Erik Hofman writes:
> Hmm, you've got a point there. I didn't think of that one yet.
> But I still don't think the properties thing (--prop:) is the way to go.
I was thinking of that as a magic string inside ~/.fgfsrc. From the
command-line itself, a --panel option might be a good idea eventu
David Megginson wrote:
> Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > First of all, I doubt if many *users* would want to change the panel,
> > etc of already exsisting aircraft. This is probably just for (aircraft)
> > developers of FlightGear.
>
> Certainly they won't as long as every aircraft, panel, etc.
Erik Hofman writes:
> First of all, I doubt if many *users* would want to change the panel,
> etc of already exsisting aircraft. This is probably just for (aircraft)
> developers of FlightGear.
Certainly they won't as long as every aircraft, panel, etc. is in the
base package, but I can ima
David Megginson wrote:
> The current aircraft config-file approach is a major improvement over
> what we had before, since the user can use a single option,
> --aircraft, to get the right aero, panel, sounds, etc. However, it is
> not easy for the user to provide aircraft-specific overrides. Fo
The current aircraft config-file approach is a major improvement over
what we had before, since the user can use a single option,
--aircraft, to get the right aero, panel, sounds, etc. However, it is
not easy for the user to provide aircraft-specific overrides. For
example, c172-set.xml has
