* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 14 April 2005 13:40:
> We, or rather the code, already know what the keys are. Any chance of
> generating this automatically, along the lines of the keys descriptions you
> already do?

As I said already:

* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 13 April 2005 23:52:
| Someone could argue that there should only be a list of keys and that the
| dialog should then pick the key descriptions that we have already. But this
| would mean less flexibility and a lot more lines (c and C in extra lines). (?)

Take, for example, the spitfire: it has 17 entries already. And this although,
for exaample, u and U are only one entry. I would have to add another 9 entries,
which is a *bad* idea. Finding a particular entry doesn't exactly become easier
by that. And then, I don't like most of the existiong descriptions: cheesy
capitalisation and trailing periods. This doesn't look good in a dialog (IMHO).

Here's a snapshot: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/help2.jpg  [60 kB]

There is one common dialog ("Help"/"Common Aircraft Keys") and one for each
aircraft that defines/needs it ("Help"/"Aircraft Help"; ?-key). I'll probably
improve some of the entries, and you are invited to sumbit changes to the
Spitfire immediately. But in the end it's, of course, your business, and
you can change whatever you want or remove the whole thing.



> Otherwise, as you said, it will take years to cover all the aircraft.

Let this be my problem. I have done this for all aircraft that are in
CVS already. I only have to go through this again and fix some mistakes.
But that's trivial.   :-)

m.

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

Reply via email to