Chris Metzler wrote:

Fair enough.  But with ground structures that are installable separately,
it's possible for a user to pick and choose what to install.  For example,
someone could wish to see a set of landmarks in Paris, but not the
buildings at Orly (wanting smoother framerates during landing/takeoff,
but not caring so much when flying over the center of the city), or
something like that.  So while I really like having the separate Objects
directory, and agree that being able to toggle on/off the static scenery
objects would be a good thing, I think being able to pick and choose what
(non-random) static structures to install is *also* a good thing.


Well, having user-developed scenery in a CVS repository would be nice
in that it'd make available all of the CVS infrastructure; no need to
create or port a bunch of applications to maintain it all.  And it would
be easy to integrate with everything else, and add to mirrors, and so
on.  But from the users' perspective, it may not be ideal in that it's
not very *browseable* -- to look through what's available in a nice
friendly form, with images and so on, and pick out what you like and
dload it.  Browsing a CVS repository is possible, of course; but kinda
ugly and more oriented towards developers than users.  I don't know much
about user-friendly CVS clients, especially for Windows.  The other thing
is that I think it'd be good to avoid putting any more work upon the
existing developers (e.g. not asking Curt to take on more website work).
If the CVS archive ran on outside machines, and was linked to off the
website on, that might work OK, I dunno.

I've already explained this to Jon, but I was really aiming at a two stage approach. Maintaining can be done using CVS. Making it available for users could be done like downloading the terrain data right now: Using a webpage.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to