On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Martin Spott wrote: > Hi Jon, > > "Jon S. Berndt" wrote: > > > From: Martin Spott [mailto:martin.sp...@mgras.net] > > > > > > Overall, I think some day "the crowd" should start making up > > > their mind about wether relying on an externally maintained > > > FDM is still the way to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ > > > FlightGear might return a much higher benefit at reduced > > > effort. > > > > Is there sometimes confusion as to how or where to apply > > changes to JSBSim code or aircraft models? Do we need to work > > on easing the process of integration into FlightGear? More > > frequent synchs? > > Well, it's obvious that quite a number of aircraft which rely on > JSBSim are maintained in the FlightGear Base Package and nowhere > else. People are developing JSBSim-based aircraft and they put > them into FG's CVS - that's it. Now several aircraft engine > configurations are candidate for a review because the 'API' has > changed and I'm pretty certain that some of the respective > aircraft developers don't monitor ongoing development too > frequently. > I'll leave it to you to draw conclusions wether this is now > related to "confusion" or not ;-) > > I also remember aircraft developers waiting a 'significant' > amount of time (I don't remind any more if this had been weeks or > months) for a feature which had been submitted and committed to > JSBSim CVS to get merged into FlightGear CVS. Similar situations > could find their workaround in more frequent syncs from JSBSim > CVS to FlightGear CVS .... but I sense this is a rather tedious > and less enjoying task. > > > [...] (we'd need additional volunteers, [...] > > Hehe, every of the related projects needs more volunteers ;-) > > Martin.
How difficult would it be to make available multiple versions of FDM, which could then be specified in the aircraft configuration? The appropriate FDM (UIUC/JSBSim/YASim/Balloon) has to be loaded after the aircraft config has been read, so why can't an appropriate version of the FDM be loaded as well? Personally, I'd like to see this sort thing thing applied to all the FG subsystems that are configurable in the aircraft to provide backwards compatibility and avoid the need for mass updates of the aircraft every time something changes. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
