Heiko wrote:
> And especially in FGFS not really Vertices is one of the big problems,
> but .xml's and nasal-scripts.
No, you can't say that in general. It quite depends on what you do and
what options you use. Whatever you compute, it costs some amount of
resource, and how long your frame takes
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
>
> I haven't really seen any guidelines about efficient shader coding, but
> I've come across a few statements here and in the forum now and then,
> which I so far assumed to be true. I've now spent the last few days
> benchmarking my lightfield/t
> Pushing most of the haze shader computation from the vertex to the
> fragment level would seem to suggest an approximately constant cost for
> the haze for the same view regardless of scenery complexity since the
> number of hazy fragments remain about the same.
Thanks for the explanations - tha
> > Pushing most of the haze shader computation from the vertex to the
> > fragment level would seem to suggest an approximately constant cost
> > for the haze for the same view regardless of scenery complexity since
> > the number of hazy fragments remain about the same.
>
> Thanks for the explan
> > > Pushing most of the haze shader computation from the vertex to
> > > the fragment level would seem to suggest an approximately constant
> > > cost for the haze for the same view regardless of scenery complexity
> > > since the number of hazy fragments remain about the same.
> >
> > Thanks fo
Am 06.02.2012 09:51, schrieb thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi:
> I guess my bottomline is that any code running on a per-frame basis should
> be made more efficient when it can be made more efficient, regardless if
> it is currently the limiting factor for someone or not, simply because it
> may be the limit
http://flightsimulatorplus.com/terms.html
Seems FSP or PFS or FPS or whatever has reinvented itself - that link showed on
my Facebook page just now for the first time in perhaps 6 months.
What shits me is that the site shows screenshots from v2.4.0 or from git, as
the new shader effects are sh
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
> http://flightsimulatorplus.com/terms.html
>
> Seems FSP or PFS or FPS or whatever has reinvented itself - that link
> showed on my Facebook page just now for the first time in perhaps 6
> months.
>
For those of you with YouTube accounts, please searc
Please refrain from providing real/full links to those websites. You help them
getting more exposure
on search engines etc. (these mailinglist discussions are available online)
Gijs
---
And they even have an old screenshot of FGSD showing LFPX (the airfield where I
used to fly in RL)
ROFL
-Fred
--
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsof
It is a very mixed bag when it comes to screenshots - some look good, some look
old (bad?), some look fake - surely that would be a give-away to warn people
away from it? :-)
Regards,
Chris Wilkinson, YBBN/BNE.
From: Frederic Bouvier
To: FlightGear develope
Hi,
On Sunday, February 05, 2012 22:29:18 Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Because no one, not Tim Moore, not me, not anyone, did say this!
> The wiki article is btw by Tim Moore.
>
> But they said, that the bottleneck of GPU's is not the vertice count, but
> other things. That never meant that you have to
Thorsten,
>> And especially in FGFS not really Vertices is one of the big problems,
>> but .xml's and nasal-scripts.
>No, you can't say that in general. It quite depends on what you do and
>what options you use. Whatever you compute, it costs some amount of
>resource, and how long your frame take
On 7 February 2012 03:24, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
> It is a very mixed bag when it comes to screenshots - some look good, some
> look old (bad?), some look fake - surely that would be a give-away to warn
> people away from it? :-)
>
And the 419 Nigerian scams doesn't work. Surely the suggestion of
14 matches
Mail list logo
