Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Hi Syd,
>
> For downloadable add-on aircraft, 3D instruments should be stored
> inside each downloadable aircraft package even these can be duplicated.
> I also think that each downloadable aircraft should be independent from
> both base package and other aircraft even these share the same panel,
> sound, etc. The reasons are as follows:
>
>
> 1. To make FlightGear user friendly
> Independent downloadable package has less problem in downloading
> a new aircraft since users don't have to download some other aircraft  
> that
> the downloaded one relies on. Plus, aircraft itself can be work on  
> several
> different version of FlightGear. we, at this moment, have three  
> different
> versions, 0.9.10, 0.9.11-pre, and CVS/head. So having 3D instruments
> inside a package provides with users more chance to use a new aircraft.
>
> Of course this redundancy might give developers a bit annoying situation
> since they need to maintain duplicated parts for every aircraft that  
> shares
> the same ones. As you know, I made some nas files and instruments
> shared with three different japanese warbirds, but I didn't put any of  
> these
> to the shared folder in a base package, this is because I want to make
> these packages independent from the base package of a certain version
> so users can use these on both 0.9.10 and CVS version. even though
> I have to maintain these shared parts considering the differences among
> active fgfs versions, I use local repository and some helper scripts  
> to save
> my time.
>
> Having a nice downloading GUI program can solve such problem if
> it can automatically downloads the parts that an aircraft depends on.
> It may check the dependencies and conflicts semi-automatically to avoid
> messing around other aircraft.
>
>
> 2. To make base package travel light
> To put many shared parts into the base package can make a fat base
> package. This may lead long downloading time for possibly unwanted
> shared objects. Lightweight base package is always a good answer
> unless these shared ones are needed by the base package itself.
>
>
> 3. To avoid unexpected impact on changing an shared instrument
> Especially in an early development phase of a certain aircraft, the
> developers want to change its instruments, sound, etc often.
> In this case changes can affect some other (older?) aircraft and users
> might experience unexpected changes on other aircraft.
> In this case users need to update every aircraft that shares the changed
> instrument, otherwise the older ones might not work properly.
> That what we should avoid, I believe.
>
> I think such thing can be always a troublesome issue since we need to
> take care of many perspectives. But it is always a good to think about
> such things for maintaining entire FlightGear package wholesome
> for both developers and users side.
>
> Talking about wholesome, I'm changing some nas files in japanese
> warbirds due to Melchior's advise about "var." I love his thought
> since he always want to maintain FlightGear wholesome and consistent.
> I'll give you these files when completed.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tat
>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>   
>> On Sunday 09 December 2007 07:22, Syd&Sandy wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi everyone ,
>>>     I ran into another issue , just wondering what everyone else's  
>>> opinion is
>>> on the matter. I,ve been updating the Bravo , and the Primus 1000
>>> instruments and controllers are in the Aircraft/Instruments-3d  
>>> folder. I
>>> assumed that this is the place all 3d instruments should go ...  
>>> preventing
>>> unneccesary duplication , but if the aircraft is a separate  
>>> download , this
>>> could be a problem . Unless of course , those instruments are added  
>>> to the
>>> download package . I guess my question is ,  should the 3d  
>>> instruments stay
>>> in each Aircraft folder , or the Instruments_3d folder. I have done  
>>> it both
>>> ways , but I think if we get enough accurate 3d instruments in the
>>> Instruments_3d folder , assembling a 3d panel should become  easier  
>>> as time
>>> goes by ... Cheers
>>>       
>> As it stands right now, the Instruments-3D directory will be part of  
>> the base
>> package, so downloaded aircraft should still work.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Durk
>>
>>     
Hi All,

Instruments-3d is not the only folder in Aircraft with common shared 
files.  The Generic folder has shared autopilot Nasal files.  There are 
many other examples such as common wave files.  I believe I disagree 
with Tatsuhiro for the following reasons:
1.  As concerns the pa24-250, since all but one of the shared files is 
shared with aircraft in the base package, moving all of these into the 
individual aircraft folders would increase the base package size. 
2.  Also, who would have the awesome task of removing files from the 
base package that should now be in the individual AC folders?  Would 
that be the maintainer of each non-base package AC.  They might not know 
what other AC share the file and in the rush to get the release out, 
inadvertently break other AC.
3.  Removing shared files just before the release would make the release 
not match any well tested cvs configuration.
4.  Encouraging sharing files that should be common tends to improve the 
final results and discourage unnecessary and unrealistic differences 
between AC.  An example of this is the common nasal for the Altimatic 
IIIc and the Century III autopilots.  The ongoing communication and 
joint feedback between Torsten and myself made the final product 
significantly better and this joint effort is one of the most rewarding 
aspects of being a part of FlightGear.

Regards,
Dave Perry

But I will go with what the consensus becomes on this issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to