From: syd a. <ada...@gm...> - 2013-04-21 09:13:22
|
I agree.its nice if your system can handle it but id rather have a smooth flight. On Apr 20, 2013 9:12 PM, "Umara Setiawan" <uma...@ya...> wrote: > I'm fully agree... > All I want is fly... > > If those objects make my flight lagging (like there are 200.000 tons > additional luggage in my fuselage during take-off), then why we need them? > > Realistic cockpit is rather what a desk pilot needs, as long as it doesn't > make flying not fun anymore due to lag system > ------------------------------ > From: Trennor Turcotte > Sent: 4/21/2013 9:49 > To: fli...@li... > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1 > > Re: Scenery Question: > > For what it's worth, and I know there are those who are going to disagree > with this: but I think we're getting far too carried away with scenery in > some parts of FG. EDKK is a perfect example: someone has piled object upon > object upon object in that area to the point where FG is bogged down with > all of the extraneous and (unnecessary?) eye candy which has been installed > there. Even with AI deactivated, all large Boeings and Airbuses removed > from $FGROOT/Aircraft/ and replaced with AI aircraft so *they* don't > clog up the system, some users *still* get severe lag. One of our people > actually went in and discarded over two-thirds of the extraneous objects > which have appeared there recently, and distributed the stig file to a > limited numer of users who were affected this way, to the effect that on my > system at least, FG runs much smoother. > > Not everyone has a super gaming system with quad-core processing and an > *ultimate* gaming video card to process all of this information. I would > personally like to see some sort of reasonable control placed on this. Jomo > recently commented that this idea is a slap in the face to those who spent > all the time adding all that stuff to the scenery, but I personally think > that position is short-sighted in view of the facts I point out above. Why > continue a practise which is clearly detrimental to the efficient running > of the simulator? *Some* eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement, > but we don't *need* a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static > aircraft parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion > is to limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop > adding when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . " > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced > analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building > apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use > our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account! > http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-users mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users > > |