> While I think that sometimes Thorsten may give
> people more benefit of the doubt...
After sleeping over it, I have to admit that Stefan is right.
I was angry about the way the discussion was turning away from being
productive, and that colored my response to Lorenzo, which is not how thin
> Buildings/trees are generated at tile load time currently, and remain
> resident
> in memory, for as long as the tile is loaded. If you don't se them on
> screen
> doens't mean they're not there.
Yes, but strangely enough, this part of the discussion happened to be about LOD
systems and per
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 09:36:23 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> It's a fact that the distances out to which we draw trees and buildings are
> considerably less than how far we potentially draw terrain (120 km max.) So
> these things are separated even now - we don't attempt to render random
> build
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:13:21 +, Renk wrote in message
:
..see? Here you go again, snipping away too agressively, so
the pointer to my forgotten point, is lost. Fix that. ;o)
> > ..a point I forgot to make: you (or your MUA?) don't attribute
> > properly what I wrote below, which may be par
> Actually, I think what he tried to suggest was, that the needs of
> visuals and the needs equipment like radar should not be mixed. For visuals
> we need
> the terrain and all the objects like trees and buildings which are hard on
> performance.
It's a fact that the distances out to which
On Saturday 23 February 2013 07:33:54 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> -> I agree with Vivian, we can't do realistic distances for radar because of
> memory issues
> Lorenzo:
> > the reason to be of the EQUIPMENT is to override the limit of the EYE
> > vision.
> > Are we doing the error to merging this two
> -> Assumes that we want to set the limits by equipment (radar) rather
> than visuals, although we've just said we don't want to do this because
> of memory issues, and I've listed several points besides radar why I'd
> like to do it.
On re-reading, this sounds pretty hilarious...
What I m
> Straw man ?!?!?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [See :: structure point 2.5] and
> you will understand that simplifying my point of view trying to
> invalidate it is ... a straw man technique.
> Are you so sure that it is not what you have done concluding rushy that
> I do not had read t
> ..a point I forgot to make: you (or your MUA?) don't attribute
> properly what I wrote below, which may be part of the thread
> breaking problem.
Arnt, you do know that 'you' in the English language doesn't necessarily refer
to you personally, but that it doubles as an unspecified 'one'?
If I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/22/2013 07:10 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
>> ..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread
>> is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow.
>
> Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings?
>
> The way I s
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:26:34 +0100, Arnt wrote in message
<20130222172634.0b083...@celsius.lan>:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:10:30 +, Renk wrote in message
> :
>
..a point I forgot to make: you (or your MUA?) don't attribute
properly what I wrote below, which may be part of the thread
break
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:10:30 +, Renk wrote in message
:
>
> > ..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread
> > is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow.
>
> Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings?
..no, in this case we _also_ have a broken
> ..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread
> is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow.
Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings?
The way I see it - if you want to make a statement in a discussion, you have to
read what has been said before. No
13 matches
Mail list logo
