I didn't send any mail recently
I am not intransigent , u are not listening
it's the direct guillotine, we are the bad guy and you are the good, binary system. You command we have to obey, no discussion is possible
You are the one who decide, and didn't at any time any let me have any other choice
What you ask is to make my work ugly and to repeat one more time, all example you pointed me to look after is either with no texture file [ and so that not an example i can based on ], or with texture file sized to 1024x1024 u have accepted.
Enjoying the landscape as much as flying or controlling is important, what's more disappointing than landing or taking off on a pixelated scene, that's what you're asking for by limiting the resolution of the textures [and not just a little, the resolution was divided by 4]
What you are asking is that I degrade my own work after spending so much time, just so that the people with a small configuration can turn the scene, sorry, I can not follow you on this ground, I refuse to disfigure my work and I think that to run a simulator worthy of the name it takes a minimum configuration ... What is the next step, force people to run Flightgear on a 486 Dx2 66 ... the world ahead , the technology too, you have to live with its time, if the configuration of a pilote computer can not support a texture of 1024x1024 ... he must adapt, ask the scene creator to provide a faded trick has no interest and I actually thought you could at least understand that
VicMar wrote in Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:56 am:The answer is simple: FG is Open Source so you can take it as it is and use it to create a completely new Flight Sim and include what you think is the correct way to do things.
Stop with this type of argument, the simulator [ Flightgear ] is not in cause, FG is totally able to display 1024x1024 texture without any problem of frame rate as soon as the hardware needed is there. There no need to rebuild or improove the sim from this side, the problem is made by guy like you who think that flightgear should be able to run on raspberry pie .... and that ridiculous because this harware has not be made to run a full simulator software, as like a desk office computer to do some word, excel or other office program is not sized to run this kind of of heavy application as flightgear is.
The wiki itslef state about minimum requirement
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Hardware_recommendations and theese recomandation are far away from a low config.
As it have been already stated here the software throught configuration can lower details and display, why should we make poor poly / texturing thing. ? Having good quality object does not make obligation to display them with full resolution, but if they are already in poor resolution will we have a sad and square world
You are the guy who didn't accept any compromise, i try and bring proof that what u ask is going kill the scene and i am pretty sure that u smart enought to understand that, once again there no interest to have a "minecraft" world to fly in
Finally as the gate keeper, you should be the interface between us and lead core dev [ as you said rules come from us ] and should feedback this type of problem to them, even if i doubt that they have any "time" to listen us for this kind of request.
@Lego, nope, give a try yesterday evening [ ie convert my texture to a 256x256 ] , going under 1024x1024 for resolution lead to lost detail such as door [ which does not look like anymore as door that will lead to degrade the model display.
The resolution asked is simply impossible to use, it need to understand that for a square a 4x4 , so 16 pixel [ as it is divided by 4 ] is replace by 1 ....
If i have time this evening, i will pushed a full model with the lower resolution asked here as example , terminal does not look like anymore to something that can identified as a terminal ...