Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Usability
On 11 Aug 2012, at 22:52, Martin Spott wrote: 3) Scenery. Terrasync is now built into FG, and we have nice UI to configure it in-sim. However, it still requires users to set up a separate directory and configure FG_SCENERY before it can be used. It would be great if the standard installers created an $FG_ROOT/WorldScenery directory with the appropriate permissions, and added it to $FG_SCENERY by default. As far as I can tell, the value of /sim/terrasync/scenery-dir was already supposed to be added to the Scenery path, but I don't know at which priority. Right, this is all automatic now - has been since before 2.6 I think. At least on Mac I set a 'correct' directory - in Library/Application Support/FlightGear/Terrasync. Of course this is only a default, but for most users it's enough. If there's bugs / edge-cases that are not working, please report them and they should be fixable, possibly with a couple of extra configuration options. Usability was the main reason for making terrasync be available as in-process option, and I'm strongly considering doing the same thing for fgcom, although that has a few extra complications. BTW, usability is also the reason I made the network options configurable inside the sim, and have been making more subsystems support a clean reset, so that it's possible to sanely control more behaviours with direct results in the sim. James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Usability
James Turner wrote: Usability was the main reason for making terrasync be available as in-process option, and I'm strongly considering doing the same thing for fgcom, although that has a few extra complications. Whereas there's little use of TerraSync without the FG flight sim, there are plausible usage scenarios for FGCom _without_ FlightGear, let's say for ATC. Therefore, while it makes sense to package FGCom alongside with FlightGear for the releases, I'm having mixed feelings about incorporating FGCom into FlightGear core because this would either: a) require to bear all the ballast of FG even if the only thing you'd like to have is FGCom, if FGCom development moves into FG or b) carry the risk of FGCom-in-FG diverge from standalone FGCom. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Usability
On Sunday 12 August 2012 16:07:18 Martin Spott wrote: Whereas there's little use of TerraSync without the FG flight sim, there are plausible usage scenarios for FGCom _without_ FlightGear, let's say for ATC. Therefore, while it makes sense to package FGCom alongside with FlightGear for the releases, I'm having mixed feelings about incorporating FGCom into FlightGear core because this would either: a) require to bear all the ballast of FG even if the only thing you'd like to have is FGCom, if FGCom development moves into FG or b) carry the risk of FGCom-in-FG diverge from standalone FGCom. But it's not an either/or. There could be an FGCom binary that uses the same code as the built-in FGCom. Stefan -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Usability
Hi James Am 12.08.2012 um 17:48 schrieb James Turner zakal...@mac.com: On 11 Aug 2012, at 22:52, Martin Spott wrote: 3) Scenery. Terrasync is now built into FG, and we have nice UI to configure it in-sim. However, it still requires users to set up a separate directory and configure FG_SCENERY before it can be used. It would be great if the standard installers created an $FG_ROOT/WorldScenery directory with the appropriate permissions, and added it to $FG_SCENERY by default. As far as I can tell, the value of /sim/terrasync/scenery-dir was already supposed to be added to the Scenery path, but I don't know at which priority. Right, this is all automatic now - has been since before 2.6 I think. At least on Mac I set a 'correct' directory - in Library/Application Support/FlightGear/Terrasync. Of course this is only a default, but for most users it's enough. This is one of the 'correct' places of course. With FGx I put this folder (which I do not name terrasync, I create a folder TerrasyncScenery or TerrasyncData) into Users/Shared by default because of different reasons. One reason is that for the common user the Library Folder is hidden by default now on osx, the other reason is wanted to have an easy shareable place for different machines, so I don't need to terrasync for every machine. Because the Application Support directory is hidden by default I fear there will be some other posts in the forums soon where is my terrasynced scenery, but maybe it's better to have a correct place then my not-so-correct FGx way for osx ;-) Do for consistency reasons it might be good to follow your changes here. Thanks, Yves If there's bugs / edge-cases that are not working, please report them and they should be fixable, possibly with a couple of extra configuration options. Usability was the main reason for making terrasync be available as in-process option, and I'm strongly considering doing the same thing for fgcom, although that has a few extra complications. BTW, usability is also the reason I made the network options configurable inside the sim, and have been making more subsystems support a clean reset, so that it's possible to sanely control more behaviours with direct results in the sim. James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Usability
Stefan Seifert wrote: On Sunday 12 August 2012 16:07:18 Martin Spott wrote: Whereas there's little use of TerraSync without the FG flight sim, there are plausible usage scenarios for FGCom _without_ FlightGear, let's say for ATC. Therefore, while it makes sense to package FGCom alongside with FlightGear for the releases, I'm having mixed feelings about incorporating FGCom into FlightGear core because this would either: a) require to bear all the ballast of FG even if the only thing you'd like to have is FGCom, if FGCom development moves into FG or b) carry the risk of FGCom-in-FG diverge from standalone FGCom. But it's not an either/or. There could be an FGCom binary that uses the same code as the built-in FGCom. Which environment would be set up to build this separate binary ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
