On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 20:37 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote: > James Turner wrote: > > In general, I would far prefer the C172P to be as high quality (and > > functional as possible), > > I would even say that the default c172p would be the sample > implementation of an aircraft in FlightGear meaning that it should > reflect the latest code as closely as possible. > > Erik
It probably should be, but it could use some help at the moment. Step one should probably be cleaning all the stray shift-tabs in the xml files and standardizing the indentation... I notice that c172p-set.xml has two separate sets of "model" tags... The -set files have created an ugly include chain, I don't believe one set file should include another, if that is needed there should be a "base" xml file both include, ala helijah's style. possibly the c172/ directory should be consolidated into c172p... Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
