On Monday 18 October 2004 00:24, Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> The ability to set a serviceability state for each submodel system would
> seem to be the correct approach, but if I understand your proposal
> correctly, it will end up in more files overall.

Actually the systems and instrumentation configuration files are already in 
CVS. So my point of view is that integrating the submodels configuration into 
the already existing systems configuration file would result in fewer files. 
It seems to me that your point of view is that adding systems and 
instrumentation configuration files would result in more config files. Which 
of course is true, but as I said systems and instrumentation config is 
already there (and the won't go away ;-)).

>
> As a major user and part-author of the submodel system, I have no
> objections,

A quick grep through the base package revealed that three aircraft use the 
subsystem: F16, Spitfire and Hunter. I will of course move the subsystem 
config to system config so that they don't get broken.

> but David Culp was the originator: his view might differ. You 
> may wish to seek his approval before going ahead with this change.

On Wednesday 08 September 2004 01:11, David Culp wrote:
> > David Culp, is it ok if I modify the new submodel so that it can be
> > configured in the systems.xml file along with the rest of the systems? Or
> > do you have another plan for this?
>
> Sounds OK to me.
>
>
> Dave

I'm not that an experienced programmer, so I am wondering if the vector of 
submodels approach has superior preformace compared to my approach.

-- 
Roy Vegard Ovesen

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to