On Thursday 25 April 2013 01:34:12 henri orange wrote: > It is not the Atmospheric Light Scattering, we want. > > Referring to your explanation, and some other talks you had with Emilian ( > who unfortunately gave up ), you are ignoring the flightgear users > community interest. > It is not the Atmospheric Light Scattering, we want.
Please do not pretend to speak for all FlightGear users. You may certainly speak for yourself, you may even represent some part of the users, but you do not speak for all of us. I am a user and let me make this clear: I love Atmospheric Light Scattering. I love that it makes the view in the simulation match almost perfectly what I see outside the window. For me as a VFR pilot, visibility is one of the most important parts of a simulation and ALS doesn't only get it right, it also looks stunningly beautiful at that. > We want, so far, a consistent flightgear system, any features should be > compatible each other, and not breaking each other. If you ask me, the way to achieve that is to just drop the default rendering scheme. It's clearly inferior and makes FG look quite unprofessional. But even though the free radeon drivers are nowadays good enough to allow me to use ALS, some people simply have not the hardware necessary for good performance. And for them the default rendering scheme may still have use. > What about Rembrandt ? To reproduce the reality, isn't it the main tool > which gives the best effect ? Won't the effort should done on that side ? Like for some people's machines ALS might be too much, Rembrandt certainly is too much for mine. Last time I tried, I still get graphics corruption and poor rendering performance, so it's not an option for me. And as I said, there are people with less powerful hardware than me. So if FG would only use Rembrandt, it would leave plenty of users behind. > I hope that the next Flightgear version will offer a consistent system and > not several independents systems ( including your Flightgear) which won't > be compatible each other. What about Thorsten' arguments? Why is it so important for _some_ users that the different rendering schemes support exactly the same features. Or in other words: why should ALS users have to forgo very nice features, just because the default rendering scheme does not support them? And why do you think Thorsten is responsible for implementing all features in all rendering schemes? If certain features are so important for you, why don't _you_ contribute? This is free software after all. Regards, Stefan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
