On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:38:34 +0100, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > Good Evening, > > Ok, no feedback to my comments here except Martin who tells me that > the > current checked in version behaves as expected.
Except a bunch of scenery developers pointing out it completely breaks their method of working. Merging the work into an existing tree isn't really an option - the ability to completely erase a tree and rebuild by script during testing is pretty much essential. > I personally can understand that people want to have a local > seperated > directory for their own personal additions. Let it be additions to > the scenery > that are just being developed and not yet ready or may be just the > personal > garden gnome before your house that you are living in. > > OTOH, reestablishing a completely unterminated accumulation behavior > like we > had before is problematic IMO since you will get duplicated models > for really common use cases. A discussion with a number of scenery developers resulted in *nobody* ever having experienced what you describe, and I suspect the setups we use are prime candidates for causing it. Alternatively we've read the documentation and done something to avoid this (though precisely what I honestly have no idea). In trying to duplicate the problem the only scenario we could come up with to result in what you describe was including the same objects tree twice in the scenery path before any terrain. I really don't know what to suggest. -- Jon Stockill li...@stockill.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
