Hi Tim,
> If I could give some gentle advice, perhaps based on out-of-date
> observations: you could really benefit from a serious study of
> computer graphics. I highly recommend the book "Real Time Rendering"
> by Akenine-Moller et al.
Thanks, that's actually not a bad idea. I think I'll get my
> Believe it or not, computer graphics researchers (not me) think about
> shader work in those terms too. It comes off as a bit pompous to
> assume that no one here would understand what you are talking about or
> be able to come up to speed on the math if necessary.
I'm assuming here that the mai
First of all, apologies for tuning out over the last year+. I have
been keeping an eye on things from afar, and am quite impressed with
all the goings on in the FlightGear world. This post did catch my
eye...
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> Admittedly, I can't really la
> Action plan for recovery :
>
> 1. Go straight to the point (actionee: Thorsten R.)
> 2. Write much shorter e-mails (actionee: Thorsten R.)
> 3. Read Thorsten's e-mails (actionee: rest of the world)
> Bertrand.
>
> (My) Life insurance : This is a miserable attempt of humour to try to
> remind eve
2012/7/9 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> b) You do not read carefully what I write.
[...followed by 7878 signs. Wow !!! ]
Action plan for recovery :
1. Go straight to the point (actionee: Thorsten R.)
2. Write much shorter e-mails (actionee: Thorsten R.)
3. Read Thorsten's e-mails (actionee: rest of th
Thorsten, you have email.
And to all others: sorry for making a big noise here!
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and ho
> So no reason the get polemic or arrogant:
>
>> I wrote 'scenery and models', I did not write 'trees'.
> ...
>> Which of these two statements did you find hard to understand?
Heiko, that didn't come out of the blue. That came after I took the time to
explain something, then explained it in diffe
Thorsten,
What I really, really hate in FlightGear's last years developement, is how the
ego of some people involved (yes, I think that's include me as well) seems to
make things and discussions more and more difficult. And this discussion shows
it again.
But maybe it is only the translation
>> I get to see a seamless
>> and plausible match between sky and terrain from ground level to low
>> Earth orbit, at all times of the day and under any weather condition.
>> Scenery and models are now rendered correctly with the sky at all locations
>> and
>> all times.
>
> Really? Look at th
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:16:40 +0100 (BST), Heiko wrote in message
<1340997400.27554.yahoomailclas...@web29505.mail.ird.yahoo.com>:
> Really? Look at the trees- Does they blend correct here?
> http://www.hoerbird.net/Treeblend.jpg
..yes, AFAICT and assuming this is an hazy overcast winter
evening
Emilian,
> There's only the default sky that works together with the "normal"
> shaders ,
> or the Atmospheric scattering stuff which supersedes the old "skydome
> shader".
> The Atmospheric scattering is a whole set of shaders, that interact to
> give a
> seamless horizon, and much more...
> T
Thorsten,
> No, it is not so now (at least for me that is, maybe there are problems
> with other cards/systems/... I'm not aware of). I get to see a seamless
> and plausible match between sky and terrain from ground level to low Earth >
> orbit, at all times of the day and under any weather cond
On Friday 29 June 2012 12:13:31 Edheldil wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 05:31 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> > I have no idea how to communicate it or present it.
> > That's why I hoped that we maybe can have all three skydome variants
> > selectable. So we would have the default skydome, the skydome shader and
On 06/28/2012 05:31 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> I have no idea how to communicate it or present it.
> That's why I hoped that we maybe can have all three skydome variants
> selectable.
> So we would have the default skydome, the skydome shader and the
> Lightfield/Haze aka Atmospheric shader select
> FIRST: I'm not criticing your work. Instead I really appreciate your
> work, as you try to make things right!
> But I criticise the way we handle new features. Due to this I can pretty
> well understand Freds concerns about adding a simple switch for enabling
> Rembrandt, which is a experim
Thorsten,
FIRST: I'm not criticing your work. Instead I really appreciate your work, as
you try to make things right!
But I criticise the way we handle new features. Due to this I can pretty well
understand Freds concerns about adding a simple switch for enabling Rembrandt,
which is a experime
My (completely biased) opinion:
> *2.6.0
> In 2.6.0 we had only the choice between default sky or Zan's sky shader.
> In both variants shaders on aircraft and on terrain worked, but there
> was the problem with horizon.
>
> It gave us pretty cool looking skies, as you can see on the 2.6.0
> ga
Hello,
> I'm lost.
> Can you explain and give screenshots? I am seeing correctly rendered
> terrain and reasonably rendered aircraft when using the atmospheric
> scattering.
> I'm not seeing detailed aircraft effects because the shader hasn't been >
> converted. In principle, I think here one
Heiko: > Thanks, that's now an answer I was looking for.
>
> Though I'm sure we will get bug reports as well by users complaining
> where the shader from 2.6.0 went, or why shaders won't work.
> Some of this confusion was already visible in the forum.
I don't want to bitch, but the thread starte
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 18:39:30 Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> > I think the problem now is that the nice scatter effect sky dome no longer
> > works correctly with any render mode in the git version. The scatter
> > effect sky dome will give you very pretty skies -- especially in
> > co
Hello all,
> I think the problem now is that the nice scatter effect sky dome no longer
> works correctly with any render mode in the git version. The scatter
> effect sky dome will give you very pretty skies -- especially in
> combination with advanced rendering, just don't look at the terrain
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 16:37:11 Heiko Schulz wrote:
>
> Is there a way we can have all three possibilities (default, skydome shader,
> Thorstens atmospheric light scattering) selectable?
>
> Cheers
> Heiko
Not quite, since both terrain-default and model-default effects have a
separate set o
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> > Is there a way we can have all three possibilities (default, skydome
> > shader, Thorstens atmospheric light scattering) selectable?
>
> Atmospheric light scattering should not be thought as different from
> skydome shader - it is the terr
> Is there a way we can have all three possibilities (default, skydome
> shader, Thorstens atmospheric light scattering) selectable?
Atmospheric light scattering should not be thought as different from skydome
shader - it is the terrain/model/whatnot shader combination consistent with the
skyd
Hello,
I noticed today that we can only decide between Thorstens Athmospheric Light
scattering which disables other shaders,
or FlightGear's Non-shaded Skydome.
For me it is a regression compared with 2.6.0.
So for me I have disabled the "predicate"-section in skydome.eff which enables
the A
Just to let you know that I'm aware of the issue and working on a fix. Hope to
push it tomorrow.
Cheers,
Gijs
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:12:50 +0200
> From: tom...@gmail.com
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shader menu structure
Hi,
Am 2012-06-25 09:46, schrieb Frederic Bouvier:
> Hi Gijs,
>
>> De: "Gijs de Rooy"
>
>> Pushed the dialog fixes yesterday, please report any issues.
>
> Please try this :
or even simpler:
- Disable custom settings
- Set slider to 5
- Enable custom settings
- Have a look at the Shader
Hi Gijs,
> De: "Gijs de Rooy"
> Pushed the dialog fixes yesterday, please report any issues.
Please try this :
- start fg without Rembrandt enabled
- enable atmospheric scattering
- exit fg properly (to record your settings)
- start fg with Rembrandt enabled
- see the problem ;-)
Regards,
-Fr
Pushed the dialog fixes yesterday, please report any issues.
Gijs
From: gijsr...@hotmail.com
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:53:29 +0200
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shader menu structure
Please try https://gitorious.org/fg/fgdata/merge_requests/163
Please try https://gitorious.org/fg/fgdata/merge_requests/163
We basically open a special shader dialog when the lightfield renderer is
enabled; a dialog
without all the shaders that are not supported. Also moved the atmospheric
sliders to that
dialog, as those are "advanced" options.
I did n
> So.if.someone.could.setup.a list of effect(combination)s that don't
> work, I can try to construct something.
>From my side:
Lightfields currently support
- of the detailed shader config dialog: water reflection (water slider) and
snow/dust (currently on landmass slider), all other sliders
> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:23:09 +
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Shader menu structure
>
> > Anyway, just reporting what I see, but I am sure other
> > users must get VERY confused by suc
> Anyway, just reporting what I see, but I am sure other
> users must get VERY confused by such strange - it works,
> then it does not work - behavior... but I suppose when
> it is all documented the sun will shine, and shadows
> cast...
Indeed. Forum reports suggest that users do get confused. So
33 matches
Mail list logo
