Hi Vivian,
> That's really good to hear - but if we are falling behind in some
> respect
> then we will make an effort to improve. I am reminded that the flag and
> wake shaders are inoperative when Atmospheric Light Scattering is activated.
> With the departure of Emilian, I see no prospe
Hi geneb, all,
De : geneb
Envoyé le : Jeudi 28 février 2013 15h41
> It's a "best foot forward" kind of thing. The quintessential "default"
> airplane in MSFS has been the 172. The default set of airplanes in FG
> should be the absolute best of the best, si
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>> Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's
>> mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with
>> respect
>> to the cockpit model.
>
> (I'd really appreciate if you guys would call me on first-name basis
Hi Thorsten, :)
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> My problem is that I often know very well how X is implemented in FG, I may
> suspect that it's not in FSX or X-Plane, but since I'm not running X-Plane or
> FSX with all addons I don't really know for a fact if it is a genu
Thorsten aka Renk wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 28 February 2013 07:57
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
>
> > Renk, you should take a look at the default C
> Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's
> mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with respect
> to the cockpit model.
(I'd really appreciate if you guys would call me on first-name basis
'Thorsten'...)
That's a question of what a fair
I wrote:
> Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
> > * Models of trees and of the aircraft carrier in the vicinity where
> largely on
> > par. Probably FSX has more graphical artists and the quality of for
> instance
> > tree textures seems to be a bit better, but the technique is otherwise
> pret
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2013 07:42:19 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
>> * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass seams.
Is this why there's such a hard edge on the coastlines?
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> Following a forum discussion, I finally became curious and tested the
> FSX demo version yesterday. I've spent about two hours flight with it,
> testing 3 different planes (the ultralight, the Baron and the Learjet)
> and had a look at different wea
Renk Thorsten wrote:
... snip
> * Models of trees and of the aircraft carrier in the vicinity where
largely on
> par. Probably FSX has more graphical artists and the quality of for
instance
> tree textures seems to be a bit better, but the technique is otherwise
pretty
> similar. I liked seeing
> A small addition: what has always bothered me about terrain in FG is that
> roads and rivers are all the same size.
Good point. That wasn't really apparent from the FSX demo (not so many roads of
different size in the Caribbean).
I think rivers are less of an issue in CORINE based custom scene
Cool review Renk!
Regarding FDMs: I was at a friend's this christmas and since he had just bought
X-Plane 10, I had the chance to test it with C172 to see how it handles...
FG clearly wins here since on X-plane there was not even a slight 'adverse yaw'
(aileron-breaking) attitude when turning
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 09:10:01 Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Linear features for the scenery (roads, railways, rivers) are already under
> development for FG:
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-129.png
>
> That is a small area of Kent, UK. It is very possible to use the accuratel
Stefan Seifert wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2013 07:42:19 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> > * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass
seams.
> > That makes it quite a bit nicer to look at from above. It's not so
> > impressive from close-up, and all in all, I would conclu
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 07:42:19 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass seams.
> That makes it quite a bit nicer to look at from above. It's not so
> impressive from close-up, and all in all, I would conclude that regions
> where we did ap
Following a forum discussion, I finally became curious and tested the FSX demo
version yesterday. I've spent about two hours flight with it, testing 3
different planes (the ultralight, the Baron and the Learjet) and had a look at
different weather conditions and daytimes around TNCM.
The insta
16 matches
Mail list logo
