> 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 thin
Let's please be honest here.
> I'll repeat it once more, I don't have a personal problem with you, I
> have a problem with your methods, and AFAIK I'm not the only one, but
> (un)fortunately, the other ones chose to stay silent...
If you refer to my methods of coding, I don't think we've had
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/23/2013 03:50 PM, Olivier wrote:
> Hi Gijs,
>
>
>
>
>
*De :* Gijs de Rooy
> *Envoyé le :* Samedi 23 février 2013 11h13 **
>> I won't ask for the adds to be removed (appar
Hi Gijs,
De : Gijs de Rooy
Envoyé le : Samedi 23 février 2013 11h13
> I won't ask for the adds to be removed (apparently that is not possible), but
> I do want to bring the result of that decision under
> your attention. Is this really what we want?
Using A
I'll repeat it once more, I don't have a personal problem with you, I have a
problem with your methods, and AFAIK I'm not the only one, but
(un)fortunately, the other ones chose to stay silent...
I guess that's it, we all have to bow to the great leader
I'l remove myself from this list, an
> 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 per
Emilian, just up-front to keep this discussion focused on what it actually is
about:
Do you, or do you not agree that 20 (or 16) km terrain loaded regardless of
the visibility is a sane value? Somehow, you still haven't really answered the
question, you're just expressing unspecified 'concern
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 13:09:29 Stefan Seifert wrote:
> Why do you want the user to have to repeatedly press a key after starting
> the sim instead of setting the maximum visibility once and for all in the
> advanced weather dialog? In other words: why should the user press a key
> _n_ tim
On Saturday 23 February 2013 13:20:49 Emilian Huminiuc wrote:
> Guess what happens when memory is limited and visibility is set to 120km?
> You see the "end of the world", because no more tiles can be loaded to reach
> that distance.
> Guess what you need to adjust then, independent of what the "r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for empty message. Here it is. :)
Here is now an alternative tracker (I also track my FGFS-related
torrents to the original + in addition to my tracker) for all
BitTorrent download:
http://flightgear.mxchange.org:23456/
Just click on the links
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/23/2013 11:26 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Gijs, et al.,
>
> Slowly coming back to FlightGear land, now that my deadline is met.
> :-)
>
> Yes, I think that this is undesirable. Having adds inside the
> content area of a website is usually consi
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:51:55 Stefan Seifert wrote:
> The solution is not to give crude tools like limiting visibility to the
> user. The solution is to fix FG to be consious about how much memory is
> available and make the best use of it. Yes, many games simply limit
> visibility if m
On Saturday 23 February 2013 12:21:02 Emilian Huminiuc wrote:
> So in the default scheme we load 9 tiles at startup, then we keep loading
> tiles in the direction we're traveling, and those initial tiles remain
> resident in the tile cache for a while (in case you decide to double back).
So there
Hi Gijs, et al.,
Slowly coming back to FlightGear land, now that my deadline is met. :-)
Yes, I think that this is undesirable. Having adds inside the content area of a
website is usually considered to be poor design, from a usability perspective.
I don't mind if we have some adds on the top, o
On 02/23/2013 11:13 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I won't ask for the adds to be removed (apparently that is not
> possible), but I do want to bring the result of that decision under your
> attention. Is this really what we want?
One quick option would be to move the navigation bar below 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
> build
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 07:08:41 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>A lot of stuff, mostly deflecting the discussion to other irelevant points
>
> * Thorsten
While I should know better than to answer to this, as it will again get
deflected to other areas, let's imagine ourselves a simple scenario:
L
Hi all,
I won't ask for the adds to be removed (apparently that is not possible), but I
do want to bring the result of that decision under your attention. Is this
really what we want?
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?13546-FlightGear-v2-10-Is-Released#comments
http://www.flightsim.com/
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:13:21 +, Renk wrote in message
:
..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 attribute
> > properly what I wrote below, which may be par
> 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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
