On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ron Jensen <w...@jentronics.com> wrote:
>> I still support the idea common shared directories idea for such things as >> instruments > This is a nice, happy thought. But in the real world it hasn't worked > out so well. Since we model such a huge variety of aircraft, and > different FDMs and systems provide different outputs, our common > instrument folders would need to be huge to cover all the different > kinds of instruments, plus variations and modifications to fit each > individual aircraft's structure. It makes more sense to me to house > each instrument with its aircraft. In real life, very, very few instruments are customized for each plane (the airspeed indicator, with its speed markings, is the obvious example). Most are manufactured by independent companies and are TSO'd, so that they can be used in hundreds of different aircraft models. Ditto for most avionics, aside from some glass panels, etc. A Sigma-Tek attitude gyro, for example, looks and works pretty-much the same as a primary instrument for a Cessna 150 or as a backup instrument on a 747 -- the differences (such as different voltage for the backlighting) are pretty trivial. I'd hate to see 100 copies of the same Sigma-Tek attitude gyro in the base package. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
