Recent content by asmi

THAT is EXACTLY what I wanted to achieve! That's the way it's done now. The problem is that I couldn't even complete a reentry without running out of memory (due to massive amount of "small" heightmap tiles I go through in the process). So right now I just track heightmap usages and remove once...

First of all - I know what MMF are for and how to use them. Second, I've tried using "smaller" MMF windows (if I remember correctly it was around 100Mb), but the problem is heightmap files layout requires random access, so I ended up remapping MMF way too often. And this forces you to do a...

I'd suggest you to read again what you're responding to... I take this as insult unless you will explain to me how to fit multiple 2GB+ files within 2Gb of address space. Remember MMF needs address space, and it's shortage is what lead me to consider going 64bit.

No it's not - if that would be the case, the performance would be absent - thanks to certain API function (GDI, I'm looking at you)... ---------- Post added at 07:39 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ---------- Well maybe because L12 heightmap is more than 2Gb? But it's not about memory...

It's actually the other way around - this button has been implemented in "terrain" branch only.

Well as far as I understand, SLS is not about having something that can (and will) actually fly, but instead is mostly about keeping certain people employed... There is next to nothing "Shuttle-derived" that would actually be beneficial to use in EELV.

I would like to add a single point to plane vs capsule debate - on capsule in case of parachute failure you can (and usually do) use back-up one, but you can't have a second set of wings and replace them on the go...

Dan, bump maps are not required to have the same resolution as main diffuse texture, allthough it's preferred. If it's possible for you to use a single-channel texture format, that's the best option as far as space is concerned.

Oh, God... By saying "Displacement map == bump map == height map" I mean that it's the same physical object (same file). The fact that bump map it's not used for displacement doesn't mean that it can't be used for that - it's simply not implemented (yet), but can be implemented later. So even if...

Hmmm... What? How "Only normal maps are currently used" (BTW not true, Jarmonik has said that he had added bump maps support) means that "Displacement map == bump map == height map" is false? These three terms are just different names for the same thing :)

Displacement map == bump map == height map. There is no real need for both normal and bump maps since latter contains all information necessary to calculate the former. The only case that comes into my mind is when normal map has much higher resolution than bump map and so it conveys even more...

That's precisely why I prefer bumpmaps over normal maps any minute! There are plans to add displacement mapping and tesselation for vessels (and, possibly, for other objects like base meshes) - and this technique requires heightmap, normal map is not enough.

In DX11 bump map is taking precedence.

DX11 supports normal maps and I'm against removing that support. But as I've said before, between bump map and normal map I'd pick a former one because it conveys more information that normal map does, and any additional information can be useful.

It's easy enough both ways as bump map is essentially a heightmap. And having a heightmap is preferred compared to normal map, because you can always compute normal map from heightmap, but not the other way around. Also heightmaps allow for some advanced features like vessel tesselation, while...