Jon Berndt writes:
>
> > From: Norman Vine
> >
> > FWIW - for comparison purposes here is a non-overzoomed
> > 10m pixel image of an area I am quite familiar with :-)
>
> Very nice. I zoomed way in.
>
> BTW, you have a thread hanging off your collar in the back. Nice shirt.
You have some po
On 1/22/03 at 10:09 PM Norman Vine wrote:
>David Luff writes:
>> >Hard to tell but it looks like their scenery is cutoff at ~15 miles
>> >and you can't really tell from jpegs and don't know what LOD
>> >is being shown in the 'snaps' but I would guess that this is
>> >several < 2 - 4 > meter per pi
> From: Norman Vine
>
> FWIW - for comparison purposes here is a non-overzoomed
> 10m pixel image of an area I am quite familiar with :-)
Very nice. I zoomed way in.
BTW, you have a thread hanging off your collar in the back. Nice shirt.
;-)
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signa
David Luff writes:
> On 1/22/03 at 9:20 PM Norman Vine wrote:
>
> Yes, it appears to have created quite a stir among the MSFS users here in
> England. I'll almost certainly buy a copy myself once Northern England
> comes out.
>
> >
> >Hard to tell but it looks like their scenery is cutoff at ~15
On 1/22/03 at 9:20 PM Norman Vine wrote:
>Very nice :-)
Yes, it appears to have created quite a stir among the MSFS users here in
England. I'll almost certainly buy a copy myself once Northern England
comes out.
>
>Hard to tell but it looks like their scenery is cutoff at ~15 miles
>and you can'
Jon Stockill writes:
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> http://www.visualflight.co.uk/photoscenery/intro.htm
>
> It appears a company has decided to tackle the whole of the UK in FS2002.
>
> Just to give you some idea of the data involved - the first volume they
> released, which is just the east and
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stockill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance analysis
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Norman Vine wrote:
>
> > FWIW It has always seemed pretty big to me and I definate
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Norman Vine wrote:
> FWIW It has always seemed pretty big to me and I definately am not
> ready to implement 'photo texture' for the planet, except for selected
> inserts which btw I am doing with the above data set as a base :-)
> < this is not publically available yet how
For anyone interested, I've started a Wikipedia entry for the Piper
Cherokee family:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing l
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> Norman Vine writes:
> > Here is some *excellent* global data for a start on this
> > http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/
> >
> > WARNING THE COMPLETE SET OF DATA FILES IS HUGE
> > and will require an additional download of approx 70 MB
> > for the min
Norman Vine writes:
> Here is some *excellent* global data for a start on this
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/
>
> Here is the home page of a viewer
> http://www.andesengineering.com/BlueMarbleViewer/
>
> an *unsupported* beta native Win32 port lives at
> http://rockfish.n
Curtis L. Olson
>
> One idea would be to generate the entire earth in different levels of
> detail and switch based on altitude. At higher altitudes, all your
> tiles will likely cover more area and contain less information, so you
> could make a scheme like that potentially work. However, then
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:53:59 +1100
Bernie Bright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Forward declarations must be in a namespace:
namespace JSBSim {
class FGState;
class FGAtmosphere;
class FGFCS;
class FGPropulsion;
class FGMassBalance;
class FGAerodynamics;
class FGInertial;
class FGAircraft;
class FG
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:50:55 -0600
"Jon Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't something like this work?
> >
> > Either:
> >
> > using namespace jsbsim
> >
> > or
> >
> > using jsbsim::FGFDMExec
> > etc...
> >
> > at the top of the files
> >
> > or
> >
> > fdmex = new jsbsim::FGFDMExec
>
Michael Pujos writes:
> You're absolutely right and IMHO it should be a long term goal to have a
> terrain renderer (in a terrain interface architecture why not) that
> supports long viewing distance and very detailed terrain with good
> performance at high flying speeds and altitude (for example f
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 18:56, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> David Megginson writes:
> > Continuous LOD is probably a non-starter for us -- at least, the
> > implementations I've read about assume a regular elevation grid with a
> > simple texture mapped on top, and that doesn't describe the way we
> > mo
Michael Pujos wrote:
> Yes but there are techniques to sustain high poly count, none of which
> would be easy to integrate in flightgear. One great demo of high poly
> count terrain rendering with LOD is the chunked LOD demo from Thatcher
> Ulrich (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tu-testbed). This
David Megginson writes:
> Continuous LOD is probably a non-starter for us -- at least, the
> implementations I've read about assume a regular elevation grid with a
> simple texture mapped on top, and that doesn't describe the way we
> model scenery. If someone wants to try that, you'll probably wa
Michael Pujos writes:
> Yes I agree it would need to be done from scratch. I'm considering
> giving it a go. Another aspect of LOD rendering is you can't use OpenGL
> lighting since geometry is always changing, so lightmaps must be used
> for lighting. Vertex morphing is required so the terrai
I did some profiling of flightgear because I'd like to
optimize performance of the terrain culling + rendering which is bad
when terrain fog is far, that mean when there is a lot to render and
cull in the scene graph.
Performance is fine with the default fog distance though but it gets
very bad wh
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 17:14, David Megginson wrote:
> Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
>
> > There was a discussion quite a while back about decreasing the
> > terrain level of detail (LOD) as the terrain distance increased so
> > that frame rates could be increased. Do you know if that LOD
> > concep
Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
> There was a discussion quite a while back about decreasing the
> terrain level of detail (LOD) as the terrain distance increased so
> that frame rates could be increased. Do you know if that LOD
> concept looked promising for FG?
Continuous LOD is probably a non-sta
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 16:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> There are a couple things to bear in mind.
>
> The further you push out the visibility, the more tiles you have to
> load into memory to cover the expanded visible area. These tiles
> consume memory.
>
> The more area you are drawing, the m
Michael,
I am very glad to see that you are willing to tackle increasing the
efficiency of the scenery system. I for one, would like to increase the
visibility to "see where I am flying." (Perhaps, that is why I fly in the
North West.)
There was a discussion quite a while back ab
There are a couple things to bear in mind.
The further you push out the visibility, the more tiles you have to
load into memory to cover the expanded visible area. These tiles
consume memory.
The more area you are drawing, the more polygons you are rendering.
This puts a bigger load on your cpu
I did some profiling of flightgear because I'd like to
optimize performance of the terrain culling + rendering which is bad
when terrain fog is far, that mean when there is a lot to render and
cull in the scene graph.
Performance is fine with the default fog distance though but it gets
very bad wh
> Wouldn't something like this work?
>
> Either:
>
> using namespace jsbsim
>
> or
>
> using jsbsim::FGFDMExec
> etc...
>
> at the top of the files
>
> or
>
> fdmex = new jsbsim::FGFDMExec
> etc...
>
> everytime its needed.
>
> Cheers - Dave
You would expect it to, wouldn't you. I added "using na
On 1/22/03 at 7:12 AM Jon Berndt wrote:
>I copied over Bernie's changes for namespaces, but have not been able to
>get the code to compile with FlightGear. The files JSBSim.cxx|hxx need to
>be aware of the new namespace scoping of JSBSim, and I can't seem to get
>it to work. Suggestions?
Wouldn't
I copied over Bernie's changes for namespaces, but have not been able to
get the code to compile with FlightGear. The files JSBSim.cxx|hxx need to
be aware of the new namespace scoping of JSBSim, and I can't seem to get
it to work. Suggestions?
Jon
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signa
29 matches
Mail list logo
