. Google translate is obviously failing to properly traduce the more nuanced meanings and contexts. Arnt said: just pressing F3, as you said you did, will produce a picture of the Cessna C172 on the KSFO runway. There are other settings used to start Flightgear and prepare the scene. To replicate the same problem we need the entire setup for each screenshot. He never claimed that F3 was a custom screenshot button. That single "your" was a synthesis for "Using just F3 as you said", and would be obvious to anyone using the English language regularly. Now, I am the first saying that English is not a very pretty language. But it is effective in helping communication, because compared to most other options it is fairly easy to learn. It still baffles me that there are people working with computers around the globe that stubbornly refuse to even attempt to learn a little English out of pure campanilism. Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:00:29 +0200 From: hohora...@gmail.com To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering Arnt Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. I know at the beginning we could have some problem. NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. you will notice at the line 1134 the key F3 Capture screen That file is very useful to understand what are the specific keys within FG. That is. Ahmad On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message : > Arnst > > > you wrote > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > so we can try reproduce them. > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > I gave you the answer before > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others tools, > that's done. ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at KSFO. ..so, my question is, how do you set up your FG screenshot scene, _before_ you use the F3 button to take the screenshot? > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > : > > > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc > > > > ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same > > models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim > > weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make > > exactly the same screen shots. > > > > ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... > > --on-ground Start at ground level (default) > > --in-air Start in air (implied when using > > --altitude) > > > > ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial > > Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. > > --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also > > specify an airport) > > ... or directly with e.g. these: > > --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) > > --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) > > --altitude=value Starting altitude > > (in feet unless --units-meters > > specified) > > --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) > > --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) > > --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) > > > > ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, > > you may e.g. want one for each test case. And, I can see a > > use for a --startup-paused option, to make screenshots. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lis
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Arnt Oh sorry , i thought you were using FG for years. I know at the beginning we could have some problem. NO it is not MY F3 KEY it is an FG feature Key. Just look at the fgdata/keyboard.xml content. you will notice at the line 1134 the key F3 Capture screen That file is very useful to understand what are the specific keys within FG. That is. Ahmad On 2 May 2013 00:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > : > > > Arnst > > > > > > you wrote > > > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > > so we can try reproduce them. > > > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > > > I gave you the answer before > > > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others tools, > > that's done. > > ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at KSFO. > > ..so, my question is, how do you set up your FG screenshot scene, > _before_ you use the F3 button to take the screenshot? > > > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > > : > > > > > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc > > > > > > ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same > > > models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim > > > weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make > > > exactly the same screen shots. > > > > > > ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... > > > --on-ground Start at ground level (default) > > > --in-air Start in air (implied when using > > > --altitude) > > > > > > ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial > > > Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. > > > --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also > > > specify an airport) > > > ... or directly with e.g. these: > > > --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) > > > --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) > > > --altitude=value Starting altitude > > > (in feet unless --units-meters > > > specified) > > > --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) > > > --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) > > > --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) > > > > > > ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, > > > you may e.g. want one for each test case. And, I can see a > > > use for a --startup-paused option, to make screenshots. > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > > > -- > Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET > Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. > Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:59:41 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message : > Arnst > > > you wrote > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > so we can try reproduce them. > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > I gave you the answer before > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others tools, > that's done. ..your "F3 key" gives me the C172 on the active runway at KSFO. ..so, my question is, how do you set up your FG screenshot scene, _before_ you use the F3 button to take the screenshot? > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > : > > > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc > > > > ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same > > models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim > > weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make > > exactly the same screen shots. > > > > ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... > > --on-ground Start at ground level (default) > > --in-air Start in air (implied when using > > --altitude) > > > > ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial > > Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. > > --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also > > specify an airport) > > ... or directly with e.g. these: > > --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) > > --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) > > --altitude=value Starting altitude > > (in feet unless --units-meters > > specified) > > --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) > > --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) > > --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) > > > > ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, > > you may e.g. want one for each test case. And, I can see a > > use for a --startup-paused option, to make screenshots. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
sorry, you must read Which is not useful here since the diff is: FROM ==> Without Rembrandt and Without Atmospheric.LS which is the most simple, VERSUS ==> Without Rembrandt and With Atmospheric.LS. On 1 May 2013 16:59, grtuxhangar team wrote: > Arnst > > > you wrote > > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > so we can try reproduce them. > > I am not sure i understand your question : > > You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? > > I gave you the answer before > > Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others tools, > that's done. > > > Your Guess about driver is out, > since whith an older driver we got the same, wrong result. > Then, to be sure before giving our screenshots we made it again with the > very last driver ( rebuild nvidia.ko ) > > You could only Guess the GPU is wrong, which would make that whole family > GF110 GPU wrong (there is a lot) > > The Box ! how could it be ? FG has been built without any specific > modifications, we are using generic tools. > Like said before, we had only to find a place within our scenery data to > avoid any crash with that "Charcot's Renderer" ( cf Heiko ). > > > > ".so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same > models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim weather, > I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make exactly the > same screen shots" > > Which is not useful here since the diff is: > FROM ==> Without Rembrandt and Without Atmospheric.LS > which is the most simple, > VERSUS ==> With Rembrandt and With Atmospheric.LS. > > The snapshots with Rembrandt are not involved here, since the textures > remains right, correctly enlightened, and the shadow is there. > > Any others official snapshots with that model and any other models from > our Hangar do not give any odd picture, with Rembrandt. > > Kind regards. > > Ahmad > > > > On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > >> On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message >> : >> >> > Arnt, >> > >> > I could not answer that question >> >> ..those are 2 questions on the same thing, #1 >> > "..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and >> >> ..#2: >> > menu options you used to create these screenshots >> >> .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): >> > so we can try reproduce them. >> >> ..this is my _guess_: >> > This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box." >> > >> > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: >> > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc >> >> ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same >> models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim weather, >> I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make exactly the >> same screen shots. >> >> ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... >> --on-ground Start at ground level (default) >> --in-air Start in air (implied when using >> --altitude) >> >> ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial >> Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. >> --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also >> specify an airport) >> ... or directly with e.g. these: >> --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) >> --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) >> --altitude=value Starting altitude >> (in feet unless --units-meters >> specified) >> --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) >> --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) >> --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) >> >> ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, >> you may e.g. want one for each test case. And, I can see a >> use for a --startup-paused option, to make screenshots. >> >> >> > which point to the following >> > >> https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/preferences-devel.xml >> > You can notice that last one is situated within the HOME .fgfs >> > directory >> > >> > These two files refer to our community/team mainframe which is being >> > used to develop our FG models. >> > The screenshots are made with it. >> >> >> >> > By the way the multi core systems is not used by FlightGear , since >> > only OSG can use it ( unfortunately wrongly at least within FG ). >> > >> > If you are ONLY running FlightGear with your computer you don't need a >> > multi core, there won't be any profit. >> >> ..I disagree, IME I'm still able to recover >> my boxes when FG hangs or tries frying cpu. >> >> > Multi core is only useful if you are working on other developments >> > (which explain our equipment). >> > >> > >> > Hope it answer your question. >> > >> > Kind regard >> > >> > Ahmad >> > >> > >> > >> > On 30 April 2013 15:06, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> > >> > >
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Arnst you wrote > menu options you used to create these screenshots .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > so we can try reproduce them. I am not sure i understand your question : You want to know how does the screenshots were done ? I gave you the answer before Just USE==> F3 key<===, no menu , not any others tools, that's done. Your Guess about driver is out, since whith an older driver we got the same, wrong result. Then, to be sure before giving our screenshots we made it again with the very last driver ( rebuild nvidia.ko ) You could only Guess the GPU is wrong, which would make that whole family GF110 GPU wrong (there is a lot) The Box ! how could it be ? FG has been built without any specific modifications, we are using generic tools. Like said before, we had only to find a place within our scenery data to avoid any crash with that "Charcot's Renderer" ( cf Heiko ). ".so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make exactly the same screen shots" Which is not useful here since the diff is: FROM ==> Without Rembrandt and Without Atmospheric.LS which is the most simple, VERSUS ==> With Rembrandt and With Atmospheric.LS. The snapshots with Rembrandt are not involved here, since the textures remains right, correctly enlightened, and the shadow is there. Any others official snapshots with that model and any other models from our Hangar do not give any odd picture, with Rembrandt. Kind regards. Ahmad On 1 May 2013 15:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > : > > > Arnt, > > > > I could not answer that question > > ..those are 2 questions on the same thing, #1 > > "..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and > > ..#2: > > menu options you used to create these screenshots > > .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > > so we can try reproduce them. > > ..this is my _guess_: > > This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box." > > > > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc > > ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same > models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim weather, > I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make exactly the > same screen shots. > > ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... > --on-ground Start at ground level (default) > --in-air Start in air (implied when using > --altitude) > > ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial > Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. > --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also > specify an airport) > ... or directly with e.g. these: > --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) > --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) > --altitude=value Starting altitude > (in feet unless --units-meters > specified) > --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) > --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) > --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) > > ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, > you may e.g. want one for each test case. And, I can see a > use for a --startup-paused option, to make screenshots. > > > > which point to the following > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/preferences-devel.xml > > You can notice that last one is situated within the HOME .fgfs > > directory > > > > These two files refer to our community/team mainframe which is being > > used to develop our FG models. > > The screenshots are made with it. > > > > > By the way the multi core systems is not used by FlightGear , since > > only OSG can use it ( unfortunately wrongly at least within FG ). > > > > If you are ONLY running FlightGear with your computer you don't need a > > multi core, there won't be any profit. > > ..I disagree, IME I'm still able to recover > my boxes when FG hangs or tries frying cpu. > > > Multi core is only useful if you are working on other developments > > (which explain our equipment). > > > > > > Hope it answer your question. > > > > Kind regard > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > On 30 April 2013 15:06, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:24:42 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > > : > > > > > > > Hello everybody > > > > > > > > Well, let's come to some example, then the users could appreciate > > > > > > > > There, a lot of snapshots i have just received from David (one of > > > > our team's member) > > > > Those snapshots were done with FG Git, and France 850 Scenery. > > > > Only the vegetation is being an old one , since getting some
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:03 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message : > Arnt, > > I could not answer that question ..those are 2 questions on the same thing, #1 > "..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and ..#2: > menu options you used to create these screenshots .."#3" is why I wand your answer(s): > so we can try reproduce them. ..this is my _guess_: > This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box." > > Here you will find both files content which answer your request: > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc ..so if I enter those command line options and have exactly the same models and exactly the same scenery and exactly the same sim weather, I should see exactly the same thing and be able to make exactly the same screen shots. ..an easier way is, specify everything, e.g. ... --on-ground Start at ground level (default) --in-air Start in air (implied when using --altitude) ...and then your time options and your specific "Initial Position and Orientation:" options, e.g. --runway=rwy_no Specify starting runway (must also specify an airport) ... or directly with e.g. these: --lon=degreesStarting longitude (west = -) --lat=degreesStarting latitude (south = -) --altitude=value Starting altitude (in feet unless --units-meters specified) --heading=degreesSpecify heading (yaw) angle (Psi) --roll=degrees Specify roll angle (Phi) --pitch=degrees Specify pitch angle (Theta) ..these options can be put in your various screenshot .fgfsrc, you may e.g. want one for each test case. And, I can see a use for a --startup-paused option, to make screenshots. > which point to the following > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/preferences-devel.xml > You can notice that last one is situated within the HOME .fgfs > directory > > These two files refer to our community/team mainframe which is being > used to develop our FG models. > The screenshots are made with it. > By the way the multi core systems is not used by FlightGear , since > only OSG can use it ( unfortunately wrongly at least within FG ). > > If you are ONLY running FlightGear with your computer you don't need a > multi core, there won't be any profit. ..I disagree, IME I'm still able to recover my boxes when FG hangs or tries frying cpu. > Multi core is only useful if you are working on other developments > (which explain our equipment). > > > Hope it answer your question. > > Kind regard > > Ahmad > > > > On 30 April 2013 15:06, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:24:42 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > > : > > > > > Hello everybody > > > > > > Well, let's come to some example, then the users could appreciate > > > > > > There, a lot of snapshots i have just received from David (one of > > > our team's member) > > > Those snapshots were done with FG Git, and France 850 Scenery. > > > Only the vegetation is being an old one , since getting some > > > trouble with the last version. > > > The computer is a mainframe with 2 Nvidia cards SLI Architecture > > > GPU geforce GTX 560 ti CUDA Cores:448 > > > > ..mainframe??? Details, please. > > > > > NV Driver 319.12 > > > > ..which "NV 319.12" driver? > > > > > Starting with FG snapshots Without ALS and With Rembrandt > > > > ..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and menu options you > > used to create these screenshots so we can try reproduce them. > > This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box. > > > > > > ..only these 2 screenshots are directly comparable to > > the 3 test cases you present, so I'd like to see your > > "Without ALS and With Rembrandt" version of these 2: > > > Now FG snapshots Without ALS and Without Rembrandt > > > > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo2.png > > > > > Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo1.png > > > > ..2(?) years back, I was the only one here to see all pitch > > black aircraft with ATI Radeon cards on X.org radeon drivers. > > > > > Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? > > > > > > BTW We had to search for a place were we could load Model with > > > ALS You probably notice, it is the P-38L model, to fly with > > > Rembrandt or Without Rembrandt > > > ONLY one model to load :) . > > > Sorry it is not ALS Compliant. > > > > ..are there other ALS-non-compliant models? > > > > > We have not chosen the most beautiful one it is only an example. > > > > > > > > > You may want to take acknowledge of some snapshots done with > > > Rembrandt , part of the grtux_hangar related. > > > > > > there the link > > > https://picasaweb.google.com/117502256492585017152 > > > > ..does any
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Arnt, I could not answer that question "..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and menu options you used to create these screenshots so we can try reproduce them. This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box." Here you will find both files content which answer your request: https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/.fgfsrc which point to the following https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/preferences-devel.xml You can notice that last one is situated within the HOME .fgfs directory These two files refer to our community/team mainframe which is being used to develop our FG models. The screenshots are made with it. By the way the multi core systems is not used by FlightGear , since only OSG can use it ( unfortunately wrongly at least within FG ). If you are ONLY running FlightGear with your computer you don't need a multi core, there won't be any profit. Multi core is only useful if you are working on other developments (which explain our equipment). Hope it answer your question. Kind regard Ahmad On 30 April 2013 15:06, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:24:42 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > : > > > Hello everybody > > > > Well, let's come to some example, then the users could appreciate > > > > There, a lot of snapshots i have just received from David (one of our > > team's member) > > Those snapshots were done with FG Git, and France 850 Scenery. > > Only the vegetation is being an old one , since getting some trouble > > with the last version. > > The computer is a mainframe with 2 Nvidia cards SLI Architecture > > GPU geforce GTX 560 ti CUDA Cores:448 > > ..mainframe??? Details, please. > > > NV Driver 319.12 > > ..which "NV 319.12" driver? > > > Starting with FG snapshots Without ALS and With Rembrandt > > ..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and menu options you > used to create these screenshots so we can try reproduce them. > This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box. > > > ..only these 2 screenshots are directly comparable to > the 3 test cases you present, so I'd like to see your > "Without ALS and With Rembrandt" version of these 2: > > Now FG snapshots Without ALS and Without Rembrandt > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo2.png > > > Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo1.png > > ..2(?) years back, I was the only one here to see all pitch > black aircraft with ATI Radeon cards on X.org radeon drivers. > > > Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? > > > > BTW We had to search for a place were we could load Model with ALS > > You probably notice, it is the P-38L model, to fly with Rembrandt or > > Without Rembrandt > > ONLY one model to load :) . > > Sorry it is not ALS Compliant. > > ..are there other ALS-non-compliant models? > > > We have not chosen the most beautiful one it is only an example. > > > > > > You may want to take acknowledge of some snapshots done with > > Rembrandt , part of the grtux_hangar related. > > > > there the link > > https://picasaweb.google.com/117502256492585017152 > > ..does any of these compare the ALS vs Rembrandt vs default etc test > cases? All I've seen there this far, are pretty screenshots. > > > All the best to FG Community > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > > > -- > Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET > Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. > Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Heiko > Sent: 30 April 2013 18:46 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/ > > P-38_demo1.png > > > > Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? > > I have to wonder- because you don't need a specific version for ALS! > > Use the shader as it is in current FGData and it will work in ALS, Default- > renderer and Rembrandt. > > The only thing is, that lightmaps, as possible in ALS and Default Renderer, > doesn't look all to good in Rembrandt in combination (!) with light volumes. > > But this can be solved. > > One model, one version- three renderer. FlightGear! > That's not quite right: you should be able to use one _effect_ across all rendering schemes, but under the hood different flavours of shaders do the work. Depending on a number of factors - weather mode selected/light implementation, the outcome on the model can look quite different. I would guess that is what we are seeing on the P38 examples shown (and that's quite some model - wow!). We have recently broken that principle with the grain effect - it only works in ALS. But you are quite right to say that we don't need special models for ALS/Default/Rembrandt rendering schemes. You might choose to implement features in Rembrandt, and then you might want to add different features so that those features would still work in the default and ALS schemes, but you don't have to. A good example of that might be landing lights that are implemented on a particular model under Rembrandt, but are simply absent in other schemes. Apart from making sure that transparencies work in Rembrandt, a modeller doesn't have to anything at all to the effects to make them work right across the board. Vivian -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> > If I can't remember what ALS > stands for, can I call it Lou Gehrig's > > Renderer? Is the name "Charcot's Renderer" to complicated for you? ;-) -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Heiko Schulz wrote: >> Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt >> https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/ >> P-38_demo1.png > > >> Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? > If I can't remember what ALS stands for, can I call it Lou Gehrig's Renderer? I'll see myself out... g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/ > P-38_demo1.png > Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? I have to wonder- because you don't need a specific version for ALS! Use the shader as it is in current FGData and it will work in ALS, Default-renderer and Rembrandt. The only thing is, that lightmaps, as possible in ALS and Default Renderer, doesn't look all to good in Rembrandt in combination (!) with light volumes. But this can be solved. One model, one version- three renderer. FlightGear! -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hello Arnt, A quick reply with my phone connected to a private server. ."mainframe??? Details, please." right now a 8 cores AMD FX 8350 an ASROCK motherboard populated With 32 GB Mem Several hard disks with Raid 1 A SSD which takes the Linux System OPENSUSE 12.2 Everything in a huge box over powered. .."which "NV 319.12" driver" there the link: ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/319.12/ .."are there other ALS-non-compliant models?" Yes all of them from our hangar, when we can load ALS with some usable FPS and without crashing :( "..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and menu options you used to create these screenshots so we can try reproduce them. This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box." I can't at the moment i can't give you the detail. However, we are commonly using .fgfsrc which point to a specific addon preference.xml file within HOME .fgfs directory Which is the easiest way to get flexibility without carrying a lot of --prop at load.. Thus at command line ONLY fgfs --aircraft=--airport= or --carrier= and --parkpos= That's done. the screenshots are done with the FG embedded tool ( F3 key) I forgot to say we use to have FXAA antialiasing setting enabled "..only these 2 screenshots are directly comparable to the 3 test cases you present, so I'd like to see your "Without ALS and With Rembrandt" version of these 2:" yes you may refer to the given ones https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo7.png or https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo6.png it is the same airport , but the Runway has changed ( metar ? ) "..does any of these compare the ALS vs Rembrandt vs default etc test cases? All I've seen there this far, are pretty screenshots" No, like said we could never get good results with it. The purpose of these snapshots is to show the best we could get from Flightgear with our models. Hope you will get the answers Kind Regards Ahmad On 30 April 2013 15:06, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:24:42 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message > : > > > Hello everybody > > > > Well, let's come to some example, then the users could appreciate > > > > There, a lot of snapshots i have just received from David (one of our > > team's member) > > Those snapshots were done with FG Git, and France 850 Scenery. > > Only the vegetation is being an old one , since getting some trouble > > with the last version. > > The computer is a mainframe with 2 Nvidia cards SLI Architecture > > GPU geforce GTX 560 ti CUDA Cores:448 > > ..mainframe??? Details, please. > > > NV Driver 319.12 > > ..which "NV 319.12" driver? > > > Starting with FG snapshots Without ALS and With Rembrandt > > ..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and menu options you > used to create these screenshots so we can try reproduce them. > This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box. > > > ..only these 2 screenshots are directly comparable to > the 3 test cases you present, so I'd like to see your > "Without ALS and With Rembrandt" version of these 2: > > Now FG snapshots Without ALS and Without Rembrandt > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo2.png > > > Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt > > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo1.png > > ..2(?) years back, I was the only one here to see all pitch > black aircraft with ATI Radeon cards on X.org radeon drivers. > > > Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? > > > > BTW We had to search for a place were we could load Model with ALS > > You probably notice, it is the P-38L model, to fly with Rembrandt or > > Without Rembrandt > > ONLY one model to load :) . > > Sorry it is not ALS Compliant. > > ..are there other ALS-non-compliant models? > > > We have not chosen the most beautiful one it is only an example. > > > > > > You may want to take acknowledge of some snapshots done with > > Rembrandt , part of the grtux_hangar related. > > > > there the link > > https://picasaweb.google.com/117502256492585017152 > > ..does any of these compare the ALS vs Rembrandt vs default etc test > cases? All I've seen there this far, are pretty screenshots. > > > All the best to FG Community > > > > Ahmad > > > > > > > > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > > > -- > Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET > Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. > Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 > __
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:24:42 +0200, grtuxhangar wrote in message : > Hello everybody > > Well, let's come to some example, then the users could appreciate > > There, a lot of snapshots i have just received from David (one of our > team's member) > Those snapshots were done with FG Git, and France 850 Scenery. > Only the vegetation is being an old one , since getting some trouble > with the last version. > The computer is a mainframe with 2 Nvidia cards SLI Architecture > GPU geforce GTX 560 ti CUDA Cores:448 ..mainframe??? Details, please. > NV Driver 319.12 ..which "NV 319.12" driver? > Starting with FG snapshots Without ALS and With Rembrandt ..yes? I'd like to see the commandlines and menu options you used to create these screenshots so we can try reproduce them. This _may_ e.g. be a driver bug on only your box. ..only these 2 screenshots are directly comparable to the 3 test cases you present, so I'd like to see your "Without ALS and With Rembrandt" version of these 2: > Now FG snapshots Without ALS and Without Rembrandt > > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo2.png > Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt > https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo1.png ..2(?) years back, I was the only one here to see all pitch black aircraft with ATI Radeon cards on X.org radeon drivers. > Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? > > BTW We had to search for a place were we could load Model with ALS > You probably notice, it is the P-38L model, to fly with Rembrandt or > Without Rembrandt > ONLY one model to load :) . > Sorry it is not ALS Compliant. ..are there other ALS-non-compliant models? > We have not chosen the most beautiful one it is only an example. > > > You may want to take acknowledge of some snapshots done with > Rembrandt , part of the grtux_hangar related. > > there the link > https://picasaweb.google.com/117502256492585017152 ..does any of these compare the ALS vs Rembrandt vs default etc test cases? All I've seen there this far, are pretty screenshots. > All the best to FG Community > > Ahmad > > > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> Sorry it is not ALS Compliant. I think we covered that one early on in the discussion last week. Quoting myself: > You'll have noticed that the ALS ubershader (short of inserting the tangent, > normal and binormal attribute for normal maps which I understand really > _must_ be airplane-side) works out of the box without any action required in > ALS. But reading what I write doesn't seem to be your main strength, does it? *sigh* This really really gets a bit tedious and I believe the topic is exhausted... would you mind carrying your grudge elsewhere rather than desperately trying to find any mistake in what I say? Thanks. * Thorsten -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hello everybody Well, let's come to some example, then the users could appreciate There, a lot of snapshots i have just received from David (one of our team's member) Those snapshots were done with FG Git, and France 850 Scenery. Only the vegetation is being an old one , since getting some trouble with the last version. The computer is a mainframe with 2 Nvidia cards SLI Architecture GPU geforce GTX 560 ti CUDA Cores:448 NV Driver 319.12 Starting with FG snapshots Without ALS and With Rembrandt https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo8.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo7.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo6.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo10.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo9.png Now FG snapshots Without ALS and Without Rembrandt https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo2.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo4.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo5.png https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo3.png Now, sorry, FG snapshots With ALS and Without Rembrandt https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/other-download/P-38_demo1.png Who said we don't need a specific version when using ALS ? BTW We had to search for a place were we could load Model with ALS You probably notice, it is the P-38L model, to fly with Rembrandt or Without Rembrandt ONLY one model to load :) . Sorry it is not ALS Compliant. We have not chosen the most beautiful one it is only an example. You may want to take acknowledge of some snapshots done with Rembrandt , part of the grtux_hangar related. there the link https://picasaweb.google.com/117502256492585017152 All the best to FG Community Ahmad On 30 April 2013 08:23, Renk Thorsten wrote: > >> There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one: > >> I am quoting you > >> "Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of > >> aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point?" > > > Aren't you talking about stuff you don't know? > > > > An aircraft which has been modified to fly with Rembrandt ( like said > > only transparencies are involved) , can be flown without Rembrandt. > > Well, yes, in the case the aircraft didn't have emissive lights before and > couldn't be flown at night that may be the case, but, to quote the > Rembrandt Wiki page: > > "* Rembrandt computes shadows => no more fake shadows in the model > * Rembrandt computes ambient occlusion => no ambient occlusion baked into > textures > * Rembrandt has light => static lightmap are not needed, emissive color to > see models at night is not needed and would interfere > * Rembrandt has glow => incorrectly used emissive colors may blur displays > and make some text unreadable. Light size may have to be adjusted > (...)" > > Again, please get your facts right before you continue the discussion. In > the general case of lightmaps and/or emissive instrument textures used for > night flights, you do need two versions (you can use auto-detection and > conditional animations to hide that fact from the user though). Seems your > aircraft don't have those then... doesn't mean no one else uses them. > > This really gets a bit tedious and I believe the topic is exhausted... > would you mind carrying your grudge elsewhere rather than desperately > trying to find any mistake in what I say? I think you have demonstrated > your level of comprehension of the FG rendering internals sufficiently. > Thanks. > > * Thorsten > > -- > Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET > Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. > Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
>> There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one: >> I am quoting you >> "Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of >> aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point?" > Aren't you talking about stuff you don't know? > > An aircraft which has been modified to fly with Rembrandt ( like said > only transparencies are involved) , can be flown without Rembrandt. Well, yes, in the case the aircraft didn't have emissive lights before and couldn't be flown at night that may be the case, but, to quote the Rembrandt Wiki page: "* Rembrandt computes shadows => no more fake shadows in the model * Rembrandt computes ambient occlusion => no ambient occlusion baked into textures * Rembrandt has light => static lightmap are not needed, emissive color to see models at night is not needed and would interfere * Rembrandt has glow => incorrectly used emissive colors may blur displays and make some text unreadable. Light size may have to be adjusted (...)" Again, please get your facts right before you continue the discussion. In the general case of lightmaps and/or emissive instrument textures used for night flights, you do need two versions (you can use auto-detection and conditional animations to hide that fact from the user though). Seems your aircraft don't have those then... doesn't mean no one else uses them. This really gets a bit tedious and I believe the topic is exhausted... would you mind carrying your grudge elsewhere rather than desperately trying to find any mistake in what I say? I think you have demonstrated your level of comprehension of the FG rendering internals sufficiently. Thanks. * Thorsten -- Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, grtuxhangar team wrote: > Renk, > There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one: Just FYI, his _last_ name is Renk, not his first. That's Thorsten. :) His email client puts his last name first and doesn't insert a comma, so everyone thinks he's Renk Thorsten. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Renk, There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one: I am quoting you "Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point?" Aren't you talking about stuff you don't know? An aircraft which has been modified to fly with Rembrandt ( like said only transparencies are involved) , can be flown without Rembrandt. Hope, that will reassure the users , in case of Ahmad On 29 April 2013 08:49, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > Vivian: > > > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. > > Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of > the water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't > support Advanced Weather. When you implemented it, it had zero > communication with Advanced Weather, I had to spend hours to figure out how > it gets light and wind info and then code a hack for Advanced Weather to > make it work. > > If this is a real concern to you - there has been a long weekend to get > busy and change the interface. Looking at GIT, you haven't done so and > we're still using the incomplete hack. Any plans to change that in the near > future? > > > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > > scheme/framework rather than another. > > As pointed out for the 3rd time now, that is a hypothetical problem in > ALS. Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions > of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? > > > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > > effects or shadows, or anything else. > > I think I have said about 5 times now that I am perfectly willing to > contribute to this, but I'm not doing it all on my own. I haven't seen you > volunteer to help out here. I haven't seen you arguing with Fred that he > should take care to help out. Somehow, it seems to be my fault. > > Also - you can burn framerate only once, and I have stated my opinion on > that as well. My personal view is that OpenSource is about freedom, and > freedom implies choice. It's nothing bad to deliver a rendering scheme for > low end GPUs and one for high end GPUs and let the user pick, and I don't > even see you acknowledging that argument. I acknowledge that we probably > have a fundamental split of philosophy here: I see more merit in offering > different choices to the user (think Linux with KDE or Gnome - I see myself > well backed up by OpenSource tradition here) than in pre-selecting to the > lowest common denominator we can all agree on so that the user doesn't have > to choose. You see this differently, and we probably won't ever resolve > this. > > Vivian, I don't see this getting any more constructive, and I don't have > the impression that this is about me explaining to avoid a > misunderstanding. I don't see my arguments acknowledged, much less refuted. > I don't see you willing to take any action making the framework which you > maintain accessible. > > So I will not justify the reasons behind what I do to you any further, and > unless I see a constructive turn, I will also refrain from doing so in the > future. > > Henri: > > > How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? > > Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, > > the period when i could use it without breaking others features. > > I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the > > conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop > > deeply. > > As explained several times over, when the skydome used the default terrain > shaders, it produced glaring graphical artefacts. What I have done is the > only possible series of changes which could have fixed this. I'm sorry you > are unable to understand that point, but maybe ask someone who does to > explain it to you in detail. > > Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in > my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase > "introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering" > - which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you > don't use it. > > > You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, > Emilian is > > experienced and you rejected his know how. > > Would you say everybody but you is stupid. > > I'm a scientist. I don't believe in persons. I don't believe in Emilian, > TIm, Fred or Mathias - I believe in verifiable facts and solid evidence. I > believe that each of these person knows much, but that likewise each of > these can get things wrong, and when anyone raises an issue, I make up my > own mind by thinking it through and testing it myself. I don't think > everyone else is stupid, but I do think everyone else can make mistakes > just like me, and I have a very long profe
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
>>> How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? (...) >which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you >> don't use it. (...) > Yes there not any contradiction ,since i said, quoting myself: > "To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply." > Where is your scientist mind? Note that in the English language the present tense 'you are not a user' has a meaning different from the past tense 'you were not a user' or the perfect tense 'you have never been a user'. Best, * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Renk, >> How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? >> Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, >> the period when i could use it without breaking others features. >> I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the >> conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop >> deeply. >Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in my inbox which is signed with your name >from which I may quote the phrase "introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering" - >which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you don't use it. Yes there not any contradiction ,since i said, quoting myself: "To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply." Where is your scientist mind?, since you are unable to apply an element on an other corresponding right element, Yes right now, ALS is not usable. So the argument:" it don't need any Aircraft modification" , is falling down by itself. Well let's say the debate to me it is close. I thought it was closed before. Ahmad (Henri) BTW: Real scientist are using the acknowledge from others, nobody is able to rebuild the world alone On 29 April 2013 08:49, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > Vivian: > > > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. > > Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of > the water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't > support Advanced Weather. When you implemented it, it had zero > communication with Advanced Weather, I had to spend hours to figure out how > it gets light and wind info and then code a hack for Advanced Weather to > make it work. > > If this is a real concern to you - there has been a long weekend to get > busy and change the interface. Looking at GIT, you haven't done so and > we're still using the incomplete hack. Any plans to change that in the near > future? > > > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > > scheme/framework rather than another. > > As pointed out for the 3rd time now, that is a hypothetical problem in > ALS. Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions > of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? > > > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > > effects or shadows, or anything else. > > I think I have said about 5 times now that I am perfectly willing to > contribute to this, but I'm not doing it all on my own. I haven't seen you > volunteer to help out here. I haven't seen you arguing with Fred that he > should take care to help out. Somehow, it seems to be my fault. > > Also - you can burn framerate only once, and I have stated my opinion on > that as well. My personal view is that OpenSource is about freedom, and > freedom implies choice. It's nothing bad to deliver a rendering scheme for > low end GPUs and one for high end GPUs and let the user pick, and I don't > even see you acknowledging that argument. I acknowledge that we probably > have a fundamental split of philosophy here: I see more merit in offering > different choices to the user (think Linux with KDE or Gnome - I see myself > well backed up by OpenSource tradition here) than in pre-selecting to the > lowest common denominator we can all agree on so that the user doesn't have > to choose. You see this differently, and we probably won't ever resolve > this. > > Vivian, I don't see this getting any more constructive, and I don't have > the impression that this is about me explaining to avoid a > misunderstanding. I don't see my arguments acknowledged, much less refuted. > I don't see you willing to take any action making the framework which you > maintain accessible. > > So I will not justify the reasons behind what I do to you any further, and > unless I see a constructive turn, I will also refrain from doing so in the > future. > > Henri: > > > How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? > > Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, > > the period when i could use it without breaking others features. > > I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the > > conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop > > deeply. > > As explained several times over, when the skydome used the default terrain > shaders, it produced glaring graphical artefacts. What I have done is the > only possible series of changes which could have fixed this. I'm sorry you > are unable to understand that point, but maybe ask someone who does to > explain it to you in detail. > > Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in > my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase > "introducing some unusable features like the atmosph
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Vivian: > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of the water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't support Advanced Weather. When you implemented it, it had zero communication with Advanced Weather, I had to spend hours to figure out how it gets light and wind info and then code a hack for Advanced Weather to make it work. If this is a real concern to you - there has been a long weekend to get busy and change the interface. Looking at GIT, you haven't done so and we're still using the incomplete hack. Any plans to change that in the near future? > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > scheme/framework rather than another. As pointed out for the 3rd time now, that is a hypothetical problem in ALS. Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > effects or shadows, or anything else. I think I have said about 5 times now that I am perfectly willing to contribute to this, but I'm not doing it all on my own. I haven't seen you volunteer to help out here. I haven't seen you arguing with Fred that he should take care to help out. Somehow, it seems to be my fault. Also - you can burn framerate only once, and I have stated my opinion on that as well. My personal view is that OpenSource is about freedom, and freedom implies choice. It's nothing bad to deliver a rendering scheme for low end GPUs and one for high end GPUs and let the user pick, and I don't even see you acknowledging that argument. I acknowledge that we probably have a fundamental split of philosophy here: I see more merit in offering different choices to the user (think Linux with KDE or Gnome - I see myself well backed up by OpenSource tradition here) than in pre-selecting to the lowest common denominator we can all agree on so that the user doesn't have to choose. You see this differently, and we probably won't ever resolve this. Vivian, I don't see this getting any more constructive, and I don't have the impression that this is about me explaining to avoid a misunderstanding. I don't see my arguments acknowledged, much less refuted. I don't see you willing to take any action making the framework which you maintain accessible. So I will not justify the reasons behind what I do to you any further, and unless I see a constructive turn, I will also refrain from doing so in the future. Henri: > How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? > Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, > the period when i could use it without breaking others features. > I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the > conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop > deeply. As explained several times over, when the skydome used the default terrain shaders, it produced glaring graphical artefacts. What I have done is the only possible series of changes which could have fixed this. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that point, but maybe ask someone who does to explain it to you in detail. Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase "introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering" - which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you don't use it. > You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, Emilian > is > experienced and you rejected his know how. > Would you say everybody but you is stupid. I'm a scientist. I don't believe in persons. I don't believe in Emilian, TIm, Fred or Mathias - I believe in verifiable facts and solid evidence. I believe that each of these person knows much, but that likewise each of these can get things wrong, and when anyone raises an issue, I make up my own mind by thinking it through and testing it myself. I don't think everyone else is stupid, but I do think everyone else can make mistakes just like me, and I have a very long professional experience in recognizing and dealing with my own mistakes. To expect that I would take advice from anyone without looking at the hard evidence available to me is unreasonable. I'm not impressed by titles, merits and experience - I argue with Nobel-price winners just as with students if I think they're wrong (I have done so on occasion). You will be able to verify that in each and every case someone backs up his critique with actual evidence which I can verify, I usually change my position quickly. You will also see me in these cases publicly acknowledge that I was wrong and crediting the person who corrected me
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Stefan > On Saturday 27 April 2013 13:31:33 Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > What is the real problem? I've got a little list: > > > > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. > > > > I don't want to download fg/sg to find that it won't build. > > > > I don't want to download fgdata to find things which "used to work". > > > > I don't want to have frame-rates of less than 40 and/or jittery. > > Well then the problem cannot be as large as it looks like since ALS does not > cause any of those. > > > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > > effects or shadows, or anything else. > > > > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > > scheme/framework rather than another. > > Then why have I not read a single email about how Rembrandt diverges from > the default rendering scheme and forces users to choose or that aricraft > developers have to make adjustments? I only read about ALS which is much > less of a problem, since I can use any airplane with it and can turn it on or off > at runtime without a problem, so as a user I don't have to decide up front. > > > I don't want to open the Devel List to find yet another storm with > > Thorsten at the centre of it. > > > > And finally - I feel really strongly about this one: > > > > I don't want anyone to feel that they have to leave the project > > because of acrimonious discussions on this list or anywhere else. It has > > happened only rarely, but I regret each and every one. > > So why are you with those who are driving Thorsten away if you feel so > strongly about this point? If you don't want a shit storm why are you happily > contributing to it and siding with people who call others racist just for > refusing a huge feature commit during a feature freeze? > > > I know this is unrealistic, but we should all be striving along these lines. > > > > I'm horrified that you have received hate-mail. This is only a flight > > sim for goodness sake. We have a long tradition here of friendly and > > orderly debate. > > These are probably the most reasonable sentences within this whole debate. > Please re-read what I wrote. I'm not taking sides for or against Rembrandt or ALS - I want them to converge. They are both excellent contributions to FG, and should not be considered to be alternatives or rivals. Did I say that ALS causes jitter or frame rates less than 40? My list appertains to all of FG/SG. You have jumped to conclusions. And before jumping check your facts: AFAIK Rembrandt does not depart from the default rendering scheme. If you think it does tell me where. It remains experimental/WIP which is why the user cannot click to access it. Hey, who has Thorsten upset - the Mafia? You'll be telling me that there's a horse's head in his bed next. I certainly don't side with those calling anyone else racist or trying to drive anyone away - I am unaware of that and I don't care to be associated with it. Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> > Well then the problem cannot be as large as it looks like since ALS does > not > cause any of those. > > Yes it does .My framerates drop to about 10 fps with ALS.But luckily no one has yet said "Oh this is pretty , lets enable it by default!". I can still use Flightgear quite nicely on the legacy ATI laptop.I cant do that with any other flightsim I've tried. > > So why are you with those who are driving Thorsten away if you feel so > strongly about this point? If you don't want a shit storm why are you > happily > contributing to it and siding with people who call others racist just for > refusing a huge feature commit during a feature freeze? > > I think your exaggerating just a bit here , I dont see anyone trying to drive Thorsten away.He appears stubborn enough to stick around ;).I see people expressing frustration with the uncertain direction these features are taking. OK said my piece , back to updating models (again). -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Saturday 27 April 2013 13:31:33 Vivian Meazza wrote: > What is the real problem? I've got a little list: > > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. > > I don't want to download fg/sg to find that it won't build. > > I don't want to download fgdata to find things which "used to work". > > I don't want to have frame-rates of less than 40 and/or jittery. Well then the problem cannot be as large as it looks like since ALS does not cause any of those. > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > effects or shadows, or anything else. > > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > scheme/framework rather than another. Then why have I not read a single email about how Rembrandt diverges from the default rendering scheme and forces users to choose or that aricraft developers have to make adjustments? I only read about ALS which is much less of a problem, since I can use any airplane with it and can turn it on or off at runtime without a problem, so as a user I don't have to decide up front. > I don't want to open the Devel List to find yet another storm with > Thorsten at the centre of it. > > And finally - I feel really strongly about this one: > > I don't want anyone to feel that they have to leave the project > because of acrimonious discussions on this list or anywhere else. It has > happened only rarely, but I regret each and every one. So why are you with those who are driving Thorsten away if you feel so strongly about this point? If you don't want a shit storm why are you happily contributing to it and siding with people who call others racist just for refusing a huge feature commit during a feature freeze? > I know this is unrealistic, but we should all be striving along these lines. > > I'm horrified that you have received hate-mail. This is only a flight sim > for goodness sake. We have a long tradition here of friendly and orderly > debate. These are probably the most reasonable sentences within this whole debate. Regards, Stefan -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Thorsten > Sent: 27 April 2013 08:11 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric Light Scattering scheme > > should have embedded in it some ac modelling stuff. > > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is > > your private sandbox. > > Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a different > scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to look just > as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You think these > options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I don't, I think they > may well affect models, trees, all the visuals. > > Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would > happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or > default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact > with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10 > times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to make - it's > up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to decide what to > include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - if I introduce new > effect in my framework, you complain about diverging schemes, if I would do > it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't simply make such > decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't introduce any novel > effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say this, but it pretty much > follows.) You can't be serious. > > Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code of > ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome shader > before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to the ported > model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that makes me the > current maintainer of the scheme. > > What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really have > a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and > ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you > should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important > and how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be > working on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in FG? > > I fully accept that decisions which affect other subsystems, potentially > disable them or require substantial action by others must be discussed and > voted on, and that coding e.g. an explicit preference for one weather system > over the other is a bad thing. So if the choice were that we can have either > Rembrandt or ALS, we'd need to have a discussion and a vote. But that's not > the case. > > Thus, you don't get to overrule me if I consider implementing wind effects > more useful than the wake effect. You can bring up your case, you can ask > nicely, we can have a discussion, but as long as you expect me to do the > work, you'll have to live with my decisions and wait till your request reaches > the top of my to-do list (in the case of the wake, I have already stated that > it's on the to-do list - same with the rainbow). You can do it yourself if it has a > higher priority for you (in which case I offered help and expect the customary > amount of coordination with what I'm doing, same as if I would start working > on one of your aircraft), you can convince anyone else to do it (in which case > I'll also help), and that's how it works everywhere else in FG. If I want a > particular feature for an aircraft, I ask nicely and try to be convincing, I don't > go around claiming the aircraft is broken every time. Why is this mode not > acceptable to you? > > You know, I don't want any special treatment here - I just want that the same > standards are applied to me which apply to other people (specifically also you > and Emilian). And I can't see that in what you say - I'm always held to much > stricter standards. > > Vivian, for all your eloquence, I don't get the impression that all this is the > real sticking point - what is _really_ bugging you here? > > You're not a user of ALS, I haven't seen it on in any of your screenshots. > You're not affected personally by anything I do. I told you I will put the > rainbow back and I will implement the wave, and we're in the middle > between release periods, just when it's officially time to introduce new > features with the idea to consolidate towards the release. So there can't be
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> > What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really have > a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and > ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you > should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important and > how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be working > on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in FG? I thought the debate closed. The very good description of the situation by Vivian ( and best of the best with a Shakespeare introduction :) ). He was expressing in detail how to do and what to do. I worry there won't be a pilot in the "Flighgear" plane, though Vivian could be the one. Renk, How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the period when i could use it without breaking others features. I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. Yes, right now, i do use Rembrandt for screenshots the effect/results are the best we may get with Flighgear. light and shadow are amazing. Renk, You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, Emilian is experienced and you rejected his know how. Would you say everybody but you is stupid. Renk, How could you say the Shadows system has come after ALS ? Looking at the history of Flightgear, i can notice the Shadows system was a feature in the old time, i have got from GRTUX's database ( inherited) some old snapshot with Shadows. With the OSG arrival that old feature did not longer worked. So, Rembrandt is only coming to follow the original features content, it could have been offered as default within flightgear as soon it was considered right. It is right since months ago. It is said "Rembrandt cannot be run on some GPU", yes it depends on the OpenGL compliance, and a minimum of memory is necessary ( for better information refer to fredb instructions ). The modification to the aircraft to get it working is minor, i had to update our hangar it took only 1 hour to update our hangar (21 officials models + 12 non official ). Only the object with transparencies are involved, easy to find. Since it offer a nice real Light , i implemented it , in cockpit/ instrument and outside with landing light , it took time to understand the process, one day ( slow brain ) , and only 5 hours to update the Hangar. The time required was minor compared to the time spent when i had to introduce the shader effect ( one week and more). All the best Ahmad (Henri) On 27 April 2013 09:10, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric > > Light Scattering scheme should have embedded in it some ac modelling > > stuff. > > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is your > > private sandbox. > > Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a > different scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to > look just as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You > think these options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I > don't, I think they may well affect models, trees, all the visuals. > > Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would > happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or > default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact > with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10 > times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to > make - it's up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to > decide what to include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - > if I introduce new effect in my framework, you complain about diverging > schemes, if I would do it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't > simply make such decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't > introduce any novel effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say > this, but it pretty much follows.) You can't be serious. > > Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code > of ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome > shader before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to > the ported model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that > makes me the current maintainer of the scheme. > > What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really > have a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it > (and ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you > should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important and > how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be working > on first. Just since when di
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric > Light Scattering scheme should have embedded in it some ac modelling > stuff. > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is your > private sandbox. Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a different scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to look just as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You think these options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I don't, I think they may well affect models, trees, all the visuals. Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10 times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to make - it's up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to decide what to include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - if I introduce new effect in my framework, you complain about diverging schemes, if I would do it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't simply make such decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't introduce any novel effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say this, but it pretty much follows.) You can't be serious. Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code of ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome shader before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to the ported model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that makes me the current maintainer of the scheme. What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really have a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important and how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be working on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in FG? I fully accept that decisions which affect other subsystems, potentially disable them or require substantial action by others must be discussed and voted on, and that coding e.g. an explicit preference for one weather system over the other is a bad thing. So if the choice were that we can have either Rembrandt or ALS, we'd need to have a discussion and a vote. But that's not the case. Thus, you don't get to overrule me if I consider implementing wind effects more useful than the wake effect. You can bring up your case, you can ask nicely, we can have a discussion, but as long as you expect me to do the work, you'll have to live with my decisions and wait till your request reaches the top of my to-do list (in the case of the wake, I have already stated that it's on the to-do list - same with the rainbow). You can do it yourself if it has a higher priority for you (in which case I offered help and expect the customary amount of coordination with what I'm doing, same as if I would start working on one of your aircraft), you can convince anyone else to do it (in which case I'll also help), and that's how it works everywhere else in FG. If I want a particular feature for an aircraft, I ask nicely and try to be convincing, I don't go around claiming the aircraft is broken every time. Why is this mode not acceptable to you? You know, I don't want any special treatment here - I just want that the same standards are applied to me which apply to other people (specifically also you and Emilian). And I can't see that in what you say - I'm always held to much stricter standards. Vivian, for all your eloquence, I don't get the impression that all this is the real sticking point - what is _really_ bugging you here? You're not a user of ALS, I haven't seen it on in any of your screenshots. You're not affected personally by anything I do. I told you I will put the rainbow back and I will implement the wave, and we're in the middle between release periods, just when it's officially time to introduce new features with the idea to consolidate towards the release. So there can't be any serious concern at this point that users might not get to see and appreciate your work sufficiently. You argue against the hypothetical case that you might potentially have to adjust your aircraft for ALS even when this is not factually the case. At every opportunity, you speak up against the way Advanced Weather is done. You implemented, together with Emilian, an environment for the water shader which explicitly favours Basic Weather over Advanced Weather, in spite of the fact that I documented the lighting model of Advanced Weather in the readme, outlined it to you on this list, again in a mail to you and
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Gene > >> >>> >>> Enough, too long already >>> >> It would have been a LOT shorter had you trimmed his original message >> down instead of just tacking on to the bottom. :D >> > > What and spoil the point? :-) > By the time I reached where your text started, I'd forgotten what was going on. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Gene > > > > > Enough, too long already > > > It would have been a LOT shorter had you trimmed his original message > down instead of just tacking on to the bottom. :D > What and spoil the point? :-) Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > Enough, too long already > It would have been a LOT shorter had you trimmed his original message down instead of just tacking on to the bottom. :D g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Thorsten > > ALS is very impressive work, but things broken? Have you forgotten the > > flag shader (now fixed), wake effect and rainbow effect? I don't have > > a particular problem with these and hope that they will be fixed > > eventually, although I note that do you seem to have raced on to other > > things while leaving the wake effect unfixed for some time. I rather > > fear that that's just going to get lost in the noise and general > > excitement over the latest bit of eye-candy. > > That is what I tried to explain in length. My definition of broken is 'used to > work, there was a change, now doesn't work'. What is yours? > > The wake effect used to work in default, and now still does. The wake effect > never worked in ALS and now still doesn't. There's nothing broken here, you > are talking about non-existing features and a feature request to implement > them. Which is very different from breaking existing things. > > To give you the reverse example - procedural texturing works in ALS but not > in Rembrandt - so does this imply it's broken in Rembrandt? Cloud shadows > don't work in either Rembrandt or ALS - does that imply we've broken them? > Nope - they never existed, and you can make a feature request to > implement them. > > In the event, your feature request for the wake effect is noted, but not my > top priority - I prefer to race on to the next bit of eye candy (as you put it) > because the wake effect is a very localized effect, whereas I want to address > some world-wide stuff which affects a few billion pixels more first. You're > welcome to implement it yourself, and I'll be happy to assist you if that is > needed. > > To call a non-existing feature with a feature request attached 'broken' > generates a completely wrong impression and a sense of urgency which > really isn't there. > > > I think a more general concern would be that we seem to be developing > > 3 or 4 different Flightgears, in which different things work or not as > > the case might be: > > > > Rembrandt > > > > Basic weather/Advanced Weather > > > > Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) > > This may be a question of philosophy, but I don't think OpenSource fares > badly with this approach in general. As a Linux user I get a choice between > Gnome, KDE and a host of other desktop environments - and I rather like > that, I can pick what suits me best. As an aircraft developer, I can pick JSBSim > or YaSim, whatever suits me best. So why should we not offer different > rendering approaches dependent on what the user wants to burn the > framerate for? I don't see this at all as a problem, I rather see it as a huge > opportunity. We can ship one rendering approach for the low end graphics > cards and are then not restricted in what we offer for the high end. How > exactly is that a bad thing? > > > As a developer I have only just finished making my models Rembrandt > > compatible, and I don't know if I will ever be able to actually make > > use Rembrandt facilities in all of them. > > You'll have noticed that the ALS ubershader (short of inserting the tangent, > normal and binormal attribute for normal maps which I understand really > _must_ be airplane-side) works out of the box without any action required in > ALS. So there is no need to make your models ALS compatible, this is not a > real problem, but a hypothetical one. The worst case by the way is not that > the aircraft can't be flown as in Rembrandt, because you can't see out of the > cockpit, the worst case is that your normal map doesn't work. > > > As I understand it, ALS will include modelling facilities which will > > not work in the other flavours of FG. How is this meant to be used? > > Optionally. > > *sigh* When you and Emilian wrote the default ubershader, it provided new > features. These were offered to the airplane developers as options - it was > their choice to make use of them or not. Now ALS offers an ubershader > which might get additional features. There are offered to airplane modellers > as options. Just why is it okay if you do it, but problematic if I do it? > > Yes, they may not work in Rembrandt - and Rembrandt has AO, and bloom, > and real internal light sources which do not work in other frameworks. So not > every framework has the same visuals. Why is this a problem? > > > In an ideal world everything would work and be compatible with > > everything else. > > I don't see how any progress could be made that way. I don't see how > Rembrandt could have been made requiring that it must be completely > compatible with existing technology and aircraft definitions. We used to > characterize the atmosphere by a fog density and a fog color. It's beyond me > how one could make ALS by requiring the same thing. JSBSIm has updates, > they break some aircraft, developers fix it - somehow I miss all the > complaints about this (and JSBSim updates actually have the potential to > break aircraft in the sense of rendering them
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
I've thought about if I really should comment on Henri or not, and I won't dignify most with a reply, but just this: > I don't mean i don't like ALS, i mean i don't like your approach , > instead of working on consistency with the existing valuable features which > were > implemented within FlighGear, ( and by including Rembrandt), you ARE > WORKING on a other FlightGear. Please get your facts right. The first appearance of the skydome shader in the forum dates to Mar 07, 2011. The first appearance of Rembrandt in the forum seems to be Jan 04, 2012. Assuming that they roughly correlate with the time at which these features were first presented elsewhere as well, this means that the beginning of ALS _predated_ Rembrandt by almost 10 month (!). Thus, it is very clear what the 'existing' feature is, and who did not contribute to the existing technology - it's FredB and Rembrandt, not Lauri, me and ALS. Let me make it very clear that I have no issue whatsoever with that. I did not expect FredB to incorporate the skydome shader or anything that follows out of this. It is also very clear to me that FredB has no issue with Rembrandt and ALS co-existing, because he showed me how to implement the terrain shading in the effect framework and committed it himself after I had finished it. But your whole argument about not contributing to existing features simply applies to the wrong person. That's embarrassing, isn't it? Have a nice weekend, * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> I don't think it's quite that bad. In a deferred shader like Rembrandt, > the ALS would run in the deferred lighting pass. While it's true that the > heavy work is done in a fragment shader, it only runs for each pixel on > the screen, not for every rendered fragment. Yes - but you need to execute ~ 200 additional lines per screen pixel just to get the light at every point right in the scene. Then come ~150 additional lines to compute fog. As for the graphical goodies of terrain texturing, that's all in the fragment shader and contributes another 300 lines or so in total, and now that's only done per screen pixel, because I always use a trivial first pass to fill the z-buffer and render terrain only when actually seen. So the fragment shader will get ~650 additional lines to execute for every screen terrain pixel. Have you looked at terrain-haze-ultra.frag ? That has 720 lines of code in total, part of it subroutines which are called a few times. It is true that we currently render terrain obscured by the panel due to the near/far camera issue - but I have a crude panel masking code and a good feeling of how much this saves you. > Also, in many cases the sky > would take up a large portion of the out-the-window scene; is computing ALS > for > the blue sky as expensive as for an object in the scene? Not to mention > that you don't need to run ALS in the cockpit... Yes, it does now as well. But you want the sim well-behaved not only in level flight, but also when you descend or do aerobatics. So you have to design for a clouded sky (which reverses the argument, looking at the sky then becomes very bad) or a steep descent when only terrain is visible - it doesn't do to have a framework which only runs when half the screen is sky :-) And you do have to use ALS light computations for the cockpit to get consistent light (you don't need fog or pixel postprocessing). In the end, I guess we'll see how bad it is... * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
James, Terrasync now works entirely as expected here - but not quite as you describe. I can enter a path at the gui, and then stop and restart Terrasync from the gui and it will download to the new directory. Of course, the scenery directories remain as they were defined at startup. We can reload scenery at runtime, so perhaps it would be nice to change the Terrasync scenery as well - not quite sure about that because I can envisage situations when it would be advantageous to download to one directory while using another. Vivian From: James Turner [mailto:zakal...@mac.com] Sent: 26 April 2013 08:50 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering On 25 Apr 2013, at 22:23, Stuart Buchanan wrote: Thanks for investigating Stuart! AFAICT the screenshot directory entry in the GUI does work. At least on my system I can change the screenshot directory via the GUI and record screenshots to the new directory. Okay, that's interesting indeed. Keep in mind I've not made an explicit changes to the screenshot directory code, but I have changed the file picker logic recently, which I assumed would be the likely cause. However Windows and Linux use the same code paths for the file-picker. Based on Vivian's report that the path is bad, something else must be going on for him (and other Windows users?) Well, the Terrasync was caused by adding an additional block at the top of the file, so the one at the bottom was ignored :) Whoops, that is entirely my fault. Many apologies. I've restored the previous behaviour which did allow one to set the directory. However, on testing, you are absolutely correct - changing has no effect within the current session. I'll add a warning message to that effect to the dialog. I think it's still useful to be able to set the directory within the sim, even if you have to restart. I think I must have added this function under the mistaken impression that it had some effect. Whoops! Okay, I did always wonder why the option was added :) Personally I am pushing people to always use the default TerraSync location unless they are doing 'something special' in which case an entry in fgfsrc seems a better solution to me. I.e keep the GUI simple for the common case, and ensure the advanced case is possible via config files. Changing the code to allow run-time switching of the terrasync dir, and the scenery paths, is not impossible but it would be a fairly large amount of effort, not a worthwhile use of time from my point of view. Regards, James -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > I've also taken a bit of a look at merging Rembrandt and ALS, and I think > > I understand the Rembrandt pipeline enough that I could add ALS to it. > > Just to provide some expectation management: > > Rembrandt (as deferred rendering) is very heavy on the fragment shader. > ALS at low quality is currently rather balanced between vertex and fragment > shader and at high quality adds all additional load to the fragment shader. > An ALS implementation in Rembrandt will require that basically all light > computations which are currently in the vertex pipeline move to the > fragment shader as well. That's not a small workload, sunlight is about 100 > times heavier to compute in ALS than in default or Rembrandt (that's what > ALS burns framerate for). > > I don't think it's quite that bad. In a deferred shader like Rembrandt, the ALS would run in the deferred lighting pass. While it's true that the heavy work is done in a fragment shader, it only runs for each pixel on the screen, not for every rendered fragment. Also, in many cases the sky would take up a large portion of the out-the-window scene; is computing ALS for the blue sky as expensive as for an object in the scene? Not to mention that you don't need to run ALS in the cockpit... Tim -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On 25 Apr 2013, at 22:23, Stuart Buchanan wrote: Thanks for investigating Stuart! > AFAICT the screenshot directory entry in the GUI does work. At least on my > system I can change the screenshot directory via the GUI and record > screenshots > to the new directory. Okay, that's interesting indeed. Keep in mind I've not made an explicit changes to the screenshot directory code, but I have changed the file picker logic recently, which I assumed would be the likely cause. However Windows and Linux use the same code paths for the file-picker. Based on Vivian's report that the path is bad, something else must be going on for him (and other Windows users?) > > Well, the Terrasync was caused by adding an additional block > at the top of the file, so the one at the bottom was ignored :) Whoops, that is entirely my fault. Many apologies. > I've restored the previous behaviour which did allow one to set the directory. > > However, on testing, you are absolutely correct - changing has no effect > within > the current session. I'll add a warning message to that effect to the > dialog. I think > it's still useful to be able to set the directory within the sim, even > if you have to > restart. > > I think I must have added this function under the mistaken impression that it > had some effect. Whoops! Okay, I did always wonder why the option was added :) Personally I am pushing people to always use the default TerraSync location unless they are doing 'something special' in which case an entry in fgfsrc seems a better solution to me. I.e keep the GUI simple for the common case, and ensure the advanced case is possible via config files. Changing the code to allow run-time switching of the terrasync dir, and the scenery paths, is not impossible but it would be a fairly large amount of effort, not a worthwhile use of time from my point of view. Regards, James -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> I've also taken a bit of a look at merging Rembrandt and ALS, and I think > I understand the Rembrandt pipeline enough that I could add ALS to it. Just to provide some expectation management: Rembrandt (as deferred rendering) is very heavy on the fragment shader. ALS at low quality is currently rather balanced between vertex and fragment shader and at high quality adds all additional load to the fragment shader. An ALS implementation in Rembrandt will require that basically all light computations which are currently in the vertex pipeline move to the fragment shader as well. That's not a small workload, sunlight is about 100 times heavier to compute in ALS than in default or Rembrandt (that's what ALS burns framerate for). I'm currently running ALS at highest quality on a GeForce 670M which is a GPU on the top-end of the performance scale. With all settings maxed out, this pretty much guarantees me a framerate of above 20 fps, no matter the weather or the scenery (with very few pathological exceptions where it drops to 15). Rembrandt + ALS will be slower than any of them, because of all that additional stuff which needs to go into the fragment pipeline which will completely choke. My strong expectation is that even on a top-notch GPU, maxing out all settings will not work fast enough, so something will be lost if you actually hope to fly. The GPU to run that framework isn't sold yet... and I can picture the crowd of usual suspects shouting 'This is too slow! This is badly implemented!' once it's actually running. And I a so looking forward to that experience. (*irony*) * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hi Vivian, > ALS is very impressive work, but things broken? Have you forgotten the > flag shader (now fixed), wake effect and rainbow effect? I don't have a > particular problem with these and hope that they will be fixed > eventually, although I note that do you seem to have raced on to other things > while > leaving the wake effect unfixed for some time. I rather fear that that's > just going to get lost in the noise and general excitement over the > latest bit of eye-candy. That is what I tried to explain in length. My definition of broken is 'used to work, there was a change, now doesn't work'. What is yours? The wake effect used to work in default, and now still does. The wake effect never worked in ALS and now still doesn't. There's nothing broken here, you are talking about non-existing features and a feature request to implement them. Which is very different from breaking existing things. To give you the reverse example - procedural texturing works in ALS but not in Rembrandt - so does this imply it's broken in Rembrandt? Cloud shadows don't work in either Rembrandt or ALS - does that imply we've broken them? Nope - they never existed, and you can make a feature request to implement them. In the event, your feature request for the wake effect is noted, but not my top priority - I prefer to race on to the next bit of eye candy (as you put it) because the wake effect is a very localized effect, whereas I want to address some world-wide stuff which affects a few billion pixels more first. You're welcome to implement it yourself, and I'll be happy to assist you if that is needed. To call a non-existing feature with a feature request attached 'broken' generates a completely wrong impression and a sense of urgency which really isn't there. > I think a more general concern would be that we seem to be developing 3 > or 4 > different Flightgears, in which different things work or not as the case > might be: > > Rembrandt > > Basic weather/Advanced Weather > > Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) This may be a question of philosophy, but I don't think OpenSource fares badly with this approach in general. As a Linux user I get a choice between Gnome, KDE and a host of other desktop environments - and I rather like that, I can pick what suits me best. As an aircraft developer, I can pick JSBSim or YaSim, whatever suits me best. So why should we not offer different rendering approaches dependent on what the user wants to burn the framerate for? I don't see this at all as a problem, I rather see it as a huge opportunity. We can ship one rendering approach for the low end graphics cards and are then not restricted in what we offer for the high end. How exactly is that a bad thing? > As a developer I have only just finished making my models Rembrandt > compatible, and I don't know if I will ever be able to actually make use > Rembrandt facilities in all of them. You'll have noticed that the ALS ubershader (short of inserting the tangent, normal and binormal attribute for normal maps which I understand really _must_ be airplane-side) works out of the box without any action required in ALS. So there is no need to make your models ALS compatible, this is not a real problem, but a hypothetical one. The worst case by the way is not that the aircraft can't be flown as in Rembrandt, because you can't see out of the cockpit, the worst case is that your normal map doesn't work. > As I understand it, ALS will include modelling facilities which will not > work in the other flavours of FG. How is this meant to be used? Optionally. *sigh* When you and Emilian wrote the default ubershader, it provided new features. These were offered to the airplane developers as options - it was their choice to make use of them or not. Now ALS offers an ubershader which might get additional features. There are offered to airplane modellers as options. Just why is it okay if you do it, but problematic if I do it? Yes, they may not work in Rembrandt - and Rembrandt has AO, and bloom, and real internal light sources which do not work in other frameworks. So not every framework has the same visuals. Why is this a problem? > In an ideal world everything would work and be > compatible with everything else. I don't see how any progress could be made that way. I don't see how Rembrandt could have been made requiring that it must be completely compatible with existing technology and aircraft definitions. We used to characterize the atmosphere by a fog density and a fog color. It's beyond me how one could make ALS by requiring the same thing. JSBSIm has updates, they break some aircraft, developers fix it - somehow I miss all the complaints about this (and JSBSim updates actually have the potential to break aircraft in the sense of rendering them non-functional, not in the sense of bumpmapping not working). Just imagine computers were required to be able to run DO
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Stuart > Sent: 25 April 2013 22:24 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: > >> Right now FG seems like a mess with lots of things which "used to > >> work > >> (tm)": > >> > >> Screenshot directory entry in the gui doesn't work > >> > >> Ditto Terrasync directory > >> > >> Tree textures are misaligned (here anyway) > >> > >> Manual Weather Input. > >> > >> Effects as above. > >> > >> I know that this isn't all to do with you - > > > > Well, two of these at least are within my bailiwick (tree textures and > > manual weather input). Manual weather input is on my TODO list, and > > I'll address the tree texture issue in the other thread. > > I've just pushed a fix for the weather issue. I found two bugs in it which I've > fixed, but there may be more as it's quite a complex dialog. FYI I'm also > planning to move some of the buttons around a bit. I think the changes you > (vivian) made are an improvement in terms of making the configuration > options more understandable, but I can improve the layout slightly I think. > > AFAICT the screenshot directory entry in the GUI does work. At least on my > system I can change the screenshot directory via the GUI and record > screenshots to the new directory. Not here. It seems to be stuck at this weird default value: C:/Program Files/FlightGear-nightly-2010/osgPlugins-3.0.1 Why there - decidedly odd? Win 7 will not permit a program to write to Program Files, so it fails. I can't enter any different value, or navigate above "Program Files" using the gui. I have tried deleting the value in AppData\Roaming\flightgear.org\autosave_2_11.xml (which I wouldn't expect a user to do - or even find), but neither doing that nor anything else I can think of has fixed it. > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM, James Turner wrote: > > I suspect both of these are my 'fault', but equally I was only made > > aware of the TerraSync one a few weeks ago, and the screenshot one, > > this is the first I've heard of it. > > Well, the Terrasync was caused by adding an additional block > at the top of the file, so the one at the bottom was ignored :) > > > > In the particular case of the Terrasync path I am especially confused > > because it's not possible to change the terrasync path once fgfs is > > running, as never has been as far as I know; since we can't adjust > > scenery paths with restarting the sim. So, to re-iterate, the defect > > really needs to explain what the intended use-case was here, since I am > clueless. > > I've restored the previous behaviour which did allow one to set the directory. > > However, on testing, you are absolutely correct - changing has no effect > within the current session. I'll add a warning message to that effect to the > dialog. I think it's still useful to be able to set the directory within the sim, > even if you have to restart. > > I think I must have added this function under the mistaken impression that it > had some effect. Whoops! > It would be nice to be able to direct the output of Terragear at run time without restarting, (we can do that with Scenarios - thanks James), but if that is not possible then after a restart will do. I don't remember if we used to need a restart - I suppose we must have done. What was the pull-down in the menu item for? Nearly back to square one - well done. Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: >> Right now FG seems like a mess with lots of things which "used to work >> (tm)": >> >> Screenshot directory entry in the gui doesn't work >> >> Ditto Terrasync directory >> >> Tree textures are misaligned (here anyway) >> >> Manual Weather Input. >> >> Effects as above. >> >> I know that this isn't all to do with you - > > Well, two of these at least are within my bailiwick (tree textures and manual > weather input). Manual weather input is on my TODO list, and I'll address the > tree texture issue in the other thread. I've just pushed a fix for the weather issue. I found two bugs in it which I've fixed, but there may be more as it's quite a complex dialog. FYI I'm also planning to move some of the buttons around a bit. I think the changes you (vivian) made are an improvement in terms of making the configuration options more understandable, but I can improve the layout slightly I think. AFAICT the screenshot directory entry in the GUI does work. At least on my system I can change the screenshot directory via the GUI and record screenshots to the new directory. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM, James Turner wrote: > I suspect both of these are my 'fault', but equally I was only made aware of > the TerraSync one a few weeks ago, and the screenshot one, this is the first > I've heard of it. Well, the Terrasync was caused by adding an additional block at the top of the file, so the one at the bottom was ignored :) > In the particular case of the Terrasync path I am especially confused > because it's not possible to change the terrasync path once fgfs is running, > as never has been as far as I know; since we can't adjust scenery paths with > restarting the sim. So, to re-iterate, the defect really needs to explain > what the intended use-case was here, since I am clueless. I've restored the previous behaviour which did allow one to set the directory. However, on testing, you are absolutely correct - changing has no effect within the current session. I'll add a warning message to that effect to the dialog. I think it's still useful to be able to set the directory within the sim, even if you have to restart. I think I must have added this function under the mistaken impression that it had some effect. Whoops! -Stuart -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Henri, > > Thorsten only said, that _if_ you ask him to remove ALS because of > > concern for users without good graphics cards, you should aks FredB as > > well to remove Rembrandt, because the same argument would apply. Not > > doing it just shows that different standards are applied which is simply > > unfair. > > First , it is not because i am unable to write English correctly, i can't > understand it written. > Suggesting to ask for removing Rembrandt gives enough to conclude. You clearly don't get this right, and therefore draw the wrong conclusions. As Stefan said, have someone who understands English better explain this to you in your language. @Thorsten: I love ALS. @FredB: I love Rembrandt. And of course I'd love to see both combined. I'm pretty sure that at some point in the future they will be. > Why Thorsten has not given up on this yet is just beyond me. This is not a > discussion, it's just handwaving and accusations. I'm just very glad, that he >didn't give up. So instead, I can enjoy as much of the great flying experience >as I can get during the long winter months. +1 Tom -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Stuart, This could be the best news I heard today! :) In addition to core developers, just a thought that just came to me while reading today's mail: IMHO I realize that the project lacks a Project Manager or at least a meeting where priorities would be set for the Devs to fix/implement BEFORE proceeding to extra feature. I know we all love to start pursuing our ideas at the time they are conceived due to excitement, but this should occur after the previous goals have been met, that is if the already existent, yet experimental shaders/models/whatever have reached a predetermined Release state where they work seamlessly with everything preceeding them. Think of it as a CHECK LIST! Branching and testing/experimenting is good, of course, but we need here something/someone that will make sure by providing the resources/info gathering/moderation for the Devs to bring the individual subprojects up to a e.g. Release state for merging them to function together! Thank you! -Klearchos SE-MUA Sent from my Gentoo-phone On 25 apr 2013, at 16:29, "Stuart Buchanan" wrote: > Hi Vivian, > > I'm not going to address the high level debate, but I have some > specific comments. > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: >> I think a more general concern would be that we seem to be developing 3 or 4 >> different Flightgears, in which different things work or not as the case >> might be: >> >>Rembrandt >> >>Basic weather/Advanced Weather >> >>Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) > > I've just put in some effort recently to ensure that Basic Weather can > take advantage of ALS properly. So while we retain two weather models, > there's no longer a dependency of ALS on Advanced Weather. So we're > moving in the right direction here. > > I've also taken a bit of a look at merging Rembrandt and ALS, and I think > I understand the Rembrandt pipeline enough that I could add ALS to it. > > I'm very keen to promote a more consistent experience so that new users > don't encounter confusing differences between alternative rendering schemes, > and I'm prepared to put time into making that happen. > > I'll take a look at the wake shader if you want, but I supect you'd prefer me > to > fix some of the other issues you raised below first :). > >> Right now FG seems like a mess with lots of things which "used to work >> (tm)": >> >>Screenshot directory entry in the gui doesn't work >> >>Ditto Terrasync directory >> >>Tree textures are misaligned (here anyway) >> >>Manual Weather Input. >> >>Effects as above. >> >> I know that this isn't all to do with you - > > Well, two of these at least are within my bailiwick (tree textures and manual > weather input). Manual weather input is on my TODO list, and I'll address the > tree texture issue in the other thread. > > I've not had any time to look at the screenshot/terrasync directory issue. I > strongly suspect that I could fix it, but I only have so many hours in the > day, > and as mentioned before am spread pretty thin. > > Personally I think most of the active FG devs are currently very overstretched > in terms of the areas that they have ownership of, which is affecting how much > can actually be done. Fundamentally we need more core devs. > > -Stuart > > -- > Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt > New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service > that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your > browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic > and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> On Thursday 25 April 2013 15:41:54 henri orange wrote: > > Here is quoted Renk sentence himself: > > "I hope you have the fairness to ask FredB to remove Rembrandt then as > > well, because we need to ship the default rendering scheme such that > > users without good graphics cards..." > > I know, you cited it the first time as well. But it simply does not mean > what you obviously think it means. That's why I kindly asked you, to have > someone explain it to you in your native language. > > Thorsten only said, that _if_ you ask him to remove ALS because of concern > for users without good graphics cards, you should aks FredB as well to > remove Rembrandt, because the same argument would apply. Not doing it just > shows that different standards are applied which is simply unfair. First , it is not because i am unable to write English correctly, i can't understand it written. Suggesting to ask for removing Rembrandt gives enough to conclude. On the other side i did not asked to remove ALS only to develop in the good direction. Which is a huge difference. (though , just reading the last Stuart Buchanan Mail which can close the debate ) > > > Does'nt ATI known to be the wrong choice to play FG ? > > No it doesn't. To cite http://wiki.flightgear.org/Supported_Video_Cards "you > should be fine with any Nvidia or AMD/ATI products having 512-1024MB of > *dedicated* video memory". Which is the problem, giving a list of GPU supposed to be compliant, is the most difficult. First look at OpenGL compliance. Don't be confident in such list. The best would be to refer to the experience from others, when we can. I had first before using FG an ATI card, at that time i had a lot of difficulties to get a driver working with Linux. When i had to update my equipment 3 years ago i did not refer to any list but followed the suggestions ( from FG users) to choose an NVIDIA GPU. I can notice the permanent work in progress with the OpenGL drivers there: ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86_64/ that was enough to secure the choice. When i get enough money my next equipment will be also with NVIDIA, for the same reason. Spare time and money. > > > Said before you are in difficulty because of ATI. > > Ok, so I'm in difficulty because of ATI (which do not even exist anymore, > it's been AMD for 7 years now) and therefore Rembrandt is ok. But if you > have problems with ALS, it's not your NVIDIA hardware that's the problem, > but ALS. Because clearly, your hardware is more important than mine and FG > developers should develop for your system only. Right? > > > I know my english is wrong, however, i know the difference between VARIANT > > and OPTION. > > Right know there is options with shaders , clouds weathers etc. > > Variants with Rembrandt and ALS. > > So please enlighten me and tell me what in your eyes is the difference > between a variant and an option and why the distinction is important. As a > user, I can simply decide at runtime if I want ALS or not by clicking a > checkbox in an options panel. If you don't like the words option versus variants ( direction ) Let me give an example. If sitting at Zeralda, if i have some time for visiting my country one variant is visit Constantine, the other is to visit Bou Saada both are not the same direction. To travel i have several options: i can choose on the map: paths or roads or highway, i can choose at my home: mule (the best friend of my children) or motorcycle (a collector one ) or a Mercedes ( an old one ). > > So why is ALS a problem for a user who doesn't want to use it? > > Regards, > Stefan BTW: after the points by Vivian, i am just reading the last Stuart Buchanan's Mail which can close the debat. Though it does not modify my feeling ALS development related. -- -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On 25 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > I've not had any time to look at the screenshot/terrasync directory issue. I > strongly suspect that I could fix it, but I only have so many hours in the > day, > and as mentioned before am spread pretty thin. I suspect both of these are my 'fault', but equally I was only made aware of the TerraSync one a few weeks ago, and the screenshot one, this is the first I've heard of it. In both cases a defect in bug tracker, CC-ed to me, with some detailed information, would greatly help, since these are not features I use, so I need to know what behaviour is considered 'right'. In particular saying it should work 'as it always did' is not helpful. In the particular case of the Terrasync path I am especially confused because it's not possible to change the terrasync path once fgfs is running, as never has been as far as I know; since we can't adjust scenery paths with restarting the sim. So, to re-iterate, the defect really needs to explain what the intended use-case was here, since I am clueless. BTW, concerning the larger issue of different rendering pipelines / approaches, my opinion is, and remains, that the long-term solution is separate viewer codebases - while a plethora would be bad, we would already benefit from a 'fixed-function, no shaders' renderer codebase distinct from a Rembrandt renderer and modern, forward-rendering OpenGL 3.x pipeline. This needs the viewer to be cleanly split out from the simulation backend, via HLA, which is exactly what Mathias (and soon, myself) are working towards, but slowly. Regards, James-- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Stuart > -Original Message- > From: Stuart Buchanan [mailto:stuar...@gmail.com] > Sent: 25 April 2013 15:28 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > Hi Vivian, > > I'm not going to address the high level debate, but I have some specific > comments. > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > I think a more general concern would be that we seem to be developing > > 3 or 4 different Flightgears, in which different things work or not as > > the case might be: > > > > Rembrandt > > > > Basic weather/Advanced Weather > > > > Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) > > I've just put in some effort recently to ensure that Basic Weather can take > advantage of ALS properly. So while we retain two weather models, there's > no longer a dependency of ALS on Advanced Weather. So we're moving in > the right direction here. > > I've also taken a bit of a look at merging Rembrandt and ALS, and I think I > understand the Rembrandt pipeline enough that I could add ALS to it. > > I'm very keen to promote a more consistent experience so that new users > don't encounter confusing differences between alternative rendering > schemes, and I'm prepared to put time into making that happen. > > I'll take a look at the wake shader if you want, but I supect you'd prefer me to > fix some of the other issues you raised below first :). > > > Right now FG seems like a mess with lots of things which "used to work > > (tm)": > > > > Screenshot directory entry in the gui doesn't work > > > > Ditto Terrasync directory > > > > Tree textures are misaligned (here anyway) > > > > Manual Weather Input. > > > > Effects as above. > > > > I know that this isn't all to do with you - > > Well, two of these at least are within my bailiwick (tree textures and manual > weather input). Manual weather input is on my TODO list, and I'll address > the tree texture issue in the other thread. > > I've not had any time to look at the screenshot/terrasync directory issue. I > strongly suspect that I could fix it, but I only have so many hours in the day, > and as mentioned before am spread pretty thin. > > Personally I think most of the active FG devs are currently very overstretched > in terms of the areas that they have ownership of, which is affecting how > much can actually be done. Fundamentally we need more core devs. Couldn't we just! All the more reason not to bite off more than we can chew. And I know I owe you a more detailed response on the tree stuff - later today perhaps. While I'm on a roll we have had this one in terrasync at KSFO for I can't remember how many years: "Could not find at least one of the following objects for animation: 'terminal_2'" when using Terrasync data at KSFO, And this one seems to be new: Failed to create alias at /controls[0]/refuelling[0]/refuelling-drogues-pos-norm [0]. Source /sim[0]/multiplay[0]/generic[0]/float[2] is already aliasing another property. Failed to set alias to /controls/refuelling/refuelling-drogues-pos-norm With that I'll get back to some more useless eye-candy of passing sub-models over mp which I left as a TODO more years ago than I care to mention. I promise not to break anything though :-). Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hi Vivian, I'm not going to address the high level debate, but I have some specific comments. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: > I think a more general concern would be that we seem to be developing 3 or 4 > different Flightgears, in which different things work or not as the case > might be: > > Rembrandt > > Basic weather/Advanced Weather > > Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) I've just put in some effort recently to ensure that Basic Weather can take advantage of ALS properly. So while we retain two weather models, there's no longer a dependency of ALS on Advanced Weather. So we're moving in the right direction here. I've also taken a bit of a look at merging Rembrandt and ALS, and I think I understand the Rembrandt pipeline enough that I could add ALS to it. I'm very keen to promote a more consistent experience so that new users don't encounter confusing differences between alternative rendering schemes, and I'm prepared to put time into making that happen. I'll take a look at the wake shader if you want, but I supect you'd prefer me to fix some of the other issues you raised below first :). > Right now FG seems like a mess with lots of things which "used to work > (tm)": > > Screenshot directory entry in the gui doesn't work > > Ditto Terrasync directory > > Tree textures are misaligned (here anyway) > > Manual Weather Input. > > Effects as above. > > I know that this isn't all to do with you - Well, two of these at least are within my bailiwick (tree textures and manual weather input). Manual weather input is on my TODO list, and I'll address the tree texture issue in the other thread. I've not had any time to look at the screenshot/terrasync directory issue. I strongly suspect that I could fix it, but I only have so many hours in the day, and as mentioned before am spread pretty thin. Personally I think most of the active FG devs are currently very overstretched in terms of the areas that they have ownership of, which is affecting how much can actually be done. Fundamentally we need more core devs. -Stuart -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thursday 25 April 2013 15:41:54 henri orange wrote: > Here is quoted Renk sentence himself: > "I hope you have the fairness to ask FredB to remove Rembrandt then as well, > because we need to ship the default rendering scheme such that users > without good graphics cards..." I know, you cited it the first time as well. But it simply does not mean what you obviously think it means. That's why I kindly asked you, to have someone explain it to you in your native language. Thorsten only said, that _if_ you ask him to remove ALS because of concern for users without good graphics cards, you should aks FredB as well to remove Rembrandt, because the same argument would apply. Not doing it just shows that different standards are applied which is simply unfair. > Does'nt ATI known to be the wrong choice to play FG ? No it doesn't. To cite http://wiki.flightgear.org/Supported_Video_Cards "you should be fine with any Nvidia or AMD/ATI products having 512-1024MB of *dedicated* video memory". > Said before you are in difficulty because of ATI. Ok, so I'm in difficulty because of ATI (which do not even exist anymore, it's been AMD for 7 years now) and therefore Rembrandt is ok. But if you have problems with ALS, it's not your NVIDIA hardware that's the problem, but ALS. Because clearly, your hardware is more important than mine and FG developers should develop for your system only. Right? > I know my english is wrong, however, i know the difference between VARIANT > and OPTION. > Right know there is options with shaders , clouds weathers etc. > Variants with Rembrandt and ALS. So please enlighten me and tell me what in your eyes is the difference between a variant and an option and why the distinction is important. As a user, I can simply decide at runtime if I want ALS or not by clicking a checkbox in an options panel. So why is ALS a problem for a user who doesn't want to use it? Regards, Stefan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hi, Stefen > On Thursday 25 April 2013 14:45:05 henri orange wrote: > > So, your long answer to explain you don't like Rembrandt and you prefer > > to > > work on your own system, as just been underlined there by you. > > Your conclusion is "REMOVE REMBRANDT and keep up my own development" > > This clarify to everybody your approach. > > You want a flightgear without Rembrandt. > > Thorsten did not even remotly say anything like that. Your accusation is > completely uncalled for. If this is what you read in his last email, please > try to find someone who reads Thorsten's English the way he meant it and > have him explain to you. It would be a shame if a solution would fail due > to a language barrier. Here is quoted Renk sentence himself: "I hope you have the fairness to ask FredB to remove Rembrandt then as well, because we need to ship the default rendering scheme such that users without good graphics cards..." > > > You claim Rembrandt wants high level Hardware my 9600 GT 512 mb can > > process > > it. With An average of 20 fps ( disabling rembrandt and without ALS i > > never get more than 30 fps).> > On a Radeon HD 5670 I get 3 (in words: three) FPS with Rembrandt using the > free radeon drivers with lots of graphics problems and very ugly shadows. On > the other hand I get solid 15-20 FPS using ALS and pretty maxed out > quality. Does'nt ATI known to be the wrong choice to play FG ? > > Your ALS systems wants (when it is not crashing my system) a higher level > > capacity Hardware ( mostly GPU ) to work correctly, with every features. > > Maybe. On some systems it ALS might be a problem, on others it's Rembrandt. > > > You told us you had the most perfect equipment , you can't evaluate what > > is > > good or wrong with low level equipments. > > And you have only your own system for comparison. Just like I only got mine. > And yours and mine certainly don't match. So while maybe Thorsten cannot > give general adivse on FG's performance on low level equipment, neither can > you and neither can I. > Said before you are in difficulty because of ATI. At least i evaluate with an NVIDIA equipment. If i can do with a medium/low system, it can be done with a better (NVIDIA based) equipment. Don't try to trap me in an inconsistency logical mind :) These differences of performances versus one Factory system to an other ( NVIDIA, ATI, INTEL ) is due to OpenGL more or less correctly implemented within these GPU. Nothing else. And, but, change of policy within FlighGear, OpenGL remains. > > I don't mean i don't like ALS, i mean i don't like your approach , instead > > of working on consistency with the existing valuable features which were > > implemented within FlighGear, ( and by including Rembrandt), you ARE > > WORKING on a other FlightGear. > > > > You are working on a flightgear VARIANT, your work is not OPTIONS to > > flightgear. > > I can start FG, go to the rendering _options_ and turn ALS on and off, at > runtime, as often as I like. How is this not an option? I know my english is wrong, however, i know the difference between VARIANT and OPTION. Right know there is options with shaders , clouds weathers etc. Variants with Rembrandt and ALS. > > > Others , better than me, tried before me to tell you, you (are) were on > > the wrong way. > > And Thorsten time and again explained on solid technical grounds why he > implemented it the way he did, why he had to and what the consequences of > other approaches would have been. I have to date not seen anyone even > acknowledge these reasons, much less provide real arguments against them. > > Why Thorsten has not given up on this yet is just beyond me. This is not a > discussion, it's just handwaving and accusations. I'm just very glad, that > he didn't give up. So instead, I can enjoy as much of the great flying > experience as I can get during the long winter months. > > And just to be clear: I'd love to have all the goodies combined. Very nice > shadows provided by the Rembrandt defered renderer combined with stunning > ALS visuals and correctness and the performance of the default renderer > with all effects turned off. But that's simply not possible, so instead I > enjoy what _is_ possible. > > Regards, > Stefan -- -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Thorsten > > ..yes, but we also need some patience with non-native English writers > > who _should_ include their French etc original so we don't get people > > wound up on questionable translations of things that may warrant > > discussion > > For the record, there is a repeating pattern here on and off list and I don't > think I'm overreacting. I don't think "you are ignoring the flightgear users > community interest", "features should be compatible each other, and not > breaking each other" or "You call it Atmospheric Light Scattering, you could > call it Renk ALS" are particularly prone to mistranslation or are intended to > mean something else. > > I'm not wound up about wording here. I'm wound up about > > 1) Repeated insinuations that I would 'break' things. Somehow, nobody can > seem to come up with an example of what I have actually broken. So I think > I'm not out of line in asking that people either say what they think I broke > (and give me a chance to fix it) or shut up. > > 2) A complete lack of explanation why simply not switching on a completely > optional framework which they don't like is not an acceptable solution to > some people. > > 3) The inherent double standard in arguments that if other people do the > same thing it's completely okay, but if I do it it's very bad. > > Could somebody who disagrees with me just spell out what I'm supposedly > doing wrong, what I should rather be doing and explain to me why? Rather > than insinuating, making vague statements, expressing unspecified concerns, > hinting at some unspecified group which would be of the same opinion but > never committing to any statement which can actually be investigated? > Because I'd really really like to see that case reasoned. > ALS is very impressive work, but things broken? Have you forgotten the flag shader (now fixed), wake effect and rainbow effect? I don't have a particular problem with these and hope that they will be fixed eventually, although I note that do you seem to have raced on to other things while leaving the wake effect unfixed for some time. I rather fear that that's just going to get lost in the noise and general excitement over the latest bit of eye-candy. I think a more general concern would be that we seem to be developing 3 or 4 different Flightgears, in which different things work or not as the case might be: Rembrandt Basic weather/Advanced Weather Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) As a developer I have only just finished making my models Rembrandt compatible, and I don't know if I will ever be able to actually make use Rembrandt facilities in all of them. I'm sure that there are models in our inventory which haven't even got that far. As I understand it, ALS will include modelling facilities which will not work in the other flavours of FG. How is this meant to be used? Personally, I seem to be forever fixing things in my models that others have broken, to the extent that I'm not actually able to move my own work forward. That's how it feels anyway. In an ideal world everything would work and be compatible with everything else. I realise that might involve a number of intermediate steps to reach the final goal, but right now we seem to be moving our flavours further apart rather than converging them. What are aircraft developers and/or users meant to make of this ? As to Emilian's concerns, I don't really understand the technical details, but I do know that he felt that his advice and expertise was being ignored with the result that FG was headed in the wrong direction, so he folded his tent and left the project. Perhaps you received contrary advice, or considered that his advice wasn't of value, but we never had that debate IIRC. We could have done with not ending up like that. Right now FG seems like a mess with lots of things which "used to work (tm)": Screenshot directory entry in the gui doesn't work Ditto Terrasync directory Tree textures are misaligned (here anyway) Manual Weather Input. Effects as above. I know that this isn't all to do with you - but from where I'm standing we all seem to be a doing a fair representation of a headless chicken, rushing about in all directions without really finishing anything. I'm having difficulty keeping up with it, but I know that all this work has exciting potential. Oh - and btw the ALS still shows up a tear in the skydome that we have had right from the beginning. I thought perhaps it would be helpful if a native English speaker tried to put things in perspective, Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life sh
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thursday 25 April 2013 14:45:05 henri orange wrote: > So, your long answer to explain you don't like Rembrandt and you prefer to > work on your own system, as just been underlined there by you. > Your conclusion is "REMOVE REMBRANDT and keep up my own development" > This clarify to everybody your approach. > You want a flightgear without Rembrandt. Thorsten did not even remotly say anything like that. Your accusation is completely uncalled for. If this is what you read in his last email, please try to find someone who reads Thorsten's English the way he meant it and have him explain to you. It would be a shame if a solution would fail due to a language barrier. > You claim Rembrandt wants high level Hardware my 9600 GT 512 mb can process > it. With An average of 20 fps ( disabling rembrandt and without ALS i never > get more than 30 fps). On a Radeon HD 5670 I get 3 (in words: three) FPS with Rembrandt using the free radeon drivers with lots of graphics problems and very ugly shadows. On the other hand I get solid 15-20 FPS using ALS and pretty maxed out quality. > Your ALS systems wants (when it is not crashing my system) a higher level > capacity Hardware ( mostly GPU ) to work correctly, with every features. Maybe. On some systems it ALS might be a problem, on others it's Rembrandt. > You told us you had the most perfect equipment , you can't evaluate what is > good or wrong with low level equipments. And you have only your own system for comparison. Just like I only got mine. And yours and mine certainly don't match. So while maybe Thorsten cannot give general adivse on FG's performance on low level equipment, neither can you and neither can I. > I don't mean i don't like ALS, i mean i don't like your approach , instead > of working on consistency with the existing valuable features which were > implemented within FlighGear, ( and by including Rembrandt), you ARE > WORKING on a other FlightGear. > > You are working on a flightgear VARIANT, your work is not OPTIONS to > flightgear. I can start FG, go to the rendering _options_ and turn ALS on and off, at runtime, as often as I like. How is this not an option? > Others , better than me, tried before me to tell you, you (are) were on > the wrong way. And Thorsten time and again explained on solid technical grounds why he implemented it the way he did, why he had to and what the consequences of other approaches would have been. I have to date not seen anyone even acknowledge these reasons, much less provide real arguments against them. Why Thorsten has not given up on this yet is just beyond me. This is not a discussion, it's just handwaving and accusations. I'm just very glad, that he didn't give up. So instead, I can enjoy as much of the great flying experience as I can get during the long winter months. And just to be clear: I'd love to have all the goodies combined. Very nice shadows provided by the Rembrandt defered renderer combined with stunning ALS visuals and correctness and the performance of the default renderer with all effects turned off. But that's simply not possible, so instead I enjoy what _is_ possible. Regards, Stefan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Le jeudi 25 avril 2013 06:24:41 Renk Thorsten a écrit : Hello, Renk > I hope you have the fairness to ask FredB to remove Rembrandt then as well, > because we need to ship the default rendering scheme such that users > without good graphics cards (the integrated intels for instance) can use FG > at all, and neither Rembrandt not ALS are compatible with default. So, your long answer to explain you don't like Rembrandt and you prefer to work on your own system, as just been underlined there by you. Your conclusion is "REMOVE REMBRANDT and keep up my own development" This clarify to everybody your approach. You want a flightgear without Rembrandt. You claim we have to modify models to get it working with rembrandt, the same kind of work ( more difficult) had to be done when the shaders came up. And what about the FDM improvements? where the updates introduce more time and more difficulty ( talking about JSBSIM, since YASIM seems to be frozen ). Your claim is not receivable, since models must get the best improvements due to the last flightgear version. You claim Rembrandt wants high level Hardware my 9600 GT 512 mb can process it. With An average of 20 fps ( disabling rembrandt and without ALS i never get more than 30 fps). Your ALS systems wants (when it is not crashing my system) a higher level capacity Hardware ( mostly GPU ) to work correctly, with every features. Only the first ALS version tried out 2 years ago was good to me ( and some others later on, but not today) You told us you had the most perfect equipment , you can't evaluate what is good or wrong with low level equipments. > > I mean, what is this really about? You're seriously bothered by a framework > you especially have to activate, which doesn't break any of the features > you like to the degree that you blatantly ignore the significant group of > users who uses ALS and claim to represent 'the community' and invent > 'broken things' for which you can't give a single example'? And you expect > me to... do what? Code what you like instead of what I like? I don't mean i don't like ALS, i mean i don't like your approach , instead of working on consistency with the existing valuable features which were implemented within FlighGear, ( and by including Rembrandt), you ARE WORKING on a other FlightGear. You are working on a flightgear VARIANT, your work is not OPTIONS to flightgear. Others , better than me, tried before me to tell you, you (are) were on the wrong way. Unfortunately we are missing the Emilian's know how, he gave up because of that approach ( because of you). Hello Arnt, Yes English is not my native language, and wrong to me, mostly when i had not talked for a long time ( better with Arabic and partly French ). Ahmad, (Henri) > -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> ..yes, but we also need some patience with non-native English > writers who _should_ include their French etc original so we > don't get people wound up on questionable translations of things > that may warrant discussion For the record, there is a repeating pattern here on and off list and I don't think I'm overreacting. I don't think "you are ignoring the flightgear users community interest", "features should be compatible each other, and not breaking each other" or "You call it Atmospheric Light Scattering, you could call it Renk ALS" are particularly prone to mistranslation or are intended to mean something else. I'm not wound up about wording here. I'm wound up about 1) Repeated insinuations that I would 'break' things. Somehow, nobody can seem to come up with an example of what I have actually broken. So I think I'm not out of line in asking that people either say what they think I broke (and give me a chance to fix it) or shut up. 2) A complete lack of explanation why simply not switching on a completely optional framework which they don't like is not an acceptable solution to some people. 3) The inherent double standard in arguments that if other people do the same thing it's completely okay, but if I do it it's very bad. Could somebody who disagrees with me just spell out what I'm supposedly doing wrong, what I should rather be doing and explain to me why? Rather than insinuating, making vague statements, expressing unspecified concerns, hinting at some unspecified group which would be of the same opinion but never committing to any statement which can actually be investigated? Because I'd really really like to see that case reasoned. Thanks, * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:24:41 +, Renk wrote in message : > > Hi Henri, > > > However your approach is questionable. ..Stefan addressed this properly. ;o) > Please... can we keep some basic fairness and decency here? ..yes, but we also need some patience with non-native English writers who _should_ include their French etc original so we don't get people wound up on questionable translations of things that may warrant discussion. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Thursday 25 April 2013 01:34:12 henri orange wrote: > It is not the Atmospheric Light Scattering, we want. > > Referring to your explanation, and some other talks you had with Emilian ( > who unfortunately gave up ), you are ignoring the flightgear users > community interest. > It is not the Atmospheric Light Scattering, we want. Please do not pretend to speak for all FlightGear users. You may certainly speak for yourself, you may even represent some part of the users, but you do not speak for all of us. I am a user and let me make this clear: I love Atmospheric Light Scattering. I love that it makes the view in the simulation match almost perfectly what I see outside the window. For me as a VFR pilot, visibility is one of the most important parts of a simulation and ALS doesn't only get it right, it also looks stunningly beautiful at that. > We want, so far, a consistent flightgear system, any features should be > compatible each other, and not breaking each other. If you ask me, the way to achieve that is to just drop the default rendering scheme. It's clearly inferior and makes FG look quite unprofessional. But even though the free radeon drivers are nowadays good enough to allow me to use ALS, some people simply have not the hardware necessary for good performance. And for them the default rendering scheme may still have use. > What about Rembrandt ? To reproduce the reality, isn't it the main tool > which gives the best effect ? Won't the effort should done on that side ? Like for some people's machines ALS might be too much, Rembrandt certainly is too much for mine. Last time I tried, I still get graphics corruption and poor rendering performance, so it's not an option for me. And as I said, there are people with less powerful hardware than me. So if FG would only use Rembrandt, it would leave plenty of users behind. > I hope that the next Flightgear version will offer a consistent system and > not several independents systems ( including your Flightgear) which won't > be compatible each other. What about Thorsten' arguments? Why is it so important for _some_ users that the different rendering schemes support exactly the same features. Or in other words: why should ALS users have to forgo very nice features, just because the default rendering scheme does not support them? And why do you think Thorsten is responsible for implementing all features in all rendering schemes? If certain features are so important for you, why don't _you_ contribute? This is free software after all. Regards, Stefan -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Hi Henri, > However your approach is questionable. > I can understand you are working on an other FlightGear "variant" for > yourself. (...) > It is not the Atmospheric Light Scattering, we want. Who is the 'we' you're claiming to represent? I look at the FGUK weekly flight screenshots in the forum, and pretty much everyone there is using ALS. I look at some recent scenery projects (Russia, New Zealand) - and I see people playing with the procedural texturing of ALS. So *you* may not want it, but you're not representing 'the community', you're representing yourself here. And you know what? You can simply never switch it on if you don't like it, and that solves it all. It's a bit beyond me how you could possibly be bothered by a feature you currently actively have to switch on. (And even if I were the only person interested in using it, it would still be perfectly legitimate for me to work on what interests me rather than the rest of the users - this is my spare time we're talking about.) > You call it Atmospheric Light Scattering, you could call it > Renk ALS I could at that, but it's handed out to the community under GPL, so it doesn't belong to me, it belongs to whoever adheres to GPL. > We want, so far, a consistent flightgear system, any features should be > compatible each other, and not breaking each other. First, you haven't read what I wrote: There is nothing 'broken' by ALS - everything you're using when ALS is off works just the same as if you would remove the whole framework (if you disagree, name me a single Rembrandt feature that doesn't work any more because ALS blocks it). The only implementation which actually prefers Basic Weather consistently over Advanced Weather (and hence in a sense breaks things, although one can to some extend hack around it) is the environment interface of the default (and Rembrandt) rendering framework - which is designed by the very person who brought up the idea that I would break things. Second, you're applying double standards here. Rembrandt (which you like) is massively incompatible with the default rendering framework at a much deeper level. It requires to modify aircraft to even see through cockpits, it requires likewise to re-write every effect and shader. You seem to have zero issue with this, but taking your argument seriously, you would have to be against Rembrandt. Of course you personally like Rembrandt but not ALS, so it's okay if Rembrandt is incompatible with the default, but not ALS - I don't have a particularly high opinion of such types of arguments. > What about Rembrandt ? To reproduce the reality, isn't it the main tool > which > gives the best effect ? Won't the effort should done on that side ? What you're asking is really 'I like Rembrandt better, so why don't you work on it?' Let me ask you back - I like ALS better, so why don't you ask FredB to work on ALS instead? Makes just as much sense. As for Rembrandt being superior, Rembrandt is a different engine, not a set of different effects. As such, it has more potential, because it can potentially do the same things ALS can do and still add multiple light sources and shadows. As has been mentioned a few times, ALS can be ported to Rembrandt by re-writing the effects, but this isn't something I am personally so interested in that I would do it completely on my own, and unless a volunteer appears to do it with me, that's all there is to say. Currently I would claim that ALS delivers more realistic outside scenes at daytime and at sunrise/sunset, whereas Rembrandt wins for aircraft interior, close to the ground when shadows are important and at night where multiple light sources are important. > I hope that the next Flightgear version will offer a consistent system > and not several independents systems ( including your Flightgear) which won't > be > compatible each other. I hope you have the fairness to ask FredB to remove Rembrandt then as well, because we need to ship the default rendering scheme such that users without good graphics cards (the integrated intels for instance) can use FG at all, and neither Rembrandt not ALS are compatible with default. I mean, what is this really about? You're seriously bothered by a framework you especially have to activate, which doesn't break any of the features you like to the degree that you blatantly ignore the significant group of users who uses ALS and claim to represent 'the community' and invent 'broken things' for which you can't give a single example'? And you expect me to... do what? Code what you like instead of what I like? Please... can we keep some basic fairness and decency here? * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Le mercredi 24 avril 2013 06:58:41 Renk Thorsten a écrit : > It occurred to me yesterday that there seems to be a major misunderstanding > in the way Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) is perceived by different > people. So in order to avoid future misunderstandings, let me try to > clarify my side once again. > Vivian: > > Do we need to go down this road? We are breaking more and > > more for minimal gains. Did we ever restore the wake effect on the Carrier > > with Atmospheric Light Scattering? > > Emilian (a while ago): > > I have nothing about the core of the Advanced weather engine, I have an > > issue of how you interact with it, and how it interacts with other parts > > of the whole system... and in my view this is broken. > > > > I also have nothing against the idea of the atmospheric scattering, I have > > an issue with how it's done, which is suboptimal in my view... and again > > of how you can interact with it/ how it affects other systems, and how > > it's affected by other systems. > > The common theme here is the perception that something is broken, which is > naturally not my perception. For instance, the fact that ALS doesn't have a > wake shader effect indicates its brokenness the same way as the fact that > the default rendering doesn't have procedural texturing working - which is > to say, not at all. > > Vivian might correct me, but I think I finally understand where that notion > comes from. I think it comes from the view that ALS is in essence just > another way to compute fog and light for what the default rendering scheme > does, and from this perspective, any effect that doesn't work is indeed > broken. > > The original plan was indeed to implement things as just different fog and > light, there is still the parameter 'fog-type' in the effects which would > support such an implementation, and there was a 6 months window during > which Emilian and Vivian had the opportunity to implement it that way. As > this didn't happen (for whatever reason) I decided to ask for some help and > Fred kindly told me how to implement it as a different rendering framework > (i.e. loading a whole different effect rather than a different fog shader > only). > > So, from where I stand, that decision is done and it is now a different > rendering framework, which means clean slate, all effects have to be > written from scratch, with all the pros and cons to that (which we might > debate endlessly). So since this window of opportunity to start from > scratch happened, I took the opportunity to address a few things I saw as > shortcomings in the default rendering framework we had. Just to give a few > examples: > > * Environment interfacing: > > Emilian's view that the way ALS and Advanced Weather interact with the rest > is broken is... bold. Just to give an example for how he addressed the > interface, for instance the water shader needs to know the amount of > reflected light at the water surface in order to compute reflection. > > Emilian's and Vivian's version of the water sine shader solves this by > passing the cloud layer configuration settings of Basic Weather to the > shader and then compute in the fragment shader from that the amount of > light. This means that a) Advanced Weather has no chance (even > conceptually) of ever passing the correct information to the shader since > it doesn't use the Basic Weather config properties to create clouds and my > understanding is that it is even impossible to write these properties > without actually generating visible clouds interfering with what Advanced > Weather does, and that b) a quantity which changes in Basic Weather once a > few minutes (when a new METAR comes in) is computed about 60 million times > each second. I may not be a rendering wizard, but this doesn't sound like > the way to implement an environment interface to me. > > My supposedly broken interface references a single property 'light reaching > the ground' for the same purpose. That property isn't native to the > weather system, it can be set by hand with the browser without affecting > anything else but the shader or be computed by any weather system currently > running, i.e. shader control parameters are explicitly and always separated > from native weather system parameters. This means the computation can be > done if and only if needed, and the interface doesn't prefer one weather > system over the other. > > * Consistency > > I've witnessed quite a few forum discussions with people complaining that > they didn't think selecting higher quality shader settings would give them > higher quality visuals (usually this was about the crop and forest overlay > texture effects which some like and some don't - I have my opinion which is > irrelevant here). Likewise, snow and fog were not always consistent across > landclasses (I believe this is fixed now). > > Starting from scratch offered the opportunity to organize quality settings > with a clear idea in mind, using a consis
[Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
It occurred to me yesterday that there seems to be a major misunderstanding in the way Atmospheric Light Scattering (ALS) is perceived by different people. So in order to avoid future misunderstandings, let me try to clarify my side once again. Vivian: > Do we need to go down this road? We are breaking more and > more for minimal gains. Did we ever restore the wake effect on the Carrier > with Atmospheric Light Scattering? Emilian (a while ago): > I have nothing about the core of the Advanced weather engine, I have an issue > of how you interact with it, and how it interacts with other parts of the > whole system... and in my view this is broken. > I also have nothing against the idea of the atmospheric scattering, I have an > issue with how it's done, which is suboptimal in my view... and again of how > you can interact with it/ how it affects other systems, and how it's affected > by > other systems. The common theme here is the perception that something is broken, which is naturally not my perception. For instance, the fact that ALS doesn't have a wake shader effect indicates its brokenness the same way as the fact that the default rendering doesn't have procedural texturing working - which is to say, not at all. Vivian might correct me, but I think I finally understand where that notion comes from. I think it comes from the view that ALS is in essence just another way to compute fog and light for what the default rendering scheme does, and from this perspective, any effect that doesn't work is indeed broken. The original plan was indeed to implement things as just different fog and light, there is still the parameter 'fog-type' in the effects which would support such an implementation, and there was a 6 months window during which Emilian and Vivian had the opportunity to implement it that way. As this didn't happen (for whatever reason) I decided to ask for some help and Fred kindly told me how to implement it as a different rendering framework (i.e. loading a whole different effect rather than a different fog shader only). So, from where I stand, that decision is done and it is now a different rendering framework, which means clean slate, all effects have to be written from scratch, with all the pros and cons to that (which we might debate endlessly). So since this window of opportunity to start from scratch happened, I took the opportunity to address a few things I saw as shortcomings in the default rendering framework we had. Just to give a few examples: * Environment interfacing: Emilian's view that the way ALS and Advanced Weather interact with the rest is broken is... bold. Just to give an example for how he addressed the interface, for instance the water shader needs to know the amount of reflected light at the water surface in order to compute reflection. Emilian's and Vivian's version of the water sine shader solves this by passing the cloud layer configuration settings of Basic Weather to the shader and then compute in the fragment shader from that the amount of light. This means that a) Advanced Weather has no chance (even conceptually) of ever passing the correct information to the shader since it doesn't use the Basic Weather config properties to create clouds and my understanding is that it is even impossible to write these properties without actually generating visible clouds interfering with what Advanced Weather does, and that b) a quantity which changes in Basic Weather once a few minutes (when a new METAR comes in) is computed about 60 million times each second. I may not be a rendering wizard, but this doesn't sound like the way to implement an environment interface to me. My supposedly broken interface references a single property 'light reaching the ground' for the same purpose. That property isn't native to the weather system, it can be set by hand with the browser without affecting anything else but the shader or be computed by any weather system currently running, i.e. shader control parameters are explicitly and always separated from native weather system parameters. This means the computation can be done if and only if needed, and the interface doesn't prefer one weather system over the other. * Consistency I've witnessed quite a few forum discussions with people complaining that they didn't think selecting higher quality shader settings would give them higher quality visuals (usually this was about the crop and forest overlay texture effects which some like and some don't - I have my opinion which is irrelevant here). Likewise, snow and fog were not always consistent across landclasses (I believe this is fixed now). Starting from scratch offered the opportunity to organize quality settings with a clear idea in mind, using a consistently selected set of effects. Now, consistent doesn't necessarily mean superior, it just says it's all my idea of visual quality, not a mixture of different ideas. B
