Oh, I'm well aware of that (former development professional, not just 3d games. 10 years of it), and it's not a big issue indeed, but nevertheless a cosmetic issue that shouldn't be neglected when possible. So let's forget I even mentioned it happens to cvs users : it happens to stable releases using official aircraft. It's not a showstopper, but seeing as very little effort is necessary to preserve MP visuals across model versions (and that's the extent of backward compatibility I'm talking about, don't anyone go putting words in my mouth).
So before more folks chime in saying cvs is unstable, blabblabla, a fact I'm well aware of, let's focus on the fact that it's an universal issue, ranging across flight gear versions, platforms and branches. . This issue has nothing to do with development versions vs release : MP is an heterogenuous network, it's one of its great strengths, let's not go out of our ways to brake visuals consistency. This is basic common sense, but call it barebones userbase pampering if you will ;) I can live with all the glitches and hack my way out of some of them, time allowing, not sure average joe who's an aviation enthusiast and just wants to fly with friends in this particular simulator should have to hack things around. That he can is fabulous. Doesn't mean he has to. Not expecting or demanding anything, just wanted to voice a thought and to remind, as Syd proved it, that the fear of maintenance hell is just that, a fear. And Syd doesn't really care for MP :) That didn't prevent him from coming through, big time. As for external models, I was using that as an example, I certainly don't expect cvs contents to allow for them or correct errors in them... Rather, I was saying that if someone leaves, and is going to break compatibility it might be courteous to change the names of the aircraft, as in the folder name (and thus the paths inside all the xml files) to prevent this kind of problem. Prevention, not medication !!! ;) That should be food for thought, and that was all the whole point of mentioning the whole thing : I don't think it's much to ask that MP visual consistency be taken into account by aircraft authors in the absence of a system that would do it for them : an aircraft using the same folder name is the same aircraft as far as fgfs is concerned, so let's try to avoid situations where *changes in cvs models break MP visuals for stable releases. * Do we want to keep the flexibility of the MP system, or have it degenerate into a version/build discrete system that only shows you the a/c flying the exact same setup as you ? The latter would be a shame. Again, with a lack of a unified or official approach to the problem, all I'm asking is a little thought and not outright dismissal of keeping MP visuals consistent. Point, à la ligne. One last thing : thank you all for your hard work, I appreciate and am enjoying the hell out of it. Cheers, have a nice day, Nic On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Rob Shearman, Jr. <rmsj...@yahoo.com>wrote: > Nic, > > It's also worth pointing out (again!) that users of CVS must accept that FG > and its associated models are constant works-in-progress. Issues like you > describe are easily fixable prior to an official release, but are difficult > to manage in the constant state of flux between them. I'm in agreement with > Syd that the benefits from changes which simplify an aircraft model's > delivery outweigh the relatively small and temporary annoyance that comes > with them. > > Cheers, > -R. > > <rm...@umd.edu> > > > > -- Be Kind. Remember, everyone is fighting a hard battle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
