On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com wrote:
I think that what I'm looking for is behavior similar to QT
http://qt.nokia.com/ which I user quite often.
I am sorry and apologize for using the word sucks.
Pete, the problem is that QT doesn't live in the same
Tim Moore wrote:
[...] That doesn't change the fact that it would
be a great deal of work to port our GUI to Qt, and it would introduce a
very large external dependency. Having seen the fit pitched when I started
usineg boost...
I think the biggest stumbling block with introducing boost had
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Tim Moore wrote:
As was explained to me on IRC, this is already a solved problem: Qt widgets
can be drawn into OpenGL buffers. That doesn't change the fact that it would
be a great deal of work to port our GUI to Qt, and it would introduce a
very large external
Gene Buckle wrote:
Assuming that _something_ should be done with the GUI as it stands now,
what would be more effective, porting the whole thing to Qt or updating
Pui to address any deficiencies that it has - at least with regard to
FlightGear?
Two or three years ago I've been wandering
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
Gene Buckle wrote:
Assuming that _something_ should be done with the GUI as it stands now,
what would be more effective, porting the whole thing to Qt or updating
Pui to address any deficiencies that it has - at least with regard to
FlightGear?
Two
Pete Morgan wrote:
GUI dialogs suck
And now?
Erik
--
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible
Erik Hofman wrote:
Pete Morgan wrote:
GUI dialogs suck
And now?
Erik
very helpful erik.
pete
--
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data
Hi Pete,
The GUI is defined in XML and integrated with Nasal. There's a README.GUI
file which describes most of it (IIRC there are some features that aren't
documented at present).
I'd suggest having a look there, as I don't think that most of your comments
below are problems with the GUI code
Pete Morgan wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Pete Morgan wrote:
GUI dialogs suck
And now?
Erik
very helpful erik.
Like your comments indeed.
If it really sucked then others would have complained already, and most
likely it would have been fixed by now.
Erik
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
We are to some extent hamstrung by the rather old GUI toolkit we use. However,
replacing that is going to be non-trivial, and it would affect not just the
core GUI but
also all the dialog boxes that have been set up for particular aircraft.
-Stuart
That is
On Friday 29 January 2010 10:27:24 Erik Hofman wrote:
Like your comments indeed.
If it really sucked then others would have complained already, and most
likely it would have been fixed by now.
Please don't take offense by his offensive choice of words and do not dismiss
his valid points
Here's the thing. FlightGear uses a gui widget set that is implemented on
top of OpenGL. This has many advantages from a portability standpoint and
from the standpoint of integrating with window systems. Pui doesn't have
every feature under the sun, but it was never meant to. It's relatively
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's the thing. FlightGear uses a gui widget set that is implemented on
top of OpenGL. This has many advantages from a portability standpoint and
from the standpoint of integrating with window systems. Pui doesn't have
every feature under the sun,
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 06:54 -0800, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's the thing. FlightGear uses a gui widget set that is implemented on
top of OpenGL. This has many advantages from a portability standpoint and
from the standpoint of integrating with
First let me echo Erik. An offensive, adversarial approach isn't the
best way when you are asking someone else to do something for you for
free.
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 07:55 +, Pete Morgan wrote:
* they do not maintain last position
This needs to be handled very carefully, right now its
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Ron Jensen wrote:
small, lean, mean, and written on top of OpenGL which makes life *much*
easier for us.
Would it be possible (or even reasonable?) to strip out the GUI portion of
plib (essentially divorcing it from the bits that are un-needed/wanted)?
The idea being
pui already is a separate distinct library within plib. It depends on some
central utility stuff, but that's about it as far as I know. So it is
pretty stripped down and separate already.
Curt.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
pui already is a separate distinct library within plib. It depends on some
central utility stuff, but that's about it as far as I know. So it is
pretty stripped down and separate already.
Curt.
Given that, would it make sense to use it as the
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Gene Buckle wrote:
Given that, would it make sense to use it as the basis for a GUIGear?
Pull the utility code with pui and go?
Possibly the fact that we also use the joystick and IO interface libraries
from plib. JoyGUIIOGear? :)
Cheers,
Anders
--
Curtis Olson wrote:
Here's the thing. FlightGear uses a gui widget set that is
implemented on top of OpenGL. This has many advantages from a
portability standpoint and from the standpoint of integrating with
window systems. Pui doesn't have every feature under the sun, but
it was never
I think that what I'm looking for is behavior similar to QT
http://qt.nokia.com/ which I user quite often.
I am sorry and apologize for using the word sucks.
Pete, the problem is that QT doesn't live in the same graphics Space as
FlightGear does. In order to make it work, all the commands
21 matches
Mail list logo
