Lee Elliott wrote:
On Monday 22 November 2004 22:43, Boris Koenig wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable.
If I did get everything right, the major problem is that
aircraft rely on instruments and other devices that reside in
abitrary locations within
Here are my suggestions:
In the aircraft's directory (meaning directory such as
$FG_ROOT/data/Aircraft/MD11/), there should be a directory named textures
where all the textures for that aircraft reside. This should allow the
aircraft's home directroy to stay organized as more liveries are
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:02:09 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How hard would it be to allow aircraft to live in an arbitrary
structure underneath data/Aircraft?
From a JSBSim FDM point of view, I've been giving this some thought
with respect to standalone JSBSim, as well. There
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to
stuff as ../../../Instruments/hsi.xml etc. If we move an aircraft one
directory level deeper (or more) all those relative references break. :-(
Well, this is then about relative paths, it could probably
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:29:36 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
I don't think we need to kill ourselves trying to be overly
flexible. I think it's worth having a central repository of commonly
used items (engines, instruments, etc.) An aircraft could refer to a
two versions of the 737
--- keeping track of this over time could be difficult)
It's your two cents now.
Giles Robertson
-Original Message-
From: Curtis L. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 November 2004 21:30
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel
Giles Robertson wrote:
Two points:
1) Relative vs. Absolute links. Relative links makes it tricky, to say
the least, to shift a/c around (though I think I have a relative --
absolute python function kicking around somewhere; it's not hard). I can
recall some dislike of absolute links. In some
developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to
stuff as ../../../Instruments/hsi.xml etc. If we move an aircraft
one
directory level deeper (or more) all those
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable.
If I did get everything right, the major problem is that aircraft
rely on instruments and other devices that reside in abitrary locations
within the $FG_ROOT directory structure.
As a workaround it might really be
Giles Robertson wrote:
That's much neater than what I suggested. How many of these variables do
we need so that the directory for the a/c does not have to be a
subdirectory of $FG_ROOT?
I haven't yet really looked into aircraft design/development, so
I cannot really comment on the paths that are
On Monday 22 November 2004 22:43, Boris Koenig wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable.
If I did get everything right, the major problem is that
aircraft rely on instruments and other devices that reside in
abitrary locations within the $FG_ROOT
Lee Elliott wrote:
The downside would be that an installer/un-installer would become
a necessity.
I think that issue was discussed some time ago on the user list ?
Probably, it would already be sufficient to simply package aircraft
folders as tar archives in order to simplify installation ?
If I
I think the suggestions are getting more complicated than Curt had envisioned.
I think a hierarchy such as that which Curt mentioned makes a lot of sense.
Beyond that,
Dave Culp and I discussed at one point how nice it would be if one could simply
grab an
aircraft tar file that contained
13 matches
Mail list logo
