It's a dead end time when someone who had asked for changes leaves
before that changes comes because it not comes too long and that makes
some issue area related development impossible.
(...)
If that dead end will come seventy years after now then for sure I had
missed the point. If not then
Hi,
On 29 Jul 2011, at 02:54, HB-GRAL wrote:
Hi Geos
Can someone explain me why we use
lat=N37 42.807
lon=W122 12.963
in parking.xml and groundnet.xml
This is mainly for historic reasons. I started out using an example ground
network file that was made using an editing
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:]
I think it's grossly unfair to mix these issues: Spaceflight requires
to essentially write a space simulator. One of my first statements in the
forum was:
Orbital flights opens a whole new can of worms besides the need for
different rendering -
Am 29.07.11 12:15, schrieb Durk Talsma:
Hi,
On 29 Jul 2011, at 02:54, HB-GRAL wrote:
Hi Geos
Can someone explain me why we use
lat=N37 42.807
lon=W122 12.963
in parking.xml and groundnet.xml
This is mainly for historic reasons. I started out using an example ground
2011/7/14 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
While being able to do a croase ground query on such a kind of regular grid
might be beneficial for the weather module. I would prefer the ai module just
using the already available bounding volume tree that is used for the main
aircrafts elevation queries.
On 28.07.2011 00:30, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On my machine I don't see any performance impact, despite the fact
that more trees are displayed. I'd appreciate it if those with more
graphics-constrained systems than my own would test this and let me
know if they think the frame-rate hit is
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM, ThorstenB wrote:
On 28.07.2011 00:30, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On my machine I don't see any performance impact, despite the fact
that more trees are displayed. I'd appreciate it if those with more
graphics-constrained systems than my own would test this and let
Le 29/07/2011 09:26, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
--
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:20:06 +0400
From: Slavutinsky Victor vitos...@mail.ru
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear
To:
However, I don't think my change will have affected this.
While the number of trees displayed is increased, the total number
of trees in the scenery is unaffected, it's just that more of those
trees are visible at any given time.
I'm also not sure if the tree model is shared in this way.
Am 29.07.11 15:18, schrieb HB-GRAL:
Am 29.07.11 12:15, schrieb Durk Talsma:
Hi,
On 29 Jul 2011, at 02:54, HB-GRAL wrote:
Hi Geos
Can someone explain me why we use
lat=N37 42.807
lon=W122 12.963
in parking.xml and groundnet.xml
This is mainly for historic reasons. I
10 matches
Mail list logo