On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote: > leee wrote: > > On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > >> That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is, > >> though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft. > > > > This is exactly the sort of think I'd hope to see at the end of > > the transition/notification period and just before the default > > behaviour was changed, so that any outstanding occurrences > > could be looked into. > > In a continuous process of improving FlightGear there's no point > in keeping an 'undesired' (or, in some cases even a buggy) > feature as being the default just because some unknown 3rd party > software _might_ depend on it. > If people don't feel like moving on with the times then they're > free to use old versions of software. If they'd like to stay > current, then they're going to adjust their 3rd party stuff > accordingly. > > It's as simple as that, > > Martin.
Aha, so all the aircraft that have been developed for FG, and without which FG would be pretty pointless (unless you only ever want to fly the C-172) are just "unknown 3rd party stuff" now then? LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
