Melchior FRANZ wrote:

> True. You force me to become a bit more specific: [...]

Your intention is clear, it's just that I don't share everyting of it.

> [...] I'm worried about
> *static* objects (as in OBJECT_STATIC) that consume 300kB each, and
> are only used *once* in the whole world (which by itself is OK), while
> looking so generic that they could be used for half of southern Europe,
> and being so small that you don't see them stand out between the random
> objects.

In my opinion these models "looking so generic that they could be used
for half of southern Europe" are definitely worth the effort building
and distributing them for multiple reasons:

1.) Lots of people (alias 'potential users') simply "like" to have
    their home town populated with unique buildings - many of them run
    M$FS because someone's already been there and has created some nice
    add-ons to the scenery (we want this for advertizing !),
2.) 'landmarks' are not the only means of visual navigation, a pattern
    of buildings that stand out from the crowd can be useful as well
    (o.k., things are a bit more difficult in FlightGear than in real
    life because we have that dominant scenery texture),
3.) you are free to populate half of southern Europe from the models
    we currently have in the database  ;-))
4.) .... and, to be honest: FlightGear has already dedicated itself to
    head for being resource hungry at the point of time when untextured
    scenery display was being removed  :-/

 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to