Thorsten wrote > > Hmm . that's an underwhelming list, and I can't come up with anything > > that's really any better. Does that encapsulate the problem? > > Well well, it would seem our shader-based treatment of light and the > environment is quite competitive against what FSX has to offer: > > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18325#p170811 >
Yes, I've been trawling around YouTube for anything which is better, or even as good as our sky and sea. I think we are the at least the equal of FSX and XPlane, and probably better. Slightly subjective though. Been doing some more eye-candy myself: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-093.png using our new linear texture facility. It's not it FGdata yet, and I'm not even sure it's going to make the next release. But I wonder if that sort of thing really gives enough to justify going from 2.10 ->3.0? Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
