On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote:
Hal,
I can't follow your logic - because there are some aircraft that need a lot
of work, the system shouldn't recognize advanced features in other
aircraft that do have them?
I should have been clearer - Sorry. What I was trying
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:26:18 PM Robert wrote:
I absolutely agree with Vivian. The users should know about planes that
need much resources (CPU, RAM, VRAM).
This value should not influence the total score.
I think how much compute power is needed and how difficult a model is to
use/fly
Adding to Hal's comments:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote:
I also disagree with Stuart that such advanced
features are nice-to-haves and add little to the simulation - why the hell
are we including them then? Do the
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 May 2011 23:45
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux (was Re:Flightgear-devel
Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12)
On Monday, May 30, 2011 12:47:41 PM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I don't have a good answer for the other items
I absolutely agree with Vivian. The users should know about planes that need
much resources (CPU, RAM, VRAM).
This value should not influence the total score.
Maybe using the total score is not a good idea at all, because some users
prefer the eye candy and don't worry about frame rate too much,
5 matches
Mail list logo
