Heiko Schulz wrote:
> (wonders if Erik knows that we moved from plib to OSG... :-P)
I think I remember something like that .. :)
I've been busy for more than a year (maybe two) and didn't pay much
attention to FlightGear during that period.
Erik
---
Hi,
> However, the comparison is not fair, the xml is understood
> by everybody, it is
> integrated into FG ( wind effect ) versus the OSG script
> which was difficult
> to understand, it is not integrated into FG.
> My whish is to have both :) :)
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Gérard
That's not qui
On jeudi 09 octobre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Erik Hofman wrote (a long time ago)
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 30 September 2008 09:09
> > To: FlightGear developers discussions
> > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-dev
Hi,
> I didn't even know there was a difference between
> submodels and
> particles these days ... thanks for the info!
>
> Erik
there is a big difference, not only regarding perfomance and abilities!
Very nice to play with!
>
> (I start to wonder if the documentation isn't severely
> out of
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> It's been possible to attach a sub-submodel to a submodel for some time now
> (a year or so). See data\Aircraft\seahawk\Models\seahawk-submodels.xml and
> data\Aircraft\seahawk\Models\seahawk-subsubmodels.xml to see how it's done.
>
> Submodels are hard on frame rates, so
Erik Hofman wrote (a long time ago)
> -Original Message-
> From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 September 2008 09:09
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an accidently way to
> landinglights; -)?
>
>
gerard robin wrote:
> OSG script can be very complex with animations into animations regarding
> particles shapes, particles colors ... and so on.
This is what I have been missing when playing with submodel particles;
when ejecting a flare I can get the flashlight modeled correctly but
all
gerard robin wrote
>
> On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > gerard robin wrote
> >
> > > On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > > * Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 28 September 2008:
> > > > > The change wasn't/isn't even necessary (see above).
> > > >
> > > > Anot
* gerard robin -- Sunday 28 September 2008:
> The OSG animation particles models could be very accurate
> within XML, but unfortunately there is missing a lot of
> features ( more than a lot :) ) which are there within
> OSG native model.
OK, so you identified where the brainpower should have
gerard robin wrote
> > >
> > > On lundi 29 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > > > gerard robin wrote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, if I understand you correctly, there are no missing features,
> just
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > 2 bugs: z buffer and jitter. Tim has submitted a fix for
Hi,
> > > The result from FG xml script is very simple (
> not far from we had with
> > > PLIB
> > > effects ).
> > > OSG script can be very complex with animations
> into animations regarding
> > > particles shapes, particles colors ... and so
> on.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the probl
gerard robin wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 September 2008 15:45
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel]Bug or Feature? Or an accidently way to
> landinglights; -)?
>
> On lundi 29 septe
gerard robin wrote
>
> On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > gerard robin wrote
> >
> > > On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > > * Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 28 September 2008:
> > > > > The change wasn't/isn't even necessary (see above).
> > > >
> > > > Anot
Hi,
> I haven't noticed anything critical missing from the
> XML particles, and they
> do put the particles in the right frame of reference, and
> they do get the
> right wind, which the osg solution does not.
Here with win32 builds by Fred, I noticed that xml-particles linked to the
aircrafts
gerard robin wrote
>
> On dimanche 28 septembre 2008, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > * Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 28 September 2008:
> > > The change wasn't/isn't even necessary (see above).
> >
> > Another reason for the patch was that we could use OSG's
> > model embedded particles in the same scenery
* Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 28 September 2008:
> The change wasn't/isn't even necessary (see above).
Another reason for the patch was that we could use OSG's
model embedded particles in the same scenery. Now that
we have XML configured OSG particles, this reason is
obsolete, too. No reasons left, a
* Tim Moore -- Sunday 28 September 2008:
> You can call it whatever you like :) The consensus is not
> universally negative.
Fact is: there was no consensus at all. IIRC two people on IRC
agreed with you and later Curt on the list. None of them knew
that the patch was based on wrong assumptions.
Heiko Schulz wrote:
>
>
> --- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Sa, 27.9.2008:
>
>> Von: Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an accidently way to
>> landinglights; -)?
>> An:
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Sa, 27.9.2008:
> Von: Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug or Feature? Or an accidently way to
> landinglights; -)?
> An: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Datum: Samstag
* Heiko Schulz -- Saturday 27 September 2008:
> Can some explain why it loads the wrong file?
That's an intentional bug, a.k.a. (mis)feature. You can also call
it poor design. It was introduced after a discussion in this thread
(where my objection was overruled):
http://www.mail-archive.com/fl
Hi,
Today in MP I noticed an effect due to a bug, which isn't yet resolved on
win32. FGFS always loads OSG-Objects with correspondent name. Example:
I have a f16.osg on my disk under OopenSceneGraph/data and the the f16.ac under
FlightGear/data from CVS. When I choose the f16 I always get the f1
21 matches
Mail list logo
