Well said Lee Now why didn't I think of that.LOL
Cheers Innis The Mad Aussi
Lee Elliott writes
>I think an eye-candy vs. dynamics/procedureal accuracy debate is a bit
pointless in the context of FlightGear.
Ultimately, the trend for any simulator will be towards improvements in both areas and it's really more a question of who wants to work on what and when.
I don't see FG as an 'employing' project where the developers/contributers are obliged to do particular things or meet specific targets. it's fine if people want to have wish-lists or suggest ideas but no-one is obliged to do anything.
If someone wants to concentrate on dynamics or procedureal accuracy that's what they'll work on and similarly, if someone else wants to work on 'eye-candy' improvements then that's what they'll do.
While FG appears, to me, to be a co-ordinated project, I wouldn't describe it as a 'managed' project, as the people doing the work haven't put themselves into a 'managed' position where they can be told what to do.
It seems to me, therefore, that debating eye-candy vs. dynamic/procedureal accuracy is a waste of time, and possibly harmful because the people who want to work in the area expounded by the side that loses the debate aren't suddenly going to start working in the area expounded by the side that wins it. They're more likely to start working for a different project where they feel that what they want to work on will be welcome.
I welcome all improvements to FG.
I secound that motion.
LeeE
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
