On Wednesday 10 September 2003 15:26, Erik Hofman wrote: > Curtis Olson wrote: > > > This is all very true, especially in the open source world. However, > > speaking as the flightgear project maintainer, I get the sense that we > > are starting to collect a number of half finished (or just barely > > started) aircraft that really aren't coherent or flyable yet. I > > realize building aircraft for FlightGear is a ***lot*** of work, and I > > don't want to knock the contributions that everyone has made, they are > > very welcome. But the flip side is that a new user who is trying > > flightgear for the very first time might have to go through several > > aircraft before they find one that flies plausibly through all the > > normal flight regimes. > > Agreed. But that's really a FlightGear issue. > > What I've been thinking of is setting up a flag somehow that could be > checked to indicate which aircraft probably shouldn't be included in the > official base package archive. > > Erik
I think this would largly be solved by moving the majority of the a/c out of the base package and placing them in a separate repositry where they're downloaded individually. The development status of the a/c would be part of the description that people would read when selecting an a/c so they'd know what state it's in before downloading it. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
