syd adams schrieb:
> OK then Im not sure what the intention was ... Ive had to disable objects
> sometimes because a transparent texture will hide an object behind it... but
> doesnt sound like the case here.Just thought Id mention that it might have
> been the reason for that particular bit of cod
OK then Im not sure what the intention was ... Ive had to disable objects
sometimes because a transparent texture will hide an object behind it... but
doesnt sound like the case here.Just thought Id mention that it might have
been the reason for that particular bit of code , once upon a time :)
Che
HB-GRAL schrieb:
> syd adams schrieb:
>> While I cant test myself , (fg isn't playing nice at the moment) , in a lot
>> of cases transparent "covers" need to be disabled for an animation behind it
>> to be visible , so I'm guessing there was a good reason to do that in the
>> first place ... just m
syd adams schrieb:
> While I cant test myself , (fg isn't playing nice at the moment) , in a lot
> of cases transparent "covers" need to be disabled for an animation behind it
> to be visible , so I'm guessing there was a good reason to do that in the
> first place ... just my 2 cents.
> Cheers
>
While I cant test myself , (fg isn't playing nice at the moment) , in a lot
of cases transparent "covers" need to be disabled for an animation behind it
to be visible , so I'm guessing there was a good reason to do that in the
first place ... just my 2 cents.
Cheers
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:45 PM
HB-GRAL schrieb:
> Heiko Schulz schrieb:
>> The same for the landinglight.
>>
Merge request for the landing light:
--- a/Aircraft/c172p/Models/c172p.xml
+++ b/Aircraft/c172p/Models/c172p.xml
@@ -2259,18 +2259,6 @@
controls/lighting/landing-lights
-
-
- select
- landinglight
Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> Hi,
>
>> Heiko Schulz schrieb:
>>> Do you have a better image?
>>> I guess there is something wrong, but can't tell you
>> for sure from this angle of view
>> http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5924/light172p.png
>> and here
>> http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3870/light1
Hi,
> Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> >>
> > Do you have a better image?
> > I guess there is something wrong, but can't tell you
> for sure from this angle of view
> >
>
> http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5924/light172p.png
> and here
> http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3870/light172wing.png
>
> Th
Heiko Schulz schrieb:
>>
> Do you have a better image?
> I guess there is something wrong, but can't tell you for sure from this angle
> of view
>
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5924/light172p.png
and here
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3870/light172wing.png
Thanks -Y
-
Hi,
> Hello c172p
>
> Just a question about the lights:
> http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/162/lights172.png
>
> Is this the state of the lights of the default c172p or do
> I see
> something different?
>
> (I do not want to mess up with any c172p coder, this
> question is because
> this is
Hello c172p
Just a question about the lights:
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/162/lights172.png
Is this the state of the lights of the default c172p or do I see
something different?
(I do not want to mess up with any c172p coder, this question is because
this is the default aircraft and I a
11 matches
Mail list logo
