> That's great, I already wondered what happened to that project. This
> would really be a great addition for FlightGear.
Unfortunately I am studying and currently try to compensate for the tremendous
lazyness of my past semesters :-) So that project had to wait for the
> As I understood you where using your own SceneGraph engine, what would
> be the best way to handle this;
> 1. Adding a SceneGraph API
> 2. You change your code to use plib
> 3. FlightGear starts to use your SceneGraph library
I am not yet sure what the best solution will be, but I want to
1) Wrap it into a plib scenegraph node
2) Abstract out the scenegraph and only offer a render() method,
which would just render to the current OpenGL context.
I prefer the second method, because of the simplicity of the interface;
implementation-wise the difference is small, it's more of a design question
at what level the rendering should be encapsulated. IMO the earlier, the
better (i.e. simpler).
> Hmm, I've seen work on branches and they have their pro's and con's. I'm
> not sure I like branches all that much.
I think in this case a branch makes a lot of sense, because otherwise the
modifications would greatly disturb the main-branch; or I would be forced
to hold back a gigantic monolithic patch until coding&testing has finished,
which would leave me without version control (and others wouldn't be able to
test or contribute).
Flightgear-devel mailing list