I wrote:
> I can confirm this. Layers on the 2D panels (but oddly, only the 2D
> panels) aren't drawing over the background with the current ATI
> drivers.
OK, this turns out to be a trivial fix, although I still think it's a
driver bug. There are two calls to glPolygonOffset in the panel
rendering code (shared by both 2D and 3D panels). One is called
per-layer, and sets up a layer-specific offset. The other is called
for drawing the background textures, to lift them off of any
underlying cockpit geometry.
I was using different "factor" values for each, incorrectly. Patch
attached. It was affecting only 2D panels because the 3D ones don't
use background images.
Problem is, by my reading of the specification the bug should have had
the effect of pushing the background texture *farther* behind the
instruments, instead of pulling it on top of them. Either I'm reading
the spec incorrectly or ATI has inverted the sense of the factor
argument. Dunno, I'll submit a bug report to them and see what
happens.
Link the standalone executable against the source files explicitly rather
than libYASim, as the Irix linker can't handle the unneeded dependance on
other parts of FlightGear.
isn't well-constrained by the solution process is the drag-vs-aoa curve.
The default value that YASim picked was very steep, and resulted in most
of the jets flying their approaches *way* behind the power curve. This
changes the default to be more forgiving, and adds an "idrag" tunable
to the configuration file for tweakers.
Also, change the default gear springiness to be less stiff.
Changed steering to use the rudder command rather than the rudder
position. During taxi, the rudder trim shouldn't affect the steering
in any serious way.
This should be configurable in the aircraft file, since not all
aircraft use the rudder pedals for ground steering.
[In FlightGear, this may make it easier to taxi straight.]
I have updated the lighting code to use fog to try to fade the runway lights
in smoothly, but still keep them from being visible until you are about 7-10
miles out, and then only have them be very faint at first. I think what I
have is a bit nicer than before since it completely avoids the "popping" effect,
but I've very open to tweaking the actual ranges based on people's real
world experiences.
option to specify a starting airport + specific runway. If you don't specify
a runway, you get the one that's closest to your specified (or default)
heading.
To compile the development CVS version of FlightGear(0.9.0) i had to
apply some small changes to SimGear and FlightGear.
The changes need probably some additional ifdefs for other platforms but
since my linux-hd crashed i can't verify that.
Here's a patch to fix the offsets bug. The problem was the transform was just
getting added to a local instance rather than being returned by the function.
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > How hard would it be to have a property that toggles hotspot
> > visibility? It'd be nice to be able to turn it on and have yellow
> > rectangles show up on the hotspots...
>
> That's not a bad idea.
It's actually an astoundingly good idea, and implementable over lunch
to boot. :)
Try the attached patch, which predicates the boxes on the
/sim/panel-hotspots property. I mapped a toggle event on this to a
spare joystick button, and had fun. :)
[dpm: bound to Ctrl-C]
avoid having the 2D instruments obscure 3D objects in front of them):
It's related to depth buffer precision. On my Geforce cards (2MX and
3), it never happens with the 24 bit depth buffer you get by default
at 32bpp. At 16bpp, it picks a slimmer depth buffer (probably 16 bit)
and the texture layers bleed through.
The code is using a pretty big argument to glPolygonOffset, and I've
never investigated how small it can be. If someone has a little time
the next time they see this issue, try changing the value of
POFF_UNITS at the top of Cockpit/panel.cxx. Decrease it until the
textures *just* start to interfere with each other, and post the value
that works for you.
The general idea is to help clean up some aspects of the FDM init and be
able to provide startup conditions in a less ambiguous manner.
Previously, things like positions, orientations, and velocites were set on
"the bus". These had to be read by the FDMs which then were supposed to
initialized themselves to those values and turn write around and start
modifying those values. It was messy and cumbersome.
Now, all the initial fdm conditions are written to a sub-[property-]tree
under /sim/presets/
The values in /sim/presets/ always stay set to what the user has specified.
The user can change these at his/her liesure, and then request a "reset"
which will reset to the new conditions. I don't even want to say how this
worked before. :-)
Now, an script, or gui interface can stage a set of initial conditions while
the sim is running (without disrupting it), and then call "reset" to commit
the change.
People who should worry about all this are FDM writters, and a small few
others who care about over all program structure and flow.
