On Friday, 7 November 2003 06:39, Nick Coleman wrote: > As a counterpoint, I would like to request that this either not take > priority, or that it be an option in the configure stage. I want fast > framerates as the priority. For me, this is a _flight_ sim and I don't > see the point of eyecandy. ( Personally, I was disappointed with FS2002 > and much preferred the playability of FS98.
Well what do you define as eye candy? If people don't want eye candy then why do we have ground textures in FlightGear? They are just wasting framerates. > FS2002 devoted too much to > eyecandy and was so obtuse in actually getting to the point where you > were in the air and flying that I stopped using it. It took about five > minutes of configuring various options before you could take off.) That's odd - once I had set up and saved a default flight it was just a matter of starting the sim and away I went. > I disagree with this assessment. I think lower spec machines should be > able to run a _flight_ sim and shouldn't be excluded just for the sake > of eyecandy. I don't for a minute think that lower speced machines should be excluded but it would be nice to cater for higher end machines as well. This is where one can have low poly models and configurable options to remove eye candy just like other sims have. For instance a slider that sets the amount of 3D objects you want to be able to see from zero to max with several levels in between. > I just tried this and it does go to VNE. In my experience (a few > hundred hours PPL, mainly C172 and C152), the C172 is modelled very > accurately. Did the OP chase the VSI? It has a several-second lag, > esp when changing attitude quickly (again, this is modelled > accurately), which could account for him not hitting VNE. I held a 1500 fpm decent for 3 minutes from 6000 ft at full throttle. It seems that I have an old model although I thought 0.9.3 was a recent build. > I'm not trying to rain on the OP's parade; I think he has some good > ideas. It's just that I would prefer to see development take priority > in the fields I am interested in, naturally enough. Well my point is that I'll do the development in the eye candy department. It does not have to detract from anyone elses time. :) I would love to have a poll on this topic to see how many people would like some eye-candy and those that don't care much about it. If no one want's any visual improvements in FlightGear then I better not waste my time. Thanks for your input though - I do understand where you are coming from even if I don't quite understand your reasons. Paul _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
