On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:48:09 -0500 Trennor Turcotte wrote: > *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 . . . "
Given that (making up figures now) 99% of the FG world is unrealistically almost completely barren of objects - why not just fly somewhere else, that hasn't been painstakingly recreated? Whenever my own system is lagging a bit behind the state of the art, that's exactly what I do - I don't see why other people who have invested money in high-performance machines shouldn't get a chance to fly from more realistic airports when we've got the rest of the world to fly from? If it's a major problem for you, and you really want to fly from a particular airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove detail than it is for others to add it... AJ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
