On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 11:52, Norman Vine wrote: > I agree that it would be nice to have all instruments etc have interactive > interfaces ala a mouse click, if that is at all realistic, but this does not > necessarily > mean that the dialog boxes should go. > [Flightgear has] a much broader vision then a first person experience of > flight !! > > So if you don't want to use the menu or dialog box interface don't > and they won't spoil your experience :-) >
Agreed, but if we've got a better scheme, why keep the dialog boxes? Every disjoint aspect to the GUI is just another thing waiting to go wrong, as with the Cessna autopilot where the dialog box is invisibly disconnected from the real autopilot. Now, maybe if the autopilot dialog box was part of the "autopilot object" so to speak, then such a mistake couldn't happen, and I'd retract my complaint on those grounds at least. It would be neat if the instruments were objects in that way (I suspect they're not currently). If your airplane uses one, its instantiation code would to hook any dialog box interface that it may have into the list of things on a given menu, to start feeding polygons and textures reflecting its state to the OpenGL engine. Later, if that object sees a double-click on itself, it pops open a draggable, scalable window containing a photorealistic image of its front panel, maybe allowing clicks on that window to set its parameters. Steve. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
