Andy Ross wrote:
> > I would like to restrict that a bit. For bugfixes and non
> > developers this might be a good idea. But please do not develop
> > new features on the branch. I know how many problems this will
> > give. And to be honest, Olaf I believe You know what I am
> > talking about ...
>
> No offense, but the proper way to prevent people from wanting to
> use the Plib branch is to *fix* the OSG code.
If you wold have monitored the progress then you would have discovered
that this process has already started. The patch to the RGB loader is
already in OSG CVS. BTW, If you remind the early days of your Nasal or
YASim BLOB's in FlightGear then you'll remember that people ran into
significant difficulties with these as well - I know this pretty good
because I _was_ concerned.
Well, problems got fixed after a while - same here, so _why_ are you
actually complaining !? This is simply "development taking place".
> This is a big, disruptive change, and I'm sympathetic to you,
> really. YASim and Nasal were big and disruptive too. But so
> far, OSG has produced literally zero benefit for anyone.
Maybe _you_ don't see the benefit, some people actually do, this sort
of benefit is just different from what you probably did expect.
Migrating FlightGear over to OSG is a move that, to flatten the path to
improved visual effects, was in fact unavoidable. Nobody even dared to
step onto the plate and actually _do_ it because everyone knows, that
replacing the whole scenegraph interface is at a different level than
adding another FDM or script interpreter to a flight simulation - that
also 'plays' nice without having these additions working.
As you'll have realized, I'm glad that Mathias took on this. I have two
different platforms where FlightGear/OSG doesn't run blazing fast but
at stable frame rates!
I have two additional platforms where I was able to build OSG right out
of the box - and where I expect to build FlightGear sooner or later. Do
you have at least the slightest idea how long it takes to get a patch
into the PLIB build system in order to fix obviously incorrect
assumptions for a certain platform ? Don't count in months, better
count in semesters. Do you prefer such a dependency over OSG, which
simply just works on the mentioned four platforms ?
> + I don't like the OSG build system at all.
Well every one of us should be allowed to have personal preferences,
don't we ? ;-)
> + No released version of OSG works with FlightGear, nor does
> their CVS head. Technically, we're porting onto a *fork* of
> OSG right now. We never did this with plib:
This is plain wrong. Certain things in FlightGear simply don't work
with the latest PLIB release (which is now one and a half years old).
This counts for some features in FlightGear (especially the menu
system) as well as building PLIB on some platforms that FlightGear runs
on (you have to patch PLIB release in order to build on FreeBSD for
example).
I accept that you don't like the move to OSG maybe simply because it's
not your invention, but please don't start spreading 'misleading'
allegations,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
