Jason Shepard wrote:
> As far as what you have written here:
>
> 1) As I understand this, it basically does exactly the same thing as going
> through the individual model files and removing the cockpits/interiors/etc.,
> correct?
Correct.
> a) Would this work on single-player?
Yes, but there's
Csaba Halász wrote:
> Generally I prefer proper LOD and getting rid of specialized AI
> versions. I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I am near
> one - or even inside. Ideally I want to see all the instruments
> properly working when I hitch a ride using model+cockpit view. In the
> lo
Stuart:
> A number of people on the forums have mentioned performance issues on
> lower-spec system on MP, particularly due to loading complex models
> for other aircraft causing stuttering.
>
> In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loadi
Stuart:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into
tags,
> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
> instruments, pilots etc.
Csaba:
> I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I a
Hi All,
On Friday 02 April 2010 09:19:45 am Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
> Yes, but there's unlikely to be much advantage as most of the AI models
> used in single player (tanker, AI aircraft) are already low-poly models.
>
> However, it does affect the Nimitz carrier, which is quite a detailed
> mode
Rob Shearman, Jr.
> However, would the one stated above prevent models which use submodels for
> wing-flex effects from appearing to have wings? (Wait... are there any such
> models, or are the wings animated components of the main model?)
I would expect that the wing flex would be an animated co
Me:
> However, would the one stated above prevent models which use submodels for
> wing-flex effects from appearing to have wings? (Wait... are there any such
> models, or are the wings animated components of the main model?)
Stuart:
> I would expect that the wing flex would be an animated compo
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Peter Brown wrote:
> I understand that, so I don't understand why it's happening. I can fly
> around KSFO with 40 a/c, but if I fly within 1/2 mile of these two it
> drops.
> Apparently you flew up them and didn't have any issue?
>
> None-the-less.who/what/why are they t
On 02/04/10 19:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> I can see there is a huge performance penalty on 2-years old GPUs, so we
> also need performance vs eye candy user setting to choose which technique
> could be applied besides simple advertised extension support
Turning on Landmass effects cuts my fra
On 2 Apr 2010, at 09:25, James Sleeman wrote:
>> I can see there is a huge performance penalty on 2-years old GPUs, so we
>> also need performance vs eye candy user setting to choose which technique
>> could be applied besides simple advertised extension support
> Turning on Landmass effects cu
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, James Sleeman wrote:
> On 02/04/10 19:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> I can see there is a huge performance penalty on 2-years old GPUs, so we
>> also need performance vs eye candy user setting to choose which technique
>> could be applied besides simple advertised extension
Hi all,
This problem is also present in 2.0. I do not know what software
contains the bug, but the issue is related to switching between keyboard
layouts.
Specifically if I configure Gnome keyboard layout preferences in a way
that "both shift keys together change the layout", I get the issue.
Quick question for James I think - when the route manager passes the last
listed nav point, the AP doesn't disengage, it turns west (from the east
coast). This is a default heading to KSFO or some other pre-determined "home" ?
Thanks,
Peter
--
On 2 Apr 2010, at 15:28, Peter Brown wrote:
> Quick question for James I think - when the route manager passes the last
> listed nav point, the AP doesn't disengage, it turns west (from the east
> coast). This is a default heading to KSFO or some other pre-determined
> "home" ?
The intended
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Why don't we have this aircraft modeled for FlightGear???
I think we are short of one engine.
Erik
> -- Forwarded message --
>
>
>
>
> The most amazing airplane in HistoryFor the Airplane
> Buffs
Hello,
There we go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7
Length: 28 m (91 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 53 m (173 ft 11 in)
smaller than a 747
And here the truth:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2009/03/27/urban-legendinski/
:-)
But it would be interesting, to create a fdm which should ma
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Why don't we have this aircraft modeled for FlightGear???
>
You are a day late , Curt :-)
--
Best Regards
Willie Fleming
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourse
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Why don't we have this aircraft modeled for FlightGear???
Here's what that hoax is based on.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/8.htm
Now this might be interesting, Ive certainly had some fun with the
ANT-20. This is bigger I believe.
--
Best Regards
Willie
Oh btw I just ordered Topeka's(was Google) toilet based internet
connection service, is it good? Has anyone tested it? Or is it crappy?
^__^
Also I'm trying to install Android on my ARM dev kit so I can try their
new animal voice translation app :)
Nice plane.
> Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Why don't we
On Apr 2, 2010, at 10:38 AM, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 2 Apr 2010, at 15:28, Peter Brown wrote:
>
>> Quick question for James I think - when the route manager passes the last
>> listed nav point, the AP doesn't disengage, it turns west (from the east
>> coast). This is a default heading to
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:57:48 + (GMT)
From: Heiko Schulz
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG - Helicopter FAA - AATD
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Message-ID:<741574.96640...@web23204.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi,
The UH1 was
http://wiki.rigsofrods.com/pages/Portal/
:) There is 2 years since I compile RoR. It is really impressive.
Unfortunately, it is it is extremely resource-intensive. I do not know
if it comes from OGRE or RoR programming. But it is really very greedy,
too greedy.
But it is a product to try. Like
Hi helijah,
>
> I'm sorry, but this kind of attacks wearies me.
If you could speak and understand better english, you would have pretty
understand that this wasn't a attack.
So let the previous post and this better translate by someone who can speak
french and english and then answer again
Stuart:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
> instruments, pilots etc.
Csaba:
> I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I a
Stuart Buchanan a écrit :
> In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes: 1) A
> control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
>
Jason Shepard wrote:
> Stuart:
>> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
>> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
>> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
>> instruments, pilots etc.
>
> Csaba:
>> I want to see AI/MP ai
Alexis Bory wrote:
> When using dual control like in Anders c172p-dual-control and
> ZLT-NT blimp, or the f-14b-bs, the copilot is actually flying in an AI
> model which needs all the eavy stuff we would like to disappear in
> most other situations.
>
> There is also a big demand of visual details
For those interested in trying this out, I've uploaded a simple patch
to http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/ai.diff
It's not suitable for committing in it's present form - at the very
least the properties should be loaded from the FG tree rather than
SimGear and I'm not sure that the SGReaderWrit
28 matches
Mail list logo
