Hi Mathias, Stepping in here just in case some context is getting lost in translation :).
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > What I really do not like is that people purely push in the direction they > just like more. If you work sensibly, you can support both. If you want > photorealistic pictures use a raytracer or do global illumination and use a > cluster to do the pictures. > But this is a *training* *flight* *simulation*. And as this having nice > pictures is great to have, but if this is at cost realtime frame rates this is > not acceptable at all. > > This is especially bad since it is possible to support both. It's just that > enough loud people are after more glossy pictures and do not care for the > initial purpose. At least this is my impression. The current proposal that Thorsten and myself have been thinking about is that all of this is optional on the quality slider on the rendering dialog. So we absolutely will be supporting both, and users can balance frame-rate against eye-candy, as they do today. Nevertheless, we obviously want to be as efficient as possible, and personally speaking I have insufficient knowledge of modern graphics pipelines to know where the bottlenecks reside. Does that address your concerns? -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
