Hi,
last week, James dropped the idea of moving our website (partly) over to the
wiki. So far I have discussed
this with a couple of people, all of which have different opinions. Therefore,
I would like to ask anyone that
cares about our website to reply.
I think we all agree that our
Gijs,
This sounds like a worthwhile proposal. Why not set up the wiki page etc. so
that we can compare and come up with an informed decision, rather than some
pre-formed opinions. (4 FG Developers - 5 opinions. One will change their
mind :-))
Vivian
-Original Message-
From:
Hi,
I like this idea as well!
A good and fantastic simulation project as FlightGear needs a better
represantion on the web if we want to be as successfull as we are now.
The only thing I fear is: that it will be another useless discussion, without
any resultat
CheersHeiko
still in work:
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
- Less open system: for example, it will be harder to implement
additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the
alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener...
I'm uncertain about how to read this final conclusion.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Hey!
Torsten wrote:
From time to time, I notices some abuse by inserted spam into our wiki pages.
Great care must be taken, our
home page is locked for the everybody group.
Of course. Additionally I will look for some more anti-spam measures that we
could install at the wiki.
The
Hi Gijs,
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Question is: are there really (that many) features that we cannot
install easily on a wiki/CMS?
The most prominent item that comes into my mind is what is probably
well-decribed as dynamic content (choose a better term, if you like).
Being the technical maintainer
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
From time to time, I notices some abuse by inserted spam into our wiki pages.
Great care must be taken, our home page is locked for the everybody group.
If you're using the Wikimedia engine, you can install a plug-in that will
require accounts to
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:10:58 -0400, Gary wrote in message
aanlktikrukm+kk2runqqklqcwymy1vjpuvi79n715...@mail.gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 00:16:40 -0400, Gary wrote in message
See http://flightgear.simpits.org:8080/job/FlightGear-next-mac/230/
--
Started by user geneb
Building remotely on MacPro
Checkout:FlightGear-next-mac /
http://flightgear.simpits.org:8080/job/FlightGear-next-mac/ws/ -
hudson.remoting.chan...@b46c4c:MacPro
Hi All,
I've been working on a small patch to change the existing global Nasal
function airportinfo() to return more than one result.
With this patch, and optional argument allows the caller to specify
the number of nearest airports to return. E.g. airportinfo(10),
returns the nearest 10
Am 10.10.10 18:06, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
Hi All,
I've been working on a small patch to change the existing global Nasal
function airportinfo() to return more than one result.
With this patch, and optional argument allows the caller to specify
the number of nearest airports to return.
Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Here is the relevant code: from src/FDM/fdm_shell.cxx
Indeed, commenting the if (globals-get_scenery[...] clause makes
FlightGear skip the infinite loop. Thanks a lot for getting me started
into investigations.
For the purpose of Scenery development - and probably other,
Hi Guys,
I think I've found a bug in the new weather environment code.
I started up at Austin Bergstrom International (KAUS), a fairly large
Texas airport with runways 17L/R, 35L/R. The METAR had wind of 9 knots
at 190 degrees.
I would expect FG to start on runway 17. Instead it starts on 35L.
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:10:58 -0400, Gary wrote in message
aanlktikrukm+kk2runqqklqcwymy1vjpuvi79n715...@mail.gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 00:16:40 -0400, Gary
14 matches
Mail list logo
