On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> However, having thought about this a bit more, I think there's a
> straightforward solution, which is to have a tag on the model to force
> sub-model loading for that
> model irrespective of the global setting. This could be set for the 747
> and the
Gary Neely wrote:
> I'd like to second Gijs' concerns here. I build my models in sub-units
> partly to facilitate ease of maintenance and development, and partly
> for easy LoD range logic. My model units tend to be: airframe,
> external details (antennae, etc), external lighting rig, cockpit,
> i
jean pellotier wrote:
> Stuart Buchanan a écrit :
>>
>> Providing a higher granularity of control would be tricky but not
>> impossible - I guess you could define a list of model names that
>> are to be loaded completely...
>>
>>
> could it be done "per callsign", like the ignore chat message check
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>> However, would the one stated above prevent models which use submodels for
>> wing-flex effects
>> from appearing to have wings? (Wait... are there any such models, or are
>> the wings animated
>> components of the main model?)
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> A much bigger problem are those aircraft (like my 744) that are split into
> several models, for easy
> maintenance/development. Wings, fuselage, gear area all seperate models,
> with seperate animation
> files...
I wasn't aware that we had any aircraft split up this way.
Ho
Stuart Buchanan a écrit :
>
> Providing a higher granularity of control would be tricky but not
> impossible - I guess you could define a list of model names that
> are to be loaded completely...
>
>
could it be done "per callsign", like the ignore chat message check box,
with maybe a command l
> Rob wrote:
> However, would the one stated above prevent models which use submodels for
> wing-flex effects
> from appearing to have wings? (Wait... are there any such models, or are the
> wings animated
> components of the main model?)
A much bigger problem are those aircraft (like my 744
For those interested in trying this out, I've uploaded a simple patch
to http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/ai.diff
It's not suitable for committing in it's present form - at the very
least the properties should be loaded from the FG tree rather than
SimGear and I'm not sure that the SGReaderWrit
Alexis Bory wrote:
> When using dual control like in Anders c172p-dual-control and
> ZLT-NT blimp, or the f-14b-bs, the copilot is actually flying in an AI
> model which needs all the eavy stuff we would like to disappear in
> most other situations.
>
> There is also a big demand of visual details
Jason Shepard wrote:
> Stuart:
>> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
>> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
>> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
>> instruments, pilots etc.
>
> Csaba:
>> I want to see AI/MP ai
Stuart Buchanan a écrit :
> In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes: 1) A
> control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
>
Stuart:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
> instruments, pilots etc.
Csaba:
> I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I a
Me:
> However, would the one stated above prevent models which use submodels for
> wing-flex effects from appearing to have wings? (Wait... are there any such
> models, or are the wings animated components of the main model?)
Stuart:
> I would expect that the wing flex would be an animated compo
Rob Shearman, Jr.
> However, would the one stated above prevent models which use submodels for
> wing-flex effects from appearing to have wings? (Wait... are there any such
> models, or are the wings animated components of the main model?)
I would expect that the wing flex would be an animated co
Hi All,
On Friday 02 April 2010 09:19:45 am Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
> Yes, but there's unlikely to be much advantage as most of the AI models
> used in single player (tanker, AI aircraft) are already low-poly models.
>
> However, it does affect the Nimitz carrier, which is quite a detailed
> mode
Stuart:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into
tags,
> and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits,
> instruments, pilots etc.
Csaba:
> I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I a
Stuart:
> A number of people on the forums have mentioned performance issues on
> lower-spec system on MP, particularly due to loading complex models
> for other aircraft causing stuttering.
>
> In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loadi
Csaba Halász wrote:
> Generally I prefer proper LOD and getting rid of specialized AI
> versions. I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I am near
> one - or even inside. Ideally I want to see all the instruments
> properly working when I hitch a ride using model+cockpit view. In the
> lo
Jason Shepard wrote:
> As far as what you have written here:
>
> 1) As I understand this, it basically does exactly the same thing as going
> through the individual model files and removing the cockpits/interiors/etc.,
> correct?
Correct.
> a) Would this work on single-player?
Yes, but there's
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes:
> 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This
> effectively stops the model loader from recursing into tags,
> and therefore stops it from loadi
As far as what you have written here:
1) As I understand this, it basically does exactly the same thing as going
through the individual model files and removing the cockpits/interiors/etc.,
correct? If that is the case, I find this to be an excellent replacement
for having to depend on each indiv
21 matches
Mail list logo
