Curt asked:
> Sent: 18 October 2004 15:47 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Submodels > > Vivian Meazza wrote: > > >Vegard Ovesen wrote: > > > > > > > >>Sent: 18 October 2004 09:26 > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Submodels > >> > >>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. > >> > >> > >> > > > >Having dwelt on this overnight, I think that there are advantages to the > >vector approach. It is more or less consistent with the electrical > system. I > >briefly suggested separating the various sub-types of submodel during > >development, but Erik advised against IIRC. > > > >On the other hand, it would be nice to place the serviceability property > >where it more properly belongs: with each sub-sub-model. > > > >Unless there is a pressing need to change, or there are definite > advantages, > >I would suggest that we leave things as they are for now. If we all > agree, > >I'll look at moving the serviceability property once I have completed the > >Seafire (nearly there). > > > > > > Roy, Dave, Vivian, Erik > > One thing that is not clear to me, is what happens with the submodel > stuff in a multi-display environment? Is there any facility for > replicating and syncing these objects across multiple visual channels? > They are AI objects, so as far as those are handled across multiple visual channels, so are submodels. But that begs the question ... perhaps Erik can help here? Regards, Vivian _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
