Re: Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 73, Issue 1
Trennor Turcotte <[email protected]> Sun, 5 May 2013 23:17:09 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.flightgear.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAC_bm91_Y66FovBmpxBgUMbbYa=dGc4aG2d0hvtJMeCaS+LXRA@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============4189424128955770375== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93408bf71861a04dc04f9a3 --14dae93408bf71861a04dc04f9a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 AJ wrote: >If it's a major problem for you, and you really want to fly from a particular airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove detail >than it is for others to add it... >AJ Vivan wrote: >I think there are messages here though: >We do need an effective LOD system so that the user can elect to see >none/some/all of the eye-candy. I think that's in hand - but might be a >little way off. One size doesn't fit all, and we shouldn't force it down the >user's throat. >Telling someone to go fly somewhere else isn't really a solution. Yes I know >it's true but ... it won't win FG too many friends. >We must optimise all our eye-candy - I think there's much to be done on that >- texture sizes, transparency, mesh sizes: some of our stuff isn't all that >well done. >Vivian Thanks, Vivian, for your input; this is the sort of suggestion for which I was hoping when I posted. Why should we have to move to another airport? Why should we be effectively banned from certain airports because there are those who are unwilling to take action on an issue which is fixable and is clearly slowing the sim down? True, there are other airports to which we can fly, but I'm in a virtual airline and EDKK is one of our major airports. So is EDDF, so is LOWI, two other airports I used to enjoy flying into, but now I cannot because someone spent a couple of afternoons "spicing them up." I'm not asking for total elimination of the eye-candy here, I'm simply asking that those who don't have the *ultimate* systems and are flying FG not to be effectively banned from these airports because our computers won't handle them. Let's not be part of the problem but part of the solution. I love the idea of selectivity and support its implementation; just knowing it's being considered and not rejected out of hand is encouraging. Thank-you. Tren --14dae93408bf71861a04dc04f9a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable AJ wrote:<br>>If it's a major problem for you, and you really want t= o fly from a particular airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove d= etail=C2=A0 >than it is for others to add it...<br><br>>AJ<br><br>Viv= an wrote:<br> <br>>I think there are messages here though:<br><br>>We do need an ef= fective LOD system so that the user can elect to see<br>>none/some/all o= f the eye-candy. I think that's in hand - but might be a<br>>little = way off. One size doesn't fit all, and we shouldn't force it down t= he<br> >user's=C2=A0 throat.<br><br>>Telling someone to go fly somewhere= else isn't really a solution. Yes I know<br>>it's true but ... = it won't win FG too many friends.<br><br>>We must optimise all our e= ye-candy - I think there's much to be done on that<br> >- texture sizes, transparency, mesh sizes: some of our stuff isn't = all that<br>>well done.<br><br>>Vivian<br><br>Thanks, Vivian, for you= r input; this is the sort of suggestion for which I was hoping when I poste= d. Why should we have to move to another airport?=C2=A0 Why should we be ef= fectively banned from certain airports because there are those who are unwi= lling to take action on an issue which is fixable and is clearly slowing th= e sim down? True, there are other airports to which we can fly, but I'm= in a virtual airline and EDKK is one of our major airports. So is EDDF, so= is LOWI, two other airports I used to enjoy flying into, but now I cannot = because someone spent a couple of afternoons "spicing them up." I= 'm not asking for total elimination of the eye-candy here, I'm simp= ly asking that those who don't have the *ultimate* systems and are flyi= ng FG not to be effectively banned from these airports because our computer= s won't handle them.=C2=A0 Let's not be part of the problem but par= t of the solution. I love the idea of selectivity and support its implement= ation; just knowing it's being considered and not rejected out of hand = is encouraging. Thank-you.<br> <br>Tren<br> --14dae93408bf71861a04dc04f9a3-- --===============4189424128955770375== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 --===============4189424128955770375== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users --===============4189424128955770375==--