* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 05 November 2008:
* Curtis Olson -- 11/3/2008 4:46 PM:
- If it was me doing this, I would suggest something like:
Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXA.xml (just the one file per airport)
As I wrote previously, if we drop the requirement to have
separated files per airport,
* Curtis Olson -- 11/3/2008 4:46 PM:
- If it was me doing this, I would suggest something like:
Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXA.xml (just the one file per airport)
As I wrote previously, if we drop the requirement to have
separated files per airport, then I'd go with Curt's layout.
Of course, this makes
Hi,
* Ralf Gerlich -- 11/3/2008 5:29 PM:
why do you take this to the -users list again, where it is obviously
off-topic as a development issue and after I had taken the discussion
where it belongs: to the -devel list?
Sorry, that was an accident. I had intended to stop posting to this
On mardi 04 novembre 2008, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 14:27 +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Ron Jensen -- 11/4/2008 1:15 PM:
I'll shut up now since I've already been told I'm not a real
FlightGear developer and I'm not welcome to create scenery.
I hope that wasn't me. I
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:21:30 +0100, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, because the need to have many files per airport was actually your
only argument. I based my final suggestion on that requirement. But,
ok, let's go with the on-file-per-airport approach. I actually find
Ron Jensen wrote:
Managing this in CVS would
add another 9,681 CVS directories and 29,000 (Entries, Repository and
Root) files.
No management in CVS is planned.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
Ralf Gerlich | World Custom Scenery Project
Computer Scientist|
* Ron Jensen -- 11/4/2008 1:15 PM:
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:01 +0100, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
I have already provided the arguments in favour of the three-level
hierarchy.
Yes, we were really only arguing over whether a fourth level would
be too expensive, and whether organizing files via
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
Ron Jensen wrote:
Managing this in CVS would
add another 9,681 CVS directories and 29,000 (Entries, Repository and
Root) files.
No management in CVS is planned.
At least not in this structure. This is a means of data transport, not
of data management.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
Ok my turn :)
I found Ron's comment about not being welcome to create scenery a bit
disturbing ... why?
So I'll ask a dumb , non developer question: What exactly is the purpose
of this directory setup ?
Will it affect my own attempt to update local scenery ?Is it meant to
make scenery additions
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 14:27 +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Ron Jensen -- 11/4/2008 1:15 PM:
I'll shut up now since I've already been told I'm not a real
FlightGear developer and I'm not welcome to create scenery.
I hope that wasn't me. I don't label people real or non-real
something. But
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:01 +0100, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
Is there a reason that we split up each airport's data into at least 5
different files?
There is reason to separate the pure airport geometry data from the
AI-network. Those come from different sources and are
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 21:26:18 Syd wrote:
Hi Syd,
Ok my turn :)
I found Ron's comment about not being welcome to create scenery a bit
disturbing ... why?
Just to make a slightly off thread comment: All I can say is that Ron's
comments on this list have been courteous and professional
Syd wrote:
Ok my turn :)
Yeah, yeah, yeah ;-)
I must have missed out on all the discussion about this change , sorry .
Have it here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg17407.html
I'm about to try to finish the airport , so are there any changes in
Thanks guys , I think I understand the purpose now. I was referring to
adding airport building at CYVR , I haven't tried actually modifying the
terrain or airport layout .
Cheers
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 22:19 +0100, Durk Talsma wrote:
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 21:26:18 Syd wrote:
Hi Syd,
Ok my turn :)
I found Ron's comment about not being welcome to create scenery a bit
disturbing ... why?
Just to make a slightly off thread comment: All I can say is that Ron's
Hi Melchior,
why do you take this to the -users list again, where it is obviously
off-topic as a development issue and after I had taken the discussion
where it belongs: to the -devel list?
The proposal as posted in my announcement was designed by a group of
developers, not just Martin and me. I
Off topic to Melchior and Ralf's non-technical discussion, but:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Ralf Gerlich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The index concept has some similarity to a B-tree
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Tree) in terms of structure, though the
balancing aspect and therefore some of
* Alex Perry -- 11/3/2008 11:26 PM:
Off topic to Melchior and Ralf's non-technical discussion, but:
Better non-technical than technical but wrong. ;-)
To truly optimize for load balancing the operating system's directory
searches,
This isn't about load balancing at all. It's just about
* Ralf Gerlich -- 11/1/2008 7:35 PM:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The question is, however, if we don't want to put all airport
data into one file, in which case the fourth dir level would
be superfluous.
Merging the tower and threshold files would be possible, but I would
oppose merging them
* Melchior FRANZ -- 11/2/2008 9:24 AM:
* Ralf Gerlich -- 11/1/2008 7:35 PM:
I'd also like to add that a sample of the structure as proposed has been
in the FlightGear data CVS for quite some time, containing data for the
KSFO area, ready to be commented. IIRC this was also explicitly
* Ralf Gerlich -- 11/2/2008 11:04 AM:
This was not a take it or leave it proposal, but rather I expected
technical arguments. You did not provide any, but instead asked for
cosmetical changes.
The difference between illogical, messy and inconsistent on the one
side, and sane on the other is
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
That's neither technical *nor* cosmetical. That's just introducing
bad design out of laziness. :-P
In this thread and especiallyd in this posting you have, once again,
demonstrated to us that you consider it as an appropriate procedure to
piss at other people's work
Hi Melchior,
thanks for your feedback. I am taking this to the developers' list.
To everyone else, I am referring to this mail on the users' list:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=490C204E.7040405%40aon.at
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The question is, however, if we don't want
23 matches
Mail list logo
