Why not use the flightgear method certe the game takes 1.5 GB on my pc but we can remove buildings from the cities and concentrate everything on the airport itself
IMHO…for now the answer should be to look elsewhere for 3D related architecture and close this thread…since all this relentless speculation will not result in achieving any viable results in the immediate future !!!
The architecture can come from google map as there is a 3d view
Uhm do we? I thought they said later ( we all know later is NOT this year, maybe not even in 2 years time, but that depends)
They can add 3d building but it will destroy peoples phones
I’m just going to make a point here.
About 50 posts in this topic are just people saying “no it will destroy your phone” or “devices cannot handle this”. There are plenty of replies stating that, and no need to add another. If you’re going to make a post, add some substance to it, instead of just saying “not going to work”. Perhaps explain why it won’t work, and then we won’t have 51 replies.
Furthermore, after numerous posts, we are well aware that FSX, XP11 and P3D all have improved terrain and buildings, it doesn’t need to be mentioned again.
For those of you that still don’t get it, imagine the lag you get in the CRJ700 cockpit view. And then imagine that multiplied by hundreds across an entire planet.
If you read one of my earlier posts, I’ve explained a possible solution.
So, unless you actually know what you are talking about, I suggest we stop with the spammy “it won’t work” comments.
How can you say that simply editing a simple airport 3d structure can kill someone’s phone. Anyway we do not need any structure that are out of the airport
In any case the structures made from a satellite can not take up much space
The flightgear structures are very poorly made but they at least have 3d structures
^proceeds to ignore everything I’ve just said.
Furthermore, one post will suffice.
In addition we just ask 3d airport structures, not 3d airport structures and buildings of the city
Dude, please. You’ve just used 4 separate posts to make points that could have easily fit into one. And listening to you makes me think you have no idea what you are on about!
And why do you say that when I’m talking about something very important for the future of IF
Closing this for a bit. If you support it then vote for it and post a like and a brief supporting comment. If you don’t like the idea then just move on and quit the bickering. The forum has a diverse fleet of engaging conversations but it isn’t a chat room nor a verbal sparring octagon.
We appreciate your understanding and cooperation!
This topic was automatically opened after 3 hours.
No, but serious, 3D terminals can improve our daily life in IF and it will be more realistic like what IF developers are looking for
My two cents on this.
I honestly believe that this will, and should come one day. A few years ago, people where doubting global, and now it is here! I bet you in a few more years this will be added when stronger devices exist. I see the reason for not implementing this into the sim, but I strongly agree to this. Unfortunately I ran out of votes.
I think we should focus on (1) completing satellite imaging for the rest of the world (2) completing the existing airports in 2D before we attempt to add 3D. I have been cataloging all of the airports on my site and so far with the 2D airports we have completed 2462 airports out of 27068. And then you want 3D terminals added on top. It is not the technology which holds us back my friend, more the sheer volume of voluntary work being done in the background.
I don’t think this would be great for devices or the overall experience on live. When an airport is busy there is already a bit of lag. Imagine an airport like Heathrow with all those planes and on top of that all those buildings. People moan about the situation right now but fail to understand that this is the cost of adding such large features.