I agree.its nice if your system can handle it but id rather have a smooth
flight.
On Apr 20, 2013 9:12 PM, "Umara Setiawan" <umara_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm fully agree...
> All I want is fly...
>
> If those objects make my flight lagging (like there are 200.000 tons
> additional luggage in my fuselage during take-off), then why we need them?
>
> Realistic cockpit is rather what a desk pilot needs, as long as it doesn't
> make flying not fun anymore due to lag system
> ------------------------------
> From: Trennor Turcotte
> Sent: 4/21/2013 9:49
> To: flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1
>
> Re: Scenery Question:
>
> For what it's worth, and I know there are those who are going to disagree
> with this: but I think we're getting far too carried away with scenery in
> some parts of FG. EDKK is a perfect example: someone has piled object upon
> object upon object in that area to the point where FG is bogged down with
> all of the extraneous and (unnecessary?) eye candy which has been installed
> there. Even with AI deactivated, all large Boeings and Airbuses removed
> from $FGROOT/Aircraft/ and replaced with AI aircraft so *they* don't
> clog up the system, some users *still* get severe lag. One of our people
> actually went in and discarded over two-thirds of the extraneous objects
> which have appeared there recently, and distributed the stig file to a
> limited numer of users who were affected this way, to the effect that on my
> system at least, FG runs much smoother.
>
> Not everyone has a super gaming system with quad-core processing and an
> *ultimate* gaming video card to process all of this information. I would
> personally like to see some sort of reasonable control placed on this. Jomo
> recently commented that this idea is a slap in the face to those who spent
> all the time adding all that stuff to the scenery, but I personally think
> that position is short-sighted in view of the facts I point out above. Why
> continue a practise which is clearly detrimental to the efficient running
> of the simulator? *Some* eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement,
> but we don't *need* a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static
> aircraft parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion
> is to limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop
> adding when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . "
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
Flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
