Actually, the base cvs package on dial-up isn't too bad once you've done the initial checkout, and even then it can be done over several sessions.
LeeE On Wednesday 17 March 2004 07:15, Durk Talsma wrote: > I agree that trimming down the base package (for the release) is probably > a good idea. I'm beginning to wonder if the "base" package isn't starting > to overshoot it's target these days. What I mean to say with this is that a > few years ago we had a pretty big discussion about whether or not to > separate the one big monolitithic download that fgfs was at the time into > more manageble chunks, and eventually came up with separating the code from > the essential data. This is the situation we have right now, but but > slowly, more and more aircraft have slipped into the base package, which is > growing again in size pretty quickly, and what's in the base package these > days is more than just "essential" > > So wouldn't it be logical to only include a few aircraft types into the > base package and offer the others for separate download, just like we do > for the world-wide scenery? This separation wouldn't create an additional > dependency, as much as offer a lot of additional functionality. > > Anyways, let me finish by saying that I'm perfectly happy this the > situation as we have it right now, having cable internet and access to cvs. > I'm just speculating about future developments. > > Cheers, > Durk > > On Wednesday 17 March 2004 04:50, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our > > next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be > > tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight. > > > > 1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I > > don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to have > > 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft. What > > would people say to nuking all the alias entries for the upcoming > > release? Now that we have the "fgrun" launcher, name length or > > complexity is not really an issue. Even for us hard core unix folks who > > refuse to give up the command line, we can learn to copy/paste to avoid > > unnecessary typing. I think getting rid of the aliases would make > > aircraft browsing and selection a lot less mystifying to new comers. > > We've got 20 (!) varients of the C172. Maybe for this release it would > > be nice to just have one or two??? > > > > 2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package. Some of these are > > really nice, some of these are not even close to basic functionality. > > Most are probalby best considered "works in progress." (Now this is > > perfectly fine, and is what CVS is for.) However, for the next release > > I would like to just include a subset of the available aircraft, picking > > and choosing the best or most interesting ones. > > > > I think it's worth including the heavies (737, A320, 747) even though > > their cockpits aren't finished. > > > > We definitely want the light civilian aircraft just as the Cub (which is > > one of the few aircraft that are legitimately finished) :-) as well as a > > C172 (C182?) and maybe include the C310 here, even though ours has navy > > markings? And definitely the pa28-161. It would be nice to get a 3d > > mixture control on the default C172 some day. > > > > There are some vintage aircraft we should include such as the Wright > > Flyer and ComperSwift and maybe the dc3 although I have no idea what's > > going on with the cockpit there. > > > > The P51 and the Hunter should definitely be included, those are ones > > that also could be considered "finished". > > > > Lee has built a nice fleet of various aircraft which are worth including > > such as the AN-225 (huge russian transport), a b-52, a seahawk, a tsr2 > > and a yf23. All of these fly well, have beautiful external 3d models, > > are very well animated including the gear and suspention, but all lack > > 3d cockpits and instead have a functional, but non-realistic 2d cockpit. > > > > The a4 is nice, although I don't know how complete the cockpit is??? > > The J22 and F16 both show promise. We should also include the X15, but > > that takes some startup parameters to get flying. > > > > And the Ornithopter should definitely be included. And we should toss > > the ufo in as well. I'll list the remaining aircraft below. These I've > > had less experience with or non-optimal results when I have tried them. > > > > What is the status of the helicopters? They've seemed very crude when > > I've looked at them. I don't mean to be anti-helicopter, but if we are > > trying to cull some of the less nice stuff out of the official release, > > I'm not sure in their current form they would make the cut. > > > > OV10-jsbsim North American OV-10A Bronco > > T37-jsbsim Cessna T-37 > > T38-jsbsim Northrop T-38 > > airwaveXtreme150-v1-nl-uiuc Airwave Xtreme 150 hang glider (UIUC) > > as350-yasim Ecureuil AS 350 Helicopter > > asw20-v1-nl-uiuc ASW-20 sailplane (UIUC) > > beech99-v1-uiuc Beech 99 (UIUC) > > bell206-yasim Bell 206 JetRanger Helicopter > > bo105-yasim Eurocopter Bo105 > > ch47-yasim CH-47 Chinook Helicopter > > f104-jsbsim Lockheed F-104 Starfighter > > f15-jsbsim McDonell Douglas F-15 Eagle > > fkdr1-v1-nl-uiuc > > fokker100-jsbsim Fokker 100 > > fokker50-jsbsim Fokker 50 > > harrier-yasim British Aerospace Harrier (YASim) > > marchetti-v1-uiuc Siai Marchetti S.211 (UIUC) > > paraglider-jsbsim paraglider > > sgs233-jsbsim Schweizer 2-33 > > shuttle-jsbsim Space Shuttle > > sopwithCamel-v1-nl-uiuc > > t6texan2-jsbsim T-6A Texan II > > x24b-jsbsim USAF/NACA X-24B reentry testbed > > > > Am I being too generous here? Should we draw the line a little > > tighter? Am I being too strict? Am I way off on my evaluation of what > > should go in or out? > > > > As time permits I plan to start doing some preliminary release work, > > going through my check lists, making sure version numbers and > > refererences are up to date, gleaning through the commit logs to come up > > with a list of changes, etc. etc. > > > > Regards, > > > > Curt. > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
