Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
I am consistently getting the following error message at the end of every FGFS run: Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-close.c: 719: _dl_close: Assertion `map-l_init_called' failed! This is with a version freshly pulled from git://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear This has been going on for a while now. It might be worth fixing this before the next release. Is everybody else seeing the same thing? If not, I can provide more detail. -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Hi Stuart, Stuart Buchanan wrote: DurkTalsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. [...] We're requiring a much higher level of computer know-how from our user-base, so this will have significant implications for our documentation and the level of basic help that will be required on the Forums. I think this is a self-elected burden, since, as we both probably know best, the usual suspects have proven not to be too serious about proper documentation. While I do understand and respect your concerns, I feel a bit unhappy about the idea of putting restrictions upon the release process for the sole reason that FlightGear (whoever you would choose to put under this umbrella) is still addicted to the tradition of not writing consistent documentation. At last I think's this is not the best foundation to make a decision about what to put into the release packages. If we are really concerned about the size of the base package, I suggest that rather than restrict it to a minimum, we offer two different but complete install images: 1) FG-Lite with a single aircraft, no AI aircraft and a big warning that they won't be able to see more than one or two aircraft in MP! 2) FG-Deluxe with a wider selection of aircraft and a full set of AI aircraft. Much closer to what we provided in 1.9.1 Would you still propose to ship the entire set of shared Scenery models with both packages or would you agree on shipping just those which are referenced by the Base Package Scenery ? Best regards, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Martin Spott wrote: Stuart Buchanan wrote: DurkTalsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. [...] We're requiring a much higher level of computer know-how from our user-base, so this will have significant implications for our documentation and the level of basic help that will be required on the Forums. I think this is a self-elected burden, since, as we both probably know best, the usual suspects have proven not to be too serious about proper documentation. While I do understand and respect your concerns, I feel a bit unhappy about the idea of putting restrictions upon the release process for the sole reason that FlightGear (whoever you would choose to put under this umbrella) is still addicted to the tradition of not writing consistent documentation. At last I think's this is not the best foundation to make a decision about what to put into the release packages. I'm not sure it's so much an issue that few people do enough documentation, more that it is quite hard for a new user to install scenery (remembering to refresh their airport list) and aircraft. That would be true even if we had good documentation - we'd need to find a way to encourage people to RTFM! If we feel on balance that providing a lightweight install image is worth the increased user requirements, then that is fine. I just don't want us to end up delivering something without understanding all the implications. If we are really concerned about the size of the base package, I suggest that rather than restrict it to a minimum, we offer two different but complete install images: 1) FG-Lite with a single aircraft, no AI aircraft and a big warning that they won't be able to see more than one or two aircraft in MP! 2) FG-Deluxe with a wider selection of aircraft and a full set of AI aircraft. Much closer to what we provided in 1.9.1 Would you still propose to ship the entire set of shared Scenery models with both packages or would you agree on shipping just those which are referenced by the Base Package Scenery ? Probably just the shared models that are referenced by the Base Package Scenery, though I haven't thought about it in detail. It would seem a fairly sensible way to reduce the package size, though I don't know what the delta is. On a related note, are we happy with v1.9.2, or should we roll the version number to v2.0.0 ? (There, that'll get some interest... ) -Stuart -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
DurkTalsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. I'm very, very, concerned with this approach, and see a number of significant issues: 1) We're effectively telling new users that they need to be able to install new packages and customize their FG installation to do any reasonable level of virtual flying. With 1.9.1 they could quite happily fly in MP around KSFO and have a pretty good user experience without installing anything else. Frankly, I doubt that our install tools and instructions are user-friendly enough to support this approach. We're requiring a much higher level of computer know-how from our user-base, so this will have significant implications for our documentation and the level of basic help that will be required on the Forums. 2) Only including a single aircraft implies that the simulator is only really designed for that aircraft, and any other aircraft may represent a compromise in quality or capabilities. This will be particular apparent when people do the inevitable comparison with MSFS and X-Plane, which include a wider selection of aircraft with the initial install. 3) New users often want to fly a military jet or commercial jet ASAP, despite this being an un-realistic goal. If we increase the barrier to entry for these people to even get into the cockpit of something that they want to fly, we'll see a lot more people giving up on FG before they get hooked. 4) Adequately documenting how to install the various ADDON packages in a way that can be understood by users, and getting them to RTFM. Martin and I have put quite a bit of effort into providing instructions for Aircraft and Scenery in The Manual, and yet people still have problems. Having to provide additional instructions for AI aircraft as well is going to be a pain. 5) Deciding which single aircraft to include, and ensuring that it is a shining example of what FG can do. Ideally, we should have decided on the aircraft months ago, and encouraged a concentrated effort to make it as complete as possible. If we are really concerned about the size of the base package, I suggest that rather than restrict it to a minimum, we offer two different but complete install images: 1) FG-Lite with a single aircraft, no AI aircraft and a big warning that they won't be able to see more than one or two aircraft in MP! 2) FG-Deluxe with a wider selection of aircraft and a full set of AI aircraft. Much closer to what we provided in 1.9.1 Of course, this requires a lot more effort from our packagers, and may also cause some confusion amongst new users, but if we want to grow the FG community making things more difficult for the user is not the way forward. -Stuart -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:13:51 + (GMT), Stuart wrote in message 305052.62106...@web26005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com: DurkTalsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. I'm very, very, concerned with this approach, and see a number of significant issues: 1) We're effectively telling new users that they need to be able to install new packages and customize their FG installation to do any reasonable level of virtual flying. With 1.9.1 they could quite happily fly in MP around KSFO and have a pretty good user experience without installing anything else. Frankly, I doubt that our install tools and instructions are user-friendly enough to support this approach. We're requiring a much higher level of computer know-how from our user-base, so this will have significant implications for our documentation and the level of basic help that will be required on the Forums. 2) Only including a single aircraft implies that the simulator is only really designed for that aircraft, and any other aircraft may represent a compromise in quality or capabilities. This will be particular apparent when people do the inevitable comparison with MSFS and X-Plane, which include a wider selection of aircraft with the initial install. 3) New users often want to fly a military jet or commercial jet ASAP, despite this being an un-realistic goal. If we increase the barrier to entry for these people to even get into the cockpit of something that they want to fly, we'll see a lot more people giving up on FG before they get hooked. 4) Adequately documenting how to install the various ADDON packages in a way that can be understood by users, and getting them to RTFM. Martin and I have put quite a bit of effort into providing instructions for Aircraft and Scenery in The Manual, and yet people still have problems. Having to provide additional instructions for AI aircraft as well is going to be a pain. 5) Deciding which single aircraft to include, and ensuring that it is a shining example of what FG can do. Ideally, we should have decided on the aircraft months ago, and encouraged a concentrated effort to make it as complete as possible. If we are really concerned about the size of the base package, I suggest that rather than restrict it to a minimum, we offer two different but complete install images: 1) FG-Lite with a single aircraft, no AI aircraft and a big warning that they won't be able to see more than one or two aircraft in MP! 2) FG-Deluxe ...I'd call that FG-Standard... with a wider selection of aircraft and a full set of AI aircraft. Much closer to what we provided in 1.9.1 ...and reserve FG-Deluxe for all the bells 'n whistles etc... Of course, this requires a lot more effort from our packagers, and may also cause some confusion amongst new users, but if we want to grow the FG community making things more difficult for the user is not the way forward. -Stuart -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Hi Folks, Just wondering: Suppose we're aiming for another release by the end of the year, would it be feasible to go ahead with our original plan and release a 1.9.2-beta version just before FSWeekend? We've seen are few relatively major code overhauls in the recent past, so if we do continue with planning a new release, would it be an idea to call for a feature freeze by say mid-October (that would be, ahem, next weekend). FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. Thoughts, Ideas, Cheers, Durk -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Durk Talsma wrote: Hi Folks, Just wondering: Suppose we're aiming for another release by the end of the year, would it be feasible to go ahead with our original plan and release a 1.9.2-beta version just before FSWeekend? We've seen are few relatively major code overhauls in the recent past, so if we do continue with planning a new release, would it be an idea to call for a feature freeze by say mid-October (that would be, ahem, next weekend). Sounds good, but this requires the audio direction code to be functional. I'll try to get it working this week. Erik -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Erik Hofman wrote: Sounds good, but this requires the audio direction code to be functional. I'll try to get it working this week. Hi Erik, Sorry to put more work on you, but it would be good if JSBSim could be updated to JSBSim/CVS too. Some piston engine configurations are misbehaving with the version currently in FlightGear/CVS but should behave better with the code in JSBSim/CVS. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Ron Jensen wrote: On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 20:56 +0200, Durk Talsma wrote: Hi Folks, call for a feature freeze by say mid-October (that would be, ahem, next weekend). I would love to see JSBSim synced before the feature freeze... There are some tweaks to the piston code; ram-air, better throttle control and better boost handling, and the gear code now allows gears to be aligned in arbitrary directions. I'll test and commit it first thing tomorrow. Erik -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Hi Durk, Durk Talsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. The current state of Base Package Scenery (w12[2,3]n37) is referencing just 38 Shared Models only. I'll try to provide a daily list of files to include (I'll have to check which files are being referenced from outside the Scenery), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
On 10/11/2009 08:56 PM, Durk Talsma wrote: Hi Folks, Just wondering: Suppose we're aiming for another release by the end of the year, would it be feasible to go ahead with our original plan and release a 1.9.2-beta version just before FSWeekend? We've seen are few relatively major code overhauls in the recent past, so if we do continue with planning a new release, would it be an idea to call for a feature freeze by say mid-October (that would be, ahem, next weekend). FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. Thoughts, Ideas, I think this is a good idea. My major work in the pipe -- effects for models -- will be checked in by next weekend. I strongly recommend that we make the code portion of the beta and release from the master branch on gitorious. Tim -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
