Hi, On Tuesday 11 August 2009 12:08:05 Martin Spott wrote: > I'm pretty familiar with these topics, but memory usage is not the > point here (well, it probably is, but from the current perspective I > didn't care much). And when I was using the term "lightweight" I didn't > mean startup or load times either. > > I understand the idea behind the 'fgviewer' tool as creating a distinct > viewer component (yet still in the early stage of development) which, > while still remaining compilant with the FlightGear environment, is > trying to adopt as little dependencies from FlightGear as possible and > therefore does not necessarily has to follow every rule of "how things > are done in fgfs" in order to achieve its fine goal. > > Actually I'm convinced that carefully cutting some of the old ties > (some call them "cruft"), for example by keeping the viewer part as > independent from the FlightGear core as possible, might serve as a good > platform for future development. It's obvious that FlightGear, as every > visual simulation, has to depend on the viewer. But the opposite way of > depending the viewer part heavily on core FlightGear components is > certainly not going into the outlined direction.
Ack! Mathias ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
