On January 4, 2006 07:34 am, Ben Clark wrote:
> Only problem with removing pieces from an aircraft model when it's further
> away is the zoom function - it's not going to look good viewing a model
> with bits missing - unless of course the "pieces" become visible again on
> zooming.
Yes. This is d
On the XML front, badly worded. I was wondering this because another thread was talking about a uniform set of XML documents for multiplayer with a list of changes to be made for multiplayer play (e.g lower res textures, lower polygon models etc) - this would at hopefully allow multiplayer play to
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:34, Ben Clark wrote:
> I'd be pretty sure that massive texture files is the problem as there is
> hardly any drop in frame rate in small, undetailed aircraft (Cessna series,
> Eurocopter, etc).
I'm not sure that any of the aforementioned are causing the "stepped"
b
I'd be pretty sure that massive texture files is the problem as there is hardly any drop in frame rate in small, undetailed aircraft (Cessna series, Eurocopter, etc).Only problem with removing pieces from an aircraft model when it's further away is the zoom function - it's not going to look good vi
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 06:44 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> This is a good idea. As the aircraft becomes further and further away,
> more and more details can be made disappeared. This method doesn't require
> any extra lower-detail model. All it needs is a bit of planning during
> modell
--- "Ampere K. Hardraade" <> wrote:
> On January 3, 2006 04:13 pm, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> > With regards to MP aircraft :
> > We need the default aircraft to have a decent pyramid of LOD models as
> well
> > texture pyramids. There's no point in loading high resolution textures
> for
> > MP aircraf
On January 3, 2006 04:13 pm, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> With regards to MP aircraft :
> We need the default aircraft to have a decent pyramid of LOD models as well
> texture pyramids. There's no point in loading high resolution textures for
> MP aircraft that are barely within visual range.
This is a go
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 03:13 pm, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> With regards to MP aircraft :
> ...
> We can either make all the FG aircraft comply or we need to make some sort
> of separate MP aircraft package like MSFS guys do (example Project AI).
I like that idea, but would it be easier if modelers
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:04, Ben Clark wrote:
> Hey There
>
> Although i have a fairly moderate spec machine i've noticed that FG frame
> rate can be extremely low, particually when near the carrier, or when
> playing multiplayer. Many people have told me this is due to the sever
> complexity
9 matches
Mail list logo
