Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 73, Issue 1

[Trennor T. <tre...@gm...>]

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