On dimanche 15 février 2009, Nicolas Quijano wrote:
> Gerard, you're not getting it : if I want wildfire to spread when I crash a
> Crusader, you shouldn't have a say in it, period.
> Let me try to explain it from the user's perspective : a user of both the
> dev's creation, the simulation, and in
Gerard, you're not getting it : if I want wildfire to spread when I crash a
Crusader, you shouldn't have a say in it, period.
Let me try to explain it from the user's perspective : a user of both the
dev's creation, the simulation, and in this case, your a/c.
I'm the one piloting the Crusader, and
gerard robin wrote:
> I was STUPID since, i thought that the modelers were free to create
> the Aircraft in order to answer to these old criteria ( best FDM, eye
> candy). I noticed now that we are dependent of some constraints, we
> must accept anything coming from the mind of DEVELOPPER who
On dimanche 15 février 2009, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:36:30 + (GMT), Stuart wrote in message
>
>
> ..then you have exotic compromises like crashing on ice, dead stick
> landings in methane clouds downwind of broken pipelines, ripe full
> hydrazine tanks as you ditch in free
* Sébastien MARQUE -- Sunday 15 February 2009:
> I'm quite "surprised" not to see someone purpose an other solution which
> is only to override wildfire.ignite() function in a single aircraft, as
> we are used to do for brakes, or starting engines.
That's because this is *still* wrong. This is a
Hi all,
I understand the both point of view about wildfire and "gaming" issues.
but I think that changing wildfire-on-crash property is not a good
solution because it is registered, but it is also a problem if an
aircraft designer wants to create his own crash animation.
I'm quite "surprised"
On dimanche 15 février 2009, Detlef Faber wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 15.02.2009, 09:45 +0100 schrieb Detlef Faber:
> > Am Samstag, den 14.02.2009, 23:15 +0100 schrieb gerard robin:
> > > On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > > * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > > > > Lo
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:36:30 + (GMT), Stuart wrote in message
<628624.58015...@web26003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>:
>
> gerard robin wrote:
> > On dimanche 15 février 2009, Ron Jensen wrote:
> > > Respectfully I must disagree with you here. This is a system
> > > feature and should not be adjuste
Am Sonntag, den 15.02.2009, 09:45 +0100 schrieb Detlef Faber:
> Am Samstag, den 14.02.2009, 23:15 +0100 schrieb gerard robin:
> > On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > withdraw the "game coat"
> > > >
> > > >
Am Samstag, den 14.02.2009, 23:15 +0100 schrieb gerard robin:
> On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > > Log Message:
> > > withdraw the "game coat"
> > >
> > > +
> > > +
> > > + false
> > > +
On dimanche 15 février 2009, Laurent wrote:
> IMHO, in that case this is a bug about when wildfire should be
> started. If the plane is actually missing a landing on water, it
> should be detected by the main program as it, not as a land crash. A
> catalina crashing on land should create fire. Deac
gerard robin wrote:
> On dimanche 15 février 2009, Ron Jensen wrote:
> > Respectfully I must disagree with you here. This is a system feature
> > and should not be adjusted in random aircraft -set files. It is
> > properly set in preferences.xml and autosave.xml, not each aircraft -set
> > file
IMHO, in that case this is a bug about when wildfire should be
started. If the plane is actually missing a landing on water, it
should be detected by the main program as it, not as a land crash. A
catalina crashing on land should create fire. Deactivate wildfire for
the whole environment is not the
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 23:56 +0100, gerard robin wrote:
> On samedi 14 février 2009, gerard robin wrote:
> > On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > withdraw the "game coat"
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > +
On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > Log Message:
> > withdraw the "game coat"
> >
> > +
> > +
> > + false
> > +
> > +
>
> AIRCRAFT MUST *NOT* CHANGE SYSTEM SETTING!
>
> This s
On samedi 14 février 2009, gerard robin wrote:
> On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > > Log Message:
> > > withdraw the "game coat"
> > >
> > > +
> > > +
> > > + false
> > > +
> > > +
On samedi 14 février 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> > Log Message:
> > withdraw the "game coat"
> >
> > +
> > +
> > + false
> > +
> > +
>
> AIRCRAFT MUST *NOT* CHANGE SYSTEM SETTING!
>
> This s
No I agree, we shouldn't be mixing policy and capability up like this.
These things should be set at an application level according to individual
user preference, it always turns into a big mess when an aircraft author
tries to change global settings from within an aircraft. It also leads to
suppo
* Gerard Robin -- Saturday 14 February 2009:
> Log Message:
> withdraw the "game coat"
> +
> +
> + false
> +
> +
AIRCRAFT MUST *NOT* CHANGE SYSTEM SETTING!
This setting disqualifies the F8 for inclusion in a release.
Oh, well. Why do I
19 matches
Mail list logo
