On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:30 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:08:30 +0000 > From: David Luff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some thoughts and ideas (LONG) > To: FlightGear developers discussions > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > 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.
Totally agree, Nick _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
