Am Donnerstag 16 Dezember 2004 18:45 schrieb Christian Mayer:
> ...[other GUIs besides PUI
>
> Well, I don't think that replacing PUI has a high priority.

Thats probably right.

> I doesn't look that bad (but doesn't mirror the OS style). And it get's
> drawn by OpenGL with a low overhead.
>
> So we should improve the underlaying functionality first, bevore we
> consider exchanging PUI.

I see it as an opportunity for me to step in, because GUI code should be 
fairly trivial, i.e. independent of domain knowledge.

> ...[multiple fg guis]...
> This sounds like unlimited resources where you can afford the luxurity
> to code a GNOME, as Qt, a Windows, a MacOS, a [...] interface...

This was just the vision. The actual steps to get there might differ :-)

But these toolkits provide more or less the same functionality, so translating 
the FG GUI to any one of them should be straight forward. I can help out with 
QT, maybe there are others who can do that for a GTK based solution, etc.

> A Qt only interface sounds good - but Qt isn't free for Windows (you'll
> only get an 30 day evaluation copy IIRC), so we can't use it :(

That's the point why I opt for having multiple GUI implementations. I can't 
use the native Windows solution here on Linux, with QT it's the other way 
round. Most of the cross platform available toolkits are either ugly or hard 
to develop with. Going for an own GUI toolkit for plib is even more 
demanding.

So giving the user a choice is probably the best way to go, i.e. using a 
QT-based one on Linux, a native Windows GUI on Windows, no GUI at all in a 
real simulator setting.

Think I'll try to prototype something this weekend.

Thomas

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

Reply via email to