Roy 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 ;-)). OK, I've just updated cvs, and the inputs to some of my 3d instruments are now broken in the Hunter, Seahawk and Spitfire. How do I get them back? V. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
