Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[AJ M. <aj-...@ad...>]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:48:09 -0500
Trennor Turcotte wrote:

> *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 . . . "

Given that (making up figures now) 99% of the FG world is unrealistically almost completely barren of objects - why not just fly somewhere else, that hasn't been painstakingly recreated?

Whenever my own system is lagging a bit behind the state of the art, that's exactly what I do - I don't see why other people who have invested money in high-performance machines shouldn't get a chance to fly from more realistic airports when we've got the rest of the world to fly from?

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
--