Norman Vine wrote:
You mean gcc isn't supported on IRIX ??
Once I had GCC on IRIX and I spent numerous hours trying to build
FlightGear, dealing with dozends of ICE's. Now I use MIPSpro and I
admit that I don't want to go back,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Ross
Sent: 26 May 2005 17:33
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear startup time
Richard Bytheway wrote:
Would it be possible to have a compiled
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:17 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Norman Vine -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:05:
I guess I should mention the deficiencies of non MSoft OSs but
I will leave the *flames* for another time :-)
Yeah, don't bother.
Norman Vine wrote:
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-September/021434.html
I don't see the XML files as being any different then any other source file and
source code needs to be compiled.
I've had this in the back of my mind ever since you brought it up, but
not
-Original Message-
Erik Hofman
Norman Vine wrote:
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-Se
ptember/021434.html
I don't see the XML files as being any different then any other source file
and
source code needs to be compiled.
I've had this in the back
Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 09:35 +0100, Richard Bytheway a crit :
-Original Message-
Erik Hofman
Norman Vine wrote:
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-Se
ptember/021434.html
I don't see the XML files as being any different then any other source file
Richard Bytheway wrote:
Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which is
automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules similar
to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled version,
rebuild the compiled version.
This is a very interesting
Martin Spott writes:
Richard Bytheway wrote:
Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which is
automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules similar
to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled version,
rebuild the compiled version.
Norman Vine wrote:
Martin Spott writes:
This is a very interesting approach that you present here - and
probably the only one that doesn't destruct the whole idea of having
human-adaptable configuration files. In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML
files from the distribution should considered to
Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 14:12 +0200, Gerard ROBIN a crit :
Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 14:00 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a crit :
* Martin Spott -- Thursday 26 May 2005 13:07:
In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML files from the distribution should
considered
to be a no-go,
Seconded. And then: it's
Richard Bytheway wrote:
Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which
is automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules
similar to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled
version, rebuild the compiled version.
Sorry, but that sounds dumb.
On May 26, 2005 04:32 pm, Andy Ross wrote:
Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which
is automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules
similar to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled
version, rebuild the compiled version.
Sorry, but
On May 26, 2005 01:43 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
How so? Python does it by compiling a new *.pyc everytime there is a
change to the associated *.py file.
Ampere
Beside, you don't compile Flightgear everytime you run it. You compile
Flightgear when there is a change in the source.
Martin Spott writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Just use the source Luke :-)
Yes, I do right on the track to figure how much effort it would
be to 'port' CWXML to IRIX/MIPSpro. Apparently they rely on having GCC
as compiler on _every_ supported Unix platform.
You mean gcc isn't
Durk Talsma wrote:
Erik, you are of course in a far better position to judge this than me. As
far
as I know, though there still seem to be a few design issues with the
FlightGear architecture that have evolved into what they are today, yet being
slightly less than ideal. For
Gerard ROBIN writes:
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another issue that has been brought up a number of times is the ascii vs
binary file format disussion. While I absolutely believe that ascii/xml
files
are ideal for development work, combined they may have a pretty big impact
on
* Drew -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 07:54:
FlightGear takes nearly a minute to start up from my Windows build,
and I'm just wondering if there's an easy way to shorten this if I'm
not using all of flightgear's features. Is there one particular task
that takes particularly long?
Because
On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:17 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Norman Vine -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:05:
I guess I should mention the deficiencies of non MSoft OSs but
I will leave the *flames* for another time :-)
Yeah, don't bother. 99% of Windows users don't know
Believe me, guys, if I could use Linux for this application, I
would...I am much more familiar with developing in Linux than Windows.
Unfortunately, that isn't an option for me in this case.
Drew
On 5/24/05, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Norman Vine -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:05:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 13:45, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
(1) loading airport and navigation data; very rough guess: ~ 45%
(2) initializing subsystems (atc, weather, ai, ...) ~ 30%
(3) creating MipMaps (no perceived delay, because it's done in another
thread)
Maybe this is a
Drew wrote:
Believe me, guys, if I could use Linux for this application, I
would...I am much more familiar with developing in Linux than Windows.
Unfortunately, that isn't an option for me in this case.
Well, I wouldn't use Windows either and I actually don't. But I
installed the latest
Le mardi 24 mai 2005 17:42 +0200, Durk Talsma a crit :
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 13:45, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
(1) loading airport and navigation data; very rough guess: ~ 45%
(2) initializing subsystems (atc, weather, ai, ...) ~ 30%
(3) creating MipMaps (no perceived
Durk Talsma wrote:
Maybe this is a good time time to formulate a though I've had for some time
now: With rumours of a possible 1.0.0 version sometime in 2005, I don't think
it's a good time to start digging into the basic architecture of FlightGear.
However, once version 1.0 is out, wouldn't
23 matches
Mail list logo
