[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: flightgear-devel
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rendering runway markings in 2.0 scenery
From: Peter Sadrozinski <psadrozinski () gmail ! com>
Date: 2014-10-10 18:58:53
Message-ID: CAPi24C3sK7bsRTm18WUYFj6sH4sEFT1oT3NCQOQA7+KzuZLYkQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi Thorsten,
I believe Emilian wants to abandon polygon offset as well. His new shader
also moves the verticies.
Being done on the GPU rather than the CPU there is no concern of bumps when
you run over them.
One issue with testing on WS 2.0 airports is that the lines aren't really
coplanar. I have true draping now.
Pete
On Oct 10, 2014 12:22 PM, "Renk Thorsten" <thorsten.i.renk@jyu.fi> wrote:
>
> > Generally the problem with moving the vertices of co-planer surfaces is
> > that the problem returns when you fly a bit further away. So then you
> > need to move the vertices a bit further ...
>
> I guess for a line feature with a small width, the problem that the line
> gets smaller than a pixel and is picked up by the rasterizer only now and
> then hits you before the z-buffer accuracy becomes an issue. I've tested my
> solution against Emilian's existing one also from larger distance, and they
> both run into the same problem of being equally bad on my GPU. I'm guessing
> that issues such as z-fighting might have a driver dependence, so I'd be
> interested in how the two techniques compare also on other systems.
>
> Maybe we should just fade the lines to alpha based on distance like I do
> with small-scale noise features? I haven't really thought about how to
> render this best yet, and if the current implementation is to be replaced
> by something else in the mid-future, maybe I shouldn't burn too much time
> on this.
>
> * Thorsten
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<p>Hi Thorsten,</p>
<p>I believe Emilian wants to abandon polygon offset as well. His new shader also \
moves the verticies.</p> <p>Being done on the GPU rather than the CPU there is no \
concern of bumps when you run over them.</p> <p>One issue with testing on WS 2.0 \
airports is that the lines aren't really coplanar. I have true draping now.</p> \
<p>Pete</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 10, 2014 12:22 PM, "Renk \
Thorsten" <<a \
href="mailto:thorsten.i.renk@jyu.fi">thorsten.i.renk@jyu.fi</a>> wrote:<br \
type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br> > Generally the problem \
with moving the vertices of co-planer surfaces is<br> > that the problem returns \
when you fly a bit further away. So then you<br> > need to move the vertices a \
bit further ...<br> <br>
I guess for a line feature with a small width, the problem that the line gets smaller \
than a pixel and is picked up by the rasterizer only now and then hits you before the \
z-buffer accuracy becomes an issue. I've tested my solution against Emilian's \
existing one also from larger distance, and they both run into the same problem of \
being equally bad on my GPU. I'm guessing that issues such as z-fighting might \
have a driver dependence, so I'd be interested in how the two techniques compare \
also on other systems.<br> <br>
Maybe we should just fade the lines to alpha based on distance like I do with \
small-scale noise features? I haven't really thought about how to render this \
best yet, and if the current implementation is to be replaced by something else in \
the mid-future, maybe I shouldn't burn too much time on this.<br> <br>
* Thorsten<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer<br>
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports<br>
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper<br>
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer<br>
<a href="http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho" target="_blank">http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Flightgear-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net">Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel" \
target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel</a><br> \
</blockquote></div>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic