Paul Surgeon writes: > On Friday, 7 November 2003 06:39, Nick Coleman wrote: > > 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 see no conflict at all between eye candy and frame rates as long as it's all user configurable. > > 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. Ultimately, the only votes that really count come with patches attached :-) > If no one want's any visual improvements in FlightGear then I better not waste > my time. > Believe me, any visual improvements you make would/will be much appreciated, just as the work of Fred Bouvier, Erik Hofman, Lee Elliot, Jim Wilson and many others in the visual department has been and is much appreciated. Personally I agree with Jim's comment that the main area we suffer in currently is quantity - the single biggest eye candy improvement that could be made now that downtown LA and the Bay bridges have been/are being done would be to populate the World's (or at least the Bay area's) airports with buildings and the odd static. So far KSFO is the only one with anything. And with a .za address, you might like to dig out FALA's runways from their trench ;-)) Cheers - Dave _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
