Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is dangerous though ...
- it will be hard to track plib changes (or easy to miss plib
changes.)
- sometimes the loaders are dependent on the internals of a particular
development version of plib, so we might end up with our code only
On Monday 25 August 2003 17:53, Erik Hofman wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
- I'd like to see each aircraft be completely self contained in it's
own subdirectory (except for standard base package stuff it could
feel free to reference.) These standard pieces wouldn't necessarily
I did a bit of background research on the packaging / bundling issue,
partly for my own curiosity, and in the vague hope of helping someone
who wants to take a crack at this..
Essentially, anyone who's installed add-ons for MSFS (any version)
knows what a pain it is, and uninstalling them is
James Turner wrote:
I did a bit of background research on the packaging / bundling issue,
partly for my own curiosity, and in the vague hope of helping someone
who wants to take a crack at this..
This is a nice summing of the possibilities.
As a unix user the first thing that comes to my mind is
On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 11:57 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
As a unix user the first thing that comes to my mind is off course tar
and gzip (or maybe bzip2). I am aware of the limitations of the tar
format, but the scan once for a TOC method seemed fast enough for me.
For very large archives,
On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 02:44 pm, Erik Hofman wrote:
Not necessary, it is mainly the number of files that causes the
slowdown. You can jump from one info block to another without actually
reading any date in between them (there is a pointer in the current
info block that points to the
James Turner wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 11:57 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
As a unix user the first thing that comes to my mind is off course tar
and gzip (or maybe bzip2). I am aware of the limitations of the tar
format, but the scan once for a TOC method seemed fast enough for me.
For
James Turner wrote:
Oh, I just did some browsing of the SSG loaders they're full of
fopen / fseek calls. Damn. Much work to be done there, I think.
Yep, although the AC3D load doesn't use seek. I was thinking of moving
the SGI texture loader and AC3D model loader over to SimGear and
Erik Hofman writes:
James Turner wrote:
Oh, I just did some browsing of the SSG loaders they're full of
fopen / fseek calls. Damn. Much work to be done there, I think.
Yep, although the AC3D load doesn't use seek. I was thinking of moving
the SGI texture loader and AC3D model
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
If nothing else we should first work on being able to have completely
self contained aircraft trees (rather than needing a -set.xml file in
one directory (possibly the aircraft fdm config in another direcotry)
and everything else in a separate area.)
The directory layout
Erik Hofman writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
If nothing else we should first work on being able to have completely
self contained aircraft trees (rather than needing a -set.xml file in
one directory (possibly the aircraft fdm config in another direcotry)
and everything else in a separate
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:51:50 +0200,
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jon Stockill wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Erik Hofman wrote:
Regarding ZIP files, is it legal to use the compression algorithm
without any limitations at the moment (for example GIF
- We would move each of the -set.xml to also live in the individual
aircraft tree.
- Then to install an aircraft you need to drop the aircraft's
directory somewhere inside the top level Aircraft directory. We
could have abitrary subdirectories to organize by aircraft type or
livery or era
Am Montag, 25. August 2003 20:43 schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
I thought the LZW patent had expired?
At least not in Europe. You'll have to wait until 2004.
..Europe??? Where is that?. ;-)
..for our US website, we're ok:
USA Where is that? :-o
Regards,
Oliver C.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Montag, 25. August 2003 20:43 schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
I thought the LZW patent had expired?
At least not in Europe. You'll have to wait until 2004.
..Europe??? Where is that?. ;-)
..for our US website, we're ok:
USA Where is that? :-o
Ok,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Montag, 25. August 2003 20:43 schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
I thought the LZW patent had expired?
At least not in Europe. You'll have to wait until 2004.
..Europe??? Where is that?. ;-)
..for our US website, we're ok:
USA Where is that? :-o
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Ok, if you start at Disney world,
That's in Florida. I always remember it as Disney *LA*nd in LA. I
think that your directions led to Mexico, and that you suggested we
speak mainly Spanish in Canada.
All the best,
David
17 matches
Mail list logo
