--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> > Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are
> an arbitrary
> > set of numbers [...]
>
> No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread
> it was
> clear that people consider a sane version number
> more important
> than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of
> the incident.
> Is it your commercial interests in fgfs that make
> you want it
> be called 1.0? Did someone complain? Those who use
> fgfs in
> their FAA certified simulator? We would understand
> it.
>
> Here's again what I consider sorely missing for a
> release 1.0:
> landing/taxi-lights. It's weird to call a simulator
> 1.0 if you
> have to let your aircraft parked in the middle of a
> runway
> after having landed at night, because you don't see
> anything
> but a few dim light points. A daylight-only
> simulator doesn't
> deserve the 1.0. :-P
>
> m.
>
Hmm...
How possible it is, that we have landinglights with
the release after this one?
Compared to x-Plane we sure other v 1.0, but with OSG
there are some differences....
HHS
Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen?
www.yahoo.de/mail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
