Maybe the scenery objects could have a level of detail association.
The users could then configure the level of scenery details they want
according to their computers capacity and that would automatically enable
or disable scenery objects.
Em 21/04/2013 00:11, "Umara Setiawan" <umara_...@yahoo.com> escreveu:
>
> 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: flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> 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
> Flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
