Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> I'm (still) against binary runtime modules for FlightGear.
>
I'm more curious as to whether we need them.
The entire guts of FlightGear are available to almost anyone via
external communications (e.g. sockets) and Nasal. Why not write a
communications script or Nasal s
I'm (still) against binary runtime modules for FlightGear.
They are an invitation for circumventing the GPL, locking in users,
and potentially harm cross-platformness. I find the prospect of a
vendor offering a new device with closed source libraries for stock
FlightGear worrying, and even more so
Hi,
So, since I wanted to get in touch with you anyway ...
Good to hear from you!
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:09:48 Petr Gotthard wrote:
> I'd like to bring up again the issue of standalone FlightGear modules
> (add-ons, plug-ins). You probably hear this question once a while, but I
> have a new
Petr Gotthard wrote:
> To follow the "do things right" rule I think it would be great to implement a
> generic interface for standalone I/O modules. Both Micro$oft FSX and X-Plane
> have such interface. The M&S HLA users would just need to build a shared
> module (.dll or .so) for a particular
Hello,
I'd like to bring up again the issue of standalone FlightGear modules (add-ons,
plug-ins). You probably hear this question once a while, but I have a new
argument. ;-)
Although the FlightGear design fairly modular it's provided as a single binary.
Everyone who wants to create a new I/O
5 matches
Mail list logo
