leee wrote:
> I think you need to accept that many aircraft are indeed broken, and
> most have been broken by software changes made since the aircraft
> was released.
No, I don't have to.
I _do_ accept that some aircraft developers are a little bit lazier
than others and don't care about maintaining nowadays what they have
contributed formerly. I also do agree that those who are maintaining
FDM updates are unable to forward-port every single hack in aircraft
configurations - even though most of them typically try to catch as
many of them as possible.
But, hey, this is open source, some players simply respond and proceed
quicker than others do.
> Sadly, while no consideration is given to backwards compatibility
> i.e. by allowing different versions of sub-systems to be used by
> specifying a version in the appropriate config file, broken
> aircraft will remain a feature of FG.
Instead of pouring time into a (probably) never ending chain of
backward compatibility (alias "old cruft") layers, I think the effort
is much better spent for bringing the respective aircraft
configurations onto speed for FlightGear's current capabilities.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
