On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> after some testing of the new scheme, I have two minor and one major
> comment. Minor stuff first:
>
> * how is the cloud density slider supposed to influence the clouds
> generated by add-cloud? Heiko claims that he gets to see
Hi Stuart,
after some testing of the new scheme, I have two minor and one major
comment. Minor stuff first:
* how is the cloud density slider supposed to influence the clouds
generated by add-cloud? Heiko claims that he gets to see an effect, I
tried to reproduce that but all that happened is tha
>
> Side remark: we now seem to have a speed limit: Whenever I exceed ~ 1600
> kt with the ufo I get
>
Okay, the speed limit on the intergalactic highway has been liftted. Make sure
to have your towel ready and count to 42. :-)
Cheers,
Durk
---
Hi All,
On 10 Oct 2011, at 10:55, Vadym Kukhtin wrote:
>
>
> 2011/10/10
> callsign Previous waypoint Cruise Departure airport 0xb85b380 Leg 5
> target_speed << 1004.05 speedFraction << 0.00287666 Currecnt speed << 1004
> Segmentation fault
>
>
> I got same segfault when stay solid in UFO.
> M
2011/10/10
> callsign Previous waypoint Cruise Departure airport 0xb85b380 Leg 5
> target_speed << 1004.05 speedFraction << 0.00287666 Currecnt speed << 1004
> Segmentation fault
>
I got same segfault when stay solid in UFO.
May be its Durk's traffic?
--
---
WBR, Vadym.
--
Hi Stuart,
> This should now be fixed, and the clouds should be white once more.
>
> Thorsten R. - regarding the 3000ft altitude offset problem, can you
> check that you haven't got an altitude set for the layer itself?
Offsets as such are okay. I used to have some models with internal
coordinat
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:53 PM, I wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan I wrote:
>> Thanks for the reports. I suspect something has gone wrong
>> with my merge. Unfortunately I wont be able to look at it until tonight.
>>
>> Sorry for breaking the build.
>>
>> -Stuart
>
> I've id
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Thanks for the reports. I suspect something has gone wrong with my merge.
> Unfortunately I wont be able to look at it until tonight.
>
> Sorry for breaking the build.
>
> -Stuart
I've identified what's gone wrong - the simgear code change
Thanks for the reports. I suspect something has gone wrong with my merge.
Unfortunately I wont be able to look at it until tonight.
Sorry for breaking the build.
-Stuart
On 7 Oct 2011, at 23:35, syd adams wrote:
> Me too , with ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Me too , with ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, wrote:
> On Friday 07 October 2011 19:38:54 Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:01, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>> > "Me too" on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest git.
>
>> >
>
>> > It's the sa
On Friday 07 October 2011 19:38:54 Durk Talsma wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:01, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > "Me too" on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest git.
> >
> > It's the same for me
>
> Me Too: (two Nvidia 9800GT cards + latest git).
Me (1, 2, 3 , 4.. ok that's 5)..
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:01, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> "Me too" on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest git.
>
> It's the same for me
>
Me Too: (two Nvidia 9800GT cards + latest git).
--
All of the
> "Me too" on the black clouds now ... nvidia graphics card + latest
> git.
It's the same for me
-Fred
--
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record o
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, wrote:
> Somehow, that didn't work out for me.
>
> * clouds are now black
>
> (see also
> http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7358&start=435#p139537
> in the Forum - I'm not the only one with that problem - the common theme
> might be an NVIDIA GPU he
> So, not only should the curved field be fixed, but there are also many
> more shading parameters available for the top/middle/bottom/shaded
> part of the cloud. See README.3Dclouds for details.
Somehow, that didn't work out for me.
* clouds are now black
(see also
http://flightgear.org/forums/
> Torsten has kindly committed my recent merge requests.
>
> So, not only should the curved field be fixed, but there are also many
> more shading parameters available for the top/middle/bottom/shaded
> part of the cloud. See README.3Dclouds for details.
Thanks, I'll pull this right away!
* Thors
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:36 PM, I wrote:
> Yes - I've managed to repro the problem. My previous fix was insufficient.
>
> I've got another fix, that I think solves the problem, but unfortunately I've
> got a bunch of simgear merge requests stacked up on gitorious right
> now, so it may be some ti
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
>>> What's the status of the flat layer on curved Earth problem by the way?
>
>> This should have been fixed since September 12th in git.
>>
>> https://gitorious.org/fg/simgear/commit/d2dfb81a0907276f36cf7582c4274fa1784972d6
>>
>> Are you still
>> What's the status of the flat layer on curved Earth problem by the way?
> This should have been fixed since September 12th in git.
>
> https://gitorious.org/fg/simgear/commit/d2dfb81a0907276f36cf7582c4274fa1784972d6
>
> Are you still seeing the problem?
Unfortunately yes. I've pulled and comp
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> What's the status of the flat layer on curved Earth problem by the way?
This should have been fixed since September 12th in git.
https://gitorious.org/fg/simgear/commit/d2dfb81a0907276f36cf7582c4274fa1784972d6
Are you still seeing the prob
>> I see. So what do I do when I want to change the wind and want the
>> clouds
>> to follow the new setting? Simply do a setprop for the layer height
>> setting it to the same value it was?
>
> For the moment, Yes.
>
> At some point in the future we should fix it so that we're picking up
> the win
On 1 Oct 2011, at 11:25, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> I see. So what do I do when I want to change the wind and want the clouds
> to follow the new setting? Simply do a setprop for the layer height
> setting it to the same value it was?
For the moment, Yes.
At some point in the future we should fix it
Hi Stuart,
> (Apologies if I've missed this already) Are you planning put this into
> git?
Should actually be in now - you might have to activate it though, because
I haven't changed the gui and some menu options cause errors with the new
rendering system because they are not implemented or obs
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
>>> 3) Antishading
>
>> If you can provide the parameters of a cloud that is exhibiting the
>> problem, that would be most useful.
>
> Okay, I've decided over the weekend that I'll make my current code
> available this week, because there's so m
Hi,
On Monday, September 12, 2011 00:18:47 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> The problem definitely seems to be that any other objects in the scenery
> with an alpha layer are rendered after the clouds, so are rendered in
> front of them, irrespective of the viewpoint and their relative positions.
> By
>
>> 3) Antishading
> If you can provide the parameters of a cloud that is exhibiting the
> problem, that would be most useful.
Okay, I've decided over the weekend that I'll make my current code
available this week, because there's so much new stuff in which is not
related to the transition to the
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 23:18 +0100, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Unfortunately, fixing this is going to require someone with more knowledge of
> OSG than I have. The problem is that the 3D clouds are in an earlier
> rendering bin
> from the scenery models with transparent textures, which means that th
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 23:18 +0100, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> >> I'd really like the 3D cloud infrastructure to be used for all the
> >> clouds, so
> >> if there are features missing we should address them.
> >>
> >> Would it be possible to mod
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
>> I'd really like the 3D cloud infrastructure to be used for all the
>> clouds, so
>> if there are features missing we should address them.
>>
>> Would it be possible to modify the 3D clouds so that they can be used for
>> the rain texture as
Hi Stuart,
> I'd really like the 3D cloud infrastructure to be used for all the
> clouds, so
> if there are features missing we should address them.
>
> Would it be possible to modify the 3D clouds so that they can be used for
> the rain texture as well? For example, I could provide a sprite
> di
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> 1) placement in flat layer instead of curved
OK. I'll get the fix for this committed as soon as I get the
chance.
> 2) clouds don't obscure some objects (newly discovered)
This may be a problem related to the rendering order of objects
wit
Hi Stuart,
> Thorsten R. - please feel to provide a prioritized list of
> fixes/enhancements you need.
A summary list of current issues ordered by priority (leaving out what
your recent commit addressed - I still need to pull that):
1) placement in flat layer instead of curved
That is currentl
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM, I wrote:
> Yes, it's a bug in the cloud positioning code which is placing the clouds
> in a completely flat layer rather than curved.
>
> Fixing this may be a bit tricky.
I've got a fix for handling this on intial placement, but I've still to extend
the fix to hand
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, wrote:
> ... and yet another issue:
>
> On a first long-range test yesterday, I observed that the cloud base of my
> convective layer was continuously rising. At takeoff the clouds were
> exactly as specified, later still plausible given terrain, but by the time
>
... and yet another issue:
On a first long-range test yesterday, I observed that the cloud base of my
convective layer was continuously rising. At takeoff the clouds were
exactly as specified, later still plausible given terrain, but by the time
the cloudbase had reached my curise altitude of 20.0
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> Thanks. I have to take a look at the max-cloud-height-m - currently I'm
> only setting min-cloud-height-m for the following reason:
>
> It seems to me that the cloud *center* gets placed at (alt-ft +
> layer_altitude), such that (0.5 * clou
> I've got a patch to do this that I'll submit shortly. the parameter is
> , and it defaults to false.
>
> I'm also taking the opportunity to change some of the defaults, so that
> the
> max-[cloud|sprite]-[width|height]-m> parameters default to 1.5x the min
> equivalent.
>
> I suspect it won't mak
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
>> Yes, the sprite is selected from the sheet randomly on the x-axis and
>> based on it's height in the cloud on the y-axis for precisely this
>> reason.
>>
>> The behaviour isn't switchable at present though it could be.
>>
>> For the relativ
> That should be < 1 second for most systems, so that's great. Does that
> just cover the elevation queries or generating the full model?
That should be < 1 sec for everything (I don't have any measurement for
how fast generating the cloud models is, but it is *very* fast.
> If so, then I wonder
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
>
> Some progress and minor issues:
>
> I am in the process of redoing textures and cloud definitions for Cu
> layers (the toughest nut), about halfway through converting all available
> cloud types.
>
> I have implemented tested tile managemen
Some progress and minor issues:
I am in the process of redoing textures and cloud definitions for Cu
layers (the toughest nut), about halfway through converting all available
cloud types.
I have implemented tested tile management functionality (automatic
building and removing clouds) and it seem
float height = min_height + sg_random() * (max_height - min_height) -
min_sprite_height;
> 1) If there is a lot of variability between the
> min-sprite-[height|width] and max-sprite-[height|width]
> the cloud will go outside its bounds. So we aren't completely limiting
> the cloud width/height.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
>> We should change the maximum to whatever you feel is sensible
>> (40km?), and leave the default as it is (20km).
>
> I think my current maximum is 45 km, and for much more one needs a
> different tile structure anyway, so if we could get 45 k
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten wrote:
>> I think the problem is that you are expecting the cloud height to
>> indicate the location
>> of sprite centers, wherease the code is expecting it to be the height
>> of the actual
>> cloud.
>>
>> The code actually _subtracts_ the minimum texture h
> I think the problem is that you are expecting the cloud height to
> indicate the location
> of sprite centers, wherease the code is expecting it to be the height
> of the actual
> cloud.
>
> The code actually _subtracts_ the minimum texture height from the cloud
> height to determine where to pla
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> Upon further reflection - could it be the problem that I'm trying to
> assemble a layer rather than fill a volume?
>
> The bottom shading in 3dcloud.vert is controlled by a combination of
> 'shade' and 'cloud_height'. Your Nasal interface doe
> Instead there are two shadings taking place:
> 1) Shading based on distance of the sprite to the sun. Effectively
> we compare a vector from the center of the cloud to the sprite location
> with the light normal.
> 2) Shading based on the vertical placement of the sprite in the cloud, so
> lower
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 14:43 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
>> > Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to
>> > the new
>> > system so far here:
>> >
>> > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7358
> On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 14:43 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> > Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to
> > the new
> > system so far here:
> >
> > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7358&start=390#p132335
> >
> > Stuart - please help: I get anti-
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 14:43 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to the new
> system so far here:
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7358&start=390#p132335
>
> Stuart - please help: I get anti-shadowing for Stra
Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to the new
system so far here:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7358&start=390#p132335
Stuart - please help: I get anti-shadowing for Stratus clouds, and I don't
really understand why...
* Thorsten
-
>> Even though your previous testing showed no perf difference between the
>> default 3d clouds and the models, I am slightly disappointed there isn't
>> some
>> intrinsic perf benefit to the default 3d versions.
>
>
> It's not been a fair comparison as such. Let me try building clouds from
> the s
> Even though your previous testing showed no perf difference between the
> default 3d clouds and the models, I am slightly disappointed there isn't
> some
> intrinsic perf benefit to the default 3d versions.
It's not been a fair comparison as such. Let me try building clouds from
the same textu
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM,wrote:
>
> I've finally (I guess you all know the feeling of too much other stuff to
> do...) managed to start some tests with Stuart's Nasal interface for 3d
> cloud generation. Right now there is only a very rough placement structure
> and no real management (no rem
54 matches
Mail list logo
