Erik,
Erik Hofman wrote:
> John Denker wrote:
> > On 01/27/2009 12:15 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
> >
> >>> Alright, I've updated JSBSim now, including a number of engine files.
> >>> The following files might need some attention though, since they are not
> >>> in JSBSim CVS:
> >> Mmmmh, did you make a plan to take care for those models whose authors
> >> don't regularly read this list ?
> >
> > That seems like a reasonable question.
>
> It wasn't my intention. I just synchronize the code end configuration
> files, which is already becoming more and more difficult because it is
> hard to determine which version (the one in FlightGear or the one in
> JSBSim) is the latest one.
I don't mean to play down the effort you're putting into maintaining a
copy of JSBSim in FlightGear. Instead, I _do_ realize that it's quite a
bunch of work and finally it still leaves back several open issues -
which is certainly not your personal fault.
Breaking things in CVS during a development cycle is not a big deal -
at least in my eyes - as long as there's a path that will, sooner or
later, lead out of the misery. The current situation, instead, looks,
to me like several engine configurations are broken and probably
nobody's going to fix these.
Overall, I think some day "the crowd" should start making up their mind
about wether relying on an externally maintained FDM is still the way
to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ FlightGear might return a much
higher benefit at reduced effort.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
