Paul Surgeon writes
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.
While eye candy might be nice I think the main effort would be better used to write
as tight a code as we can.
Can I write code?. Not a line of it.
I am now getting the same frame rates in FG that I was getting in FS2K2 and that was
with full AI and about 30 A/C at the airport some of which were quite detailed models.
If you want to bring FG to a grinding halt try putting 30 static A/C around KSFO and see
what your frame rates are.Unless KSFO is much smaller than I think it is(and I live half way around
the world from KSFO)then I would think that 30 A/C would fit on one terminal finger.
If you ask me if I would rather have cars moving around or a more realistic taxiway
texture system including airfield signage.
Or plenty of static A/C and buildings at the expense of some good aircraft panels.
Then I am afraid I would pick the latter in both in both cases.
If you want eyecandy them the process already exists just take any of the 3D models
and put them into the scenery.You can even make your own models of anything you
like and put them in your scenery.But it won't be long before you realise that at its
current state of development FG will choke on the extra content.
So while I am all for eyecandy I would think that energies would be but put to getting
the best performance from the sim with a good level of detail.
Lets do some crawling before we try the walk or run.
Just my opinion
Cheers Innis The Mad Aussi
Paul
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
