Nobody wants to see fgfs stagnate. But that doesn't justify every approach, no matter which bad side effects. There is an alternative solution with *no* bad side effects, but all the same possibilities. None of the vector-property supporters even bothered to explain why this generic approach wouldn't work or would be worse.
Again: the whole discussion is not (or shouldn't be) about whether we want progress, whether we want shader effects, and whether they should be configurable via XML. The question is, if this *very* intrusive approach is the way to go. Some of the vector property supporters don't seem to know a lot about all the internals and haven't thought about the side effects. Some even need to have "secret" private discussions with Tim to form an opinion. Why can't we discuss openly?! m. Excercises of the day: How should a vector property type be displayed on the HUD? All values in one line, rather than one line per element? Or is this really the begin of a two-class property system, where some propertyes are just no longer meant for inspection and "public" use, but internal only? How do you imagine we would write a <condition> that checks for a color's alpha value? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
