On vendredi 03 octobre 2008, James Turner wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2008, at 11:50, gerard robin wrote:
> > We (I) must be patient, and still wait a long time before to get
> > within FG
> > most of the OSG features, probably not before at least  2010 or 2011
> > (2 or 3
> > years delay).
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > Why isn't it possible to make an FG 1.1 (or at least an update of
> > the PreOSG
> > CVS branch)  with these updates ?
> I'd hazard a guess that this is more work that fixing the outstanding
> OSG issues, which, as far as I know, are:
>   - shadows
>   - 3D clouds
> (what have I missed? I'd love to have a definitive list - either way,
> I would be very surprised if this takes until 2010!)
> Of course I'm sure there are many smaller issues, but there's also
> countless improvements. Personally I don't consider either of the
> above features to be a blocker for releasing an OSG version, but I
> understand there's a reluctance to release a version which is seen as
> a 'step back'.  I'd much rather see an official '1.9' release (if OSG
> is to be 2.0) to get the majority of people migrated from 1.0 to
> something newer. Right now my feeling is many keen users are running
> CVS versions, either self compiled or Fred's / Tat's binaries, but
> everyone else is stuck with 1.0 as you noted.
> So, I'd much rather see a concerted effort to get CVS into a
> releasable state, and a schedule for some 'preview' or 'beta'
> releases, rather than working on back-ports.
> James
 I am only an old Observer  about FG ( an sometime model developper),  i 
remember  when FG  was existing ( i don't remember the version) without 
YASim , so i dare to conclude that it takes time to do improvements.
How long did it take to have FG with shadows and 3 D clouds ? ( as far i 
remember It was delivered in 2005.
The first FG with OSG  on CVS was delivered in 2006 (end of)  October.
So it is not crazy to say that at least 2 years (probably more) will be 
necessary to get all OSG features within FG.

2010 seems to you very long, it is not so long, like the past duration time 
from October 2006 to today.

Anyhow, according to the quality of the existing  FG stable Version 1.0.0 and 
the quality of the most recent improvement of FG CVS,  which do not involve 
OSG integration itself, it came up to me that evident  question about an FG 
version 1.1.

We only must ask, about know how and efficiency of developers OSG versus PLIB 
(today not by 2010). Does that "backport" wants the same ressources than OSG 
progress wants ? are the same persons involved ?

We must ask us, what about the next 2 years ?
 =>FG stable frozen with a stand by for the Super-FG_OSG  version, 
 =>or an FG stable Plib version with the new features.

I hope you are right, when you say that your " feeling is many keen users are 
running  CVS version.
Surrounding  me most of my friends are only using FG 1.0.0 because of the Eye 
Candy, since i have to implement the new model Aircraft (from CVS) , there is 
some limits.

BTW: regarding JSBSim i am trying to implement the new FDM within the FG 
stable version , it should work.


J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. 

This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to