Wow, I had no idea that my little question would generate so much bandwidth. But hey, what's broadband for anyway.
I guess if I had actually grep'd the T38 file for scenario instead of eyeballing it, I could have avoided the question, still I guess, it's the little things that can bring about change and greater understanding. I agree that FG is a very powerful program, but as someone else stated, the more powerful or flexible a program is; the easier to start putting things here and there, when a more central location might be in order. We don't want to start Microsofting the thing and burrying options so deep that a user cannot find what he needs, or is oblivious to the existence of the option all together. In regards to the T38 radar demo and the Nimitz, I had originally chosen the T38 because it flies well and I can cover a lot of ground quickly so as to learn the area, and I tried the Nimitz, and all of the other scenarios, because I just wanted to see them work. But because there was a scenario coded into the T38 file that overrode the preferences.xml file, I was starting to think that my FG build was hosed. I guess to help things along, we could start by more thoroughly documenting the preferences.xml (and other XML files). If it had said in addition to "<!-- commented out -->" that only one scenario can run at a time, and that if a scenario exists in the AC .xml file it will take precedence over the preferences setting, then I could have figured things out. A more thourough commenting of (XML) code can also be the genesis of a more complete manual/documentaion for configuration not to mention the overall FG docs. JB On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 00:13 -0400, Josh Babcock wrote: > Dave Culp wrote: > > > FlightGear is *full* of presets that I don't care for at all, and I went > > through the learning process that everyone has to go through, wherein you > > learn how the preferences are read and in what order, and how to configure > > each run the way you want to. Maybe the folks running FG from the UI get a > > different concept of what FG is than those who don't? > > > > > > Dave > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Flightgear-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users > > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > > > No, I think that the configuration has just plain gotten more > complicated than it has to be. Not that there are more options than > there should be, just that configurations are getting hidden away in odd > places. fg is so powerful that it is easy to abuse. We should probably > be asking "should I do this" a lot more than "can I do this". Whenever > someone puts something in a file, they should be asking "is this the > right place to put this, does it make sense, what will it prevent?". > > Anyway, can someone grab those three files and commit them? They are > very simple changes and make two T-38s, one with the radar demo > activated and one without: > > tower:chords$ fgfs --show-aircraft > > Available aircraft: > <snip> > T38 Northrop T-38 > T38-radar Northrop T-38 refueling demo > <snip> > > Josh > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
