On Saturday 23 February 2013 07:33:54 Renk Thorsten wrote:
- I agree with Vivian, we can't do realistic distances for radar because of
memory issues
Lorenzo:
the reason to be of the EQUIPMENT is to override the limit of the EYE
vision.
Are we doing the error to merging this two ?
-
Actually, I think what he tried to suggest was, that the needs of
visuals and the needs equipment like radar should not be mixed. For visuals
we need
the terrain and all the objects like trees and buildings which are hard on
performance.
It's a fact that the distances out to which we
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:13:21 +, Renk wrote in message
e495a106ff5f31448739e79d34138c192789b...@mbs2.ad.jyu.fi:
..see? Here you go again, snipping away too agressively, so
the pointer to my forgotten point, is lost. Fix that. ;o)
..a point I forgot to make: you (or your MUA?) don't
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 09:36:23 Renk Thorsten wrote:
It's a fact that the distances out to which we draw trees and buildings are
considerably less than how far we potentially draw terrain (120 km max.) So
these things are separated even now - we don't attempt to render random
Buildings/trees are generated at tile load time currently, and remain
resident
in memory, for as long as the tile is loaded. If you don't se them on
screen
doens't mean they're not there.
Yes, but strangely enough, this part of the discussion happened to be about LOD
systems and
While I think that sometimes Thorsten may give
people more benefit of the doubt...
After sleeping over it, I have to admit that Stefan is right.
I was angry about the way the discussion was turning away from being
productive, and that colored my response to Lorenzo, which is not how
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:10:30 +, Renk wrote in message
e495a106ff5f31448739e79d34138c192789b...@mbs2.ad.jyu.fi:
..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread
is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow.
Maybe we just have some cultural
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:26:34 +0100, Arnt wrote in message
20130222172634.0b083...@celsius.lan:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:10:30 +, Renk wrote in message
e495a106ff5f31448739e79d34138c192789b...@mbs2.ad.jyu.fi:
..a point I forgot to make: you (or your MUA?) don't attribute
properly what I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/22/2013 07:10 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread
is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow.
Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings?
The way I see it -
..a point I forgot to make: you (or your MUA?) don't attribute
properly what I wrote below, which may be part of the thread
breaking problem.
Arnt, you do know that 'you' in the English language doesn't necessarily refer
to you personally, but that it doubles as an unspecified 'one'?
If I
Straw man ?!?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [See :: structure point 2.5] and
you will understand that simplifying my point of view trying to
invalidate it is ... a straw man technique.
Are you so sure that it is not what you have done concluding rushy that
I do not had read the
- Assumes that we want to set the limits by equipment (radar) rather
than visuals, although we've just said we don't want to do this because
of memory issues, and I've listed several points besides radar why I'd
like to do it.
On re-reading, this sounds pretty hilarious...
What I mean
..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread
is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow.
Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings?
The way I see it - if you want to make a statement in a discussion, you have to
read what has been said before. No
13 matches
Mail list logo
