Melchior,
On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:58, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Mathias Fröhlich -- Wednesday 26 July 2006 22:49:
> > Because it is not a limitation but rather a gain. A *well* *done* and
> > *well* *supported* scenegraph will help you some much more than you
> > probably can imagine now.
>
> You completely miss the point: we are using ssg! There was no
> decision made to switch to osg. So, if we switch to ssg wrappers
> first, we lose capabilities, that we may or may not get back later.
>
> I don't accept that and object.
>
> > In fact, a proper design - like a well done scenegraph provides
>
> You miss the point. We are using ssg!
>
> > So why should we limit ourselves in the long term with ssg?
>
> Fact is: we are using ssg. We may or may not switch to osg later.
> There has *no* decision been made, so we can't rip out stuff now
> that osg may provide later. The way to go is:
>
> - formal decision to switch to osg (or at least to start working on it)
> - generate osg branch in cvs
> - parallel development
>
> In the osg branch you can do with the HUD what you like. But not
> in the current, *SSG* branch.
I believe that you miss the point.
The point is that we can, without loosing features, with a sensible design,
prepare getting rid of ssg. As allmost allways, building sensible structures
is a win even if no switch will happen.
Just blocking that is not a good idea.
... did you ever look at the sceens of csp.sf.net?
Greetings
Mathias
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
