Err ... there's a 2D exterior?
And a 3D cockpit is not necessarily better than a 2D. 2D is less demanding
on frame rate, and can be just as effective as a 3D cockpit. And some of
those are by no means brilliant. Horses for courses.
Our most detailed ac need high end computers to run on, with good graphics
cards. Not everyone has such a machine, and we have to have regard for them.
Vivian
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gijs de
Rooy
Sent: 07 December 2007 14:30
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
> Nice idea!
>
> Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete
> aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so
> goog like the fokker 70/100?
>
> So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?!
>
> Regards
> HHS
> --- Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
We could give a star for every single part of the development stadia. One
start for the 3D Cockpit, one star for the Painting, One star for the 3D
Model, One star for the flying performances etc. So if a plane has a 3D
Cockpit and an 3d exterior model it gets 2 start by example.
PS: If this is added, we may add also something wich let users rate the
aircraft?
_____
Windows Live Messenger het beste van de toekomst Download NU! Windows Live
Messenger!
<http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=nl-nl&source=
joinmsncom/messenger>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
