Norman wrote: > You have stated that you have a hook in place that could be used to > make a switch as to draw the 2D or the 3D HUD hased on a property yet > you apparently have no interest in using it, in stead you continue to > berate the 2D HUD code
I'm completely at a loss. I have stated repeatedly that I have no objections to a compatibility hook. What part of "certainly" (my very first word to you on this subject) wasn't clear? By all means, include the compatibility hook; that's why it's there. My point (for the fourth time) is that this isn't the right thing to do. The old HUD remains just as broken as it ever was. It works only for users who only run FlightGear while looking straight ahead and running at 1024x768. You might still be in that group, but it's a rapidly shrinking one. All users (really, all of them, even you) would prefer to have a view-independent HUD where possible. Clinging to a view-dependent one just to preserve features is poor design. If you would just *tell* *me* what it is you want, we could get a proper view-independent HUD display *and* screen overlay features. But you don't, you just want the HUD to work the way it used to. That isn't acceptable for me, and probably not for many others. There is a better way to do this. Try helping to design it instead of fighting against useful features. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
