-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Giles Robertson schrieb:
1) Fgrun/fgfs.
For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so
far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design
philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the
Christian Mayer wrote:
The first point is argueable. But that we need a restart just to change
planes is a big show stopper!
It depends on the goals for 1.0. If you want a version that is easy to
use for the end user then you might be right. If v1.0 is aimed for a
completely working standalone
Let me steer this discussion in another direction ...
I would really love to start talking about doing a v1.0 release of
FlightGear ... maybe this spring or early summer. There are a couple
3. Fix the JSBsim low speed gear jitters. Here's my one and only *big*
gripe about JSBsim ... gear
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 15:38, Jon Berndt wrote:
I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we
(JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0 release? The
gear problem is the first thing I thought of, as well. Right now I am so
focused on getting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've tried introducing a few friends to Flightgear. They are mostly
Windows users, technically competent but not adept, who have had
experience of video games and possibly other flight simulators. I
thought I'd muse a bit on the following points,
3) ATC/AI
This may just be my group of friends :P, but many of them find it much
more fun and interesting if there are other aircraft in the world, and
if they can communicate with ATC. Durk's work in this area is making
this easier, but ATC itself can still feel quite primitive. Coupled
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:49, Giles Robertson wrote:
1) Fgrun/fgfs.
For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so
far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design
philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the
program
