Geoff McLane wrote:

> I am sorry Martin. I read your post MANY times,
> but you will have to provided more clues for this
> old brain to cotton onto ;=)). I do not quite catch
> what you can mean by "scenery root node"?

In order to tell FlightGear where to find its Scenery we're currently
feeding a _directory_ name (or a list of directory names) as the
"Scenery Path".  Other formats like OpenFlight for example are using a
_file_ name as the root Scenery handle.  The latter is much more
common, as far as I can tell, and therefore doing the same in
FlightGear as well would facilitate the transition to different Scenery

> And I was certainly very under-whelmed by the
> lack of response on 'private' scenery generation,
> although I 'know' a number who are pursuing this -

Well, at least _I_ personally don't care about people's private scenery
generation, that's simply not my area of interest.  What I am trying to
do is building "infrastructure" (not "scenery") which should one day
permit to build all this nitfy local scenery at the same level of
detail as the 'private' scenery builds do now - but in a global scale
and context as opposed to what some people are doing nowadays.

I know that this plan is only going to work out if the so-called
"community" is willing to contribute to a more general effort - but,
hey, the community gets what the community deserves  ;-)

 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !

All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to