Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-04 Thread Alexis Bory - xiii
James Turner wrote: So, I'd much rather see a concerted effort to get CVS into a releasable state, and a schedule for some 'preview' or 'beta' releases, rather than working on back-ports. I would also add, that it can be the right time to publicize the current endeavors and reflections,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-04 Thread James Turner
On 3 Oct 2008, at 15:06, James Turner wrote: I think this code is original. At one point Mark Harris' clouds were in the tree, but they proved to be to expensive for the machines of the day, AIUI; the current code is a simplification of that. Okay, that's not my recollection of the early

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-04 Thread Stuart Buchanan
--- On Fri, 3/10/08, James Turner wrote: On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:01, Tim Moore wrote: Stuart has run into a bug in OSG with respect to Imposters, which manage the cached rendering of the individual cloud sprites. It's unclear if this ever worked well in OSG. Unfortunately I haven't had the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Heiko Schulz
Hi, So, I'd much rather see a concerted effort to get CVS into a releasable state, and a schedule for some 'preview' or 'beta' releases, rather than working on back-ports. James I agree to nearly all what you said, but why not release an official 2.0-pre-version with OSG which

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread James Turner
On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:15, Heiko Schulz wrote: I agree to nearly all what you said, but why not release an official 2.0-pre-version with OSG which shows to the world that we are still alive? Maybe as an advertisement to other developers? Yep, that's what I said :) In the moment I see

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Matthew Tippett
I would be pleased to get something formal released. A snapshot would mean publicity through Phoronix - to the Linux crowd, inclusion in the Phoronix Test Suite (for multi-display testing), and finally AMD would squeeze out a few videos of Tim Moore's great multi camera at least 12 heads (16 if I

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Tim Moore
James Turner wrote: On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:15, Heiko Schulz wrote: I agree to nearly all what you said, but why not release an official 2.0-pre-version with OSG which shows to the world that we are still alive? Maybe as an advertisement to other developers? Yep, that's what I said :) I

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Back-porting to the pre-OSG branch (was Re: Only to remember)

2008-10-03 Thread Syd
I'll have to admit , I'm also in favor of moving forward , not backwards :). Personally I'd like to see an OSG release , to demonstrate that FG IS progressing , it seems a lot of users are trying to use CVS aircraft with version 1.0 despite warnings that they might not work :) my 2 cents cheers