Heiko Schulz wrote:
I mean not to stop the work on OSG - far from it!
But if we want FlightGear and OSG to get better we
need users - and we get them only with a next release.
With OSG in the state it's in, we can't go testing it on the users. If
we did, we won't *have* any users before
Le jeudi 9 novembre 2006 15:21, Steve Hosgood a écrit :
Agreed, a release of all the things that are working, but for now at
least, no OSG.
I don't know what Curt uses as a metric for deciding if a new release
should happen, but the time delay between the current 'stable' and the
previous one
On 11/9/06, Steve Hosgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what Curt uses as a metric for deciding if a new releaseshould happen, but the time delay between the current 'stable' and theprevious one was about two years - too long I'm sure.
v0.9.10 was released in April. We have long since
Hi,
Quote Olaf Flebbe:
I think too that we have to support the plib branch
quite a while. The
idea to do the OSG switch in CVS head was that the OSG
developers do
not
have the efforts for porting features from branch back
to HEAD. So
please work in the pre-OSG branch until the
performance
Hi,
not more opinions about this?
Maik
Hello,
is there any planning about the next release? I think we have many
improvements in fg-cvs compared to 9.10 that we should at least discuss
this topic.
What's about to rename the pre-osg-branch to a 9.11-beta branch?
I don't know, how the
Hi,
Of course - I think we should release a FGFS 9.9.11 -
FGFS made a good progress saince the last release.
If I read here about the problems with OSG I think we
shouldn't wait until it is done. It needs too much
time, and if we release to early, there will be a lot
of users who are pissed on
Hello,
is there any planning about the next release? I think we have many
improvements in fg-cvs compared to 9.10 that we should at least discuss
this topic.
What's about to rename the pre-osg-branch to a 9.11-beta branch?
I don't know, how the procedure for fg-releases are, but I would vote
* Maik Justus -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 14:05:
is there any planning about the next release? I think we have many
improvements in fg-cvs compared to 9.10 that we should at least discuss
this topic.
I agree. There are (IIRC):
- complete overhaul of the helicopter FDM
- air-to-air
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
It will take a while until fgfs/OSG has all features of fgfs/PLIB,
and even longer until it does it with the same performance.
[...]
We don't need to rename the clumsy tag to something else. (PLIB
would have been perfectly fine, and easy to remember, but we can
live
Martin Spott wrote:
I agree with melchior that [...]
^
Sorry, Melchior,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 17:44:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
We don't need to rename the clumsy tag to something else. (PLIB
would have been perfectly fine, and easy to remember, but we can
live with the ugliness, too. ;-)
I'm glad that the prophet didn't exclude the one
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 17:44:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
We don't need to rename the clumsy tag to something else. (PLIB
would have been perfectly fine, and easy to remember, but we can
live with the ugliness, too. ;-)
I'm glad that the
Hi,
don't forget the improvements in the multiplayer code.
Maik
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
* Maik Justus -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 14:05:
is there any planning about the next release? I think we have many
improvements in fg-cvs compared to 9.10 that we should at least discuss
this
* Maik Justus -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 18:51:
don't forget the improvements in the multiplayer code.
Oh, yes. And also ...
- many improvements to the traffic manager
(probably not a teaser either, as long as the aircraft
are hovering 30 m in the air, but it's getting better and
Maik Justus wrote:
don't forget the improvements in the multiplayer code.
Oh yes, having different groups from the flying in different
environments is really a bit unfortunate.
A release might cure this effect - on the other hand this situation
already lasted for months, so we might bear with
Maik Justus schrieb:
By the way: Mattias did a great work
Sorry, should read Mathias.
Maik
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 19:06, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Maik Justus -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 18:51:
don't forget the improvements in the multiplayer code.
Oh, yes. And also ...
- many improvements to the traffic manager
(probably not a teaser either, as long as the
[traffic manager]
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:18:
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 19:06, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
as long as the aircraft are hovering 30 m in the air
Not sure whether you're referring to the fact that the aircraft seem to be
picking-up the additional
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:28, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
[traffic manager]
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:18:
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 19:06, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
as long as the aircraft are hovering 30 m in the air
Not sure whether you're referring to the fact
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:50:
That's one area that needs improving.
And here's another: FlightGear just decided to exit for no
acceptable reason in the middle of a harmless flight:
Failed to find route from waypoint 31 to 124
[...]
Program exited with code 01.
Is
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 21:10, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:50:
That's one area that needs improving.
And here's another: FlightGear just decided to exit for no
acceptable reason in the middle of a harmless flight:
Failed to find route from
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 21:46:
Yikes! That's not supposed to happen. You can safely comment out the exit(),
as FlightGear has a fallback mechanism in case no route is found.
That exit() *was* already commented out! (awynet.cxx:381)
It must have triggered another exit().
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 21:49, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 01 November 2006 21:46:
Yikes! That's not supposed to happen. You can safely comment out the
exit(), as FlightGear has a fallback mechanism in case no route is found.
That exit() *was* already commented
23 matches
Mail list logo
