On Tuesday 18 January 2005 08:21, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 January 2005 04:40, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> > On January 17, 2005 02:25 pm, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> > > We already have too many "empty" 3D models in FG without working FMCs,
> > > FMSs, ECAMs, NDs, etc.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > It will be nice if you can implement these systems, perferablely by Nasal
> > so that they can be flexible.
>
> Running Nasal code in the rendering loop to do tons of work would not be a
> very good idea in my opinion.
> I've looked through an A320 FCOM manual and it would take many thousands of
> lines of C++ to accomplish a half functional aircraft.

...[snap]...

> Unfortunately this is going to sit on the backburner for a long time as
> it's tons of work to implement, I'm already too busy with other projects
> and I doubt anybody else would be willing to tackle it in the near future.
>

So, are you suggesting we should do it ourselves and shift priorities? Work on 
glass cockpits Instead of creating 3D models, and FDMs? Doesn't sound like 
its gonna work. There are currently some really talented people working on 3D 
models, but these people are not necessarily great programmers. And the 
opposite is true as well. Good programmers might be lousy 3D modellers. 

So, shifting priorities wouldn't work here. I don't see why the 3D modelling 
people shouldn't continue to work on new models. My experience with 
FlightGear over the years has alway been that if there is something you can 
do *now*, that will benefit the program in the long run that do it[1].

Cheers,
Durk


[1]. As an example: In the early days, around 1997, Curt asked me if I could 
write some code that would return the latitude and longitude of the sun's 
current positin, for daylight computation purposes. Having written it, adding 
a visual representation of the sun, moon, and the planets at their exact 
position turned out to be pretty trivial to impliment, and the overhead to 
run the code neligable, so I went ahead and did it. 

I remember lots of complaints from people claiming that we were focusing on 
the wrong things, etc etc. However, there wasn't really an alternative for me 
to work on at the time, so shifting priorities wasn't really an option 
either. And see what we have now. I don't think it hurt when we sometimes 
impliment things in seemingly weird orders. :-)



_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to