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
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
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
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
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 MS HLA users would just need to build a shared
module (.dll or .so) for a particular HLA
5 matches
Mail list logo
