Am 09.12.2011 13:43, schrieb Erik Hofman: > On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 12:21 +0000, TDO Brandano wrote: >> I think the most compatible solution would be to either downmix them >> to mono, or convert them to two mono samples to be played concurrently >> but offset from their original position by an amount directly >> proportional to the distance from the cockpit. > > Personally I think they should be converted period. > The waste 50% file size and make FlightGear look bad when showing off > the nifty 3d audio capabilities (no Doppler, no 3d positioning, etc). > > But I am not going to update aircraft maintained by others and start > another flamewar.
I certainly also do not want a flame war. But we need to do something. Either have the aircraft sounds changed or change the sound code again. I find the current state with a 1/4 of aircraft at least partially broken is unacceptable for a release. And users will complain that FG2.6 has a regression, since these aircraft "worked" with FG2.4 (in fact, we already have related issues in the tracker from git/snapshot users). That would make FG2.6 look really bad - certainly worse than missing 3D/Doppler effects alone. But don't get me wrong: I'm certainly in favor of fixing the issue, so that we get the full 3D sound effects. I'd propose that aircraft maintainers have time to fix the stereo files themselves, say until early January. We're going to branch off the 2.6 release (fg/sg/fgdata) on January 17th. We could convert any remaining stereo sound files shortly before that, to make sure that FG2.6 doesn't mean a regression for many aircraft. I'm happy to run a batch job for conversion, that's no big deal. If any author does not want her aircraft fixed, let me know. I guess most authors don't really have a problem with such straight forward changes anyway. Maybe it'd be a good idea if authors, who really do not want their aircraft to be touched ever, not even for such straight forward fixes guaranteeing continued FG release compatibility, placed a specific file in their aircraft directories (such as ".PRIVATE"). That would make it easy to identify the "no go" areas, while other aircraft could still receive basic "emergency maintenance" from the community. Personally, I think it'd be ridiculous, if we knew about basic issues which are easy to fix, don't dare to do anything, and eventually release with lots of broken aircraft. cheers, Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
