Paul Surgeon writes: > Well what do you define as eye candy? If people don't want eye > candy then why do we have ground textures in FlightGear? They are > just wasting framerates.
I'm not taking a stand in the eye-candy-vs-simulator debate, but this particular statement is not true. Textures (and auto-placed objects like trees) are critical for simulating VFR flight, since they give you a reference point for judging altitude, distance, and ground speed. The different texture types also help a bit with pilotage, particularly the water and urban textures. > > I just tried this and it does go to VNE. In my experience (a few > > hundred hours PPL, mainly C172 and C152), the C172 is modelled > > very accurately. Did the OP chase the VSI? It has a > > several-second lag, esp when changing attitude quickly (again, > > this is modelled accurately), which could account for him not > > hitting VNE. > > I held a 1500 fpm decent for 3 minutes from 6000 ft at full > throttle. It seems that I have an old model although I thought > 0.9.3 was a recent build. How did you start FlightGear? Were you using the default 172 that comes up when you start FlightGear with no command-line options? You can end up with an old model if you use --aircraft=172r-3d All the best, David _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
