Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
Josh Babcock wrote: Won't the FDM have to tell the sound system when the wheels are skidding? You can figure out touchdown pretty easily, but not say, skidding from braking. The FDM already reveals when the brakes are applied in the property tree. One thing that still is missing (and I have a solution for the next JSBSim release) is a ground-speed property. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
And if none of this is possible, then I'm afraid I don't have a TODO list and this will be the most boring release cycle ever. m. Heh. Maybe. Maybe not. I hope that from your point of view it turns out to be a boring release cycle. In one respect, it should not be very noticeable to users what has happened, apart from the fact that none of the existing JSBSim aircraft, engines, or thrusters will work in their current form. They will have to be converted to the new JSBSim config file format. A conversion helper tool is available. For over a year myself and others have discussed refining the JSBSim config file format to a more well-formed design. I have also tried to consider what was done by the guys working on the AIAA standard for aircraft simulation model exchange, to be called AEROML (formerly known as DAVEML, see daveml.nasa.gov). As part of the config file format change, new capabilities were added. The version of JSBSim to be added to FlightGear developer CVS in the coming weeks will be a major change. I'll describe the new features in the JSBSim developer list soon. I'm also fixing up the comments in the code to reflect the new changes, and will be publishing a document on the new config file format, as well. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Erik Hofman -- Friday 18 November 2005 18:36: After this release we'll only accept bug-fixes to the code, except for the new JSBSim version. Any major code changes that are not intended to fix one or more bugs will have to wait. One new feature *must* go in. Otherwise the 1.0.0 release number is IMHO not justified: Another thing that's really missing (and was mentioned in the linux-user.de review) is handling of any cases other than normal flight. Redout and Blackout are a good start, but everything from structural failures to things like skid sounds if you turn too quick on ground is missing and makes FlightGear just feel unrealistic. You can just do what you want and the plane survives. Nine ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
Melchior FRANZ wrote: And finally, this is my TODO list: * try to get rid of a few more hardcoded dialogs, or at least make them accept gui colors Not that I explicitly stated no major updates to the *source* *code*. Removing code would be no problem (and neither would be putting an equivalent in the base package). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
Stefan Seifert wrote: Another thing that's really missing (and was mentioned in the linux-user.de review) is handling of any cases other than normal flight. Redout and Blackout are a good start, but everything from structural failures to things like skid sounds if you turn too quick on ground is missing and makes FlightGear just feel unrealistic. You can just do what you want and the plane survives. Skid sounds it just a sound configuration file update. Patches are welcome. I disagree with the rest, that would require updates in many places in the code which isn't desirable at this point. It might be a good addition for 1.1 or 1.2 though. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
On Saturday 19 November 2005 15:30, Erik Hofman wrote: Melchior FRANZ wrote: And finally, this is my TODO list: * try to get rid of a few more hardcoded dialogs, or at least make them accept gui colors Not that I explicitly stated no major updates to the *source* *code*. Removing code would be no problem (and neither would be putting an equivalent in the base package). Erik I agree with Franz Melchior. And my question is, why it is so essential to call the next version release 1.0? What's wrong with version numbers like 0.9.10, 0.9.11, 0.9.12 etc. until the above issues are fixed? I mean this is an Open Source Project, there's no need to meet a deadline and it's very unlikely that flightgear developers will loose there job when version 1.0 is not released in 1. quarter 2006. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
I agree with Franz Melchior. And my question is, why it is so essential to call the next version release 1.0? What's wrong with version numbers like 0.9.10, 0.9.11, 0.9.12 etc. until the above issues are fixed? That's what's been getting done for years. The question now is, why not? Curt's been working on FlightGear for ... what ... about ten years, now? To turn the argument around, there's nothing to fear from calling it 1.0, either. The next release would be a fitting v1.0, IMHO. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
On Saturday 19 November 2005 16:35, Jon Berndt wrote: To turn the argument around, there's nothing to fear from calling it 1.0, either. I don't think so, in my opinion the status of version 1.0 will decide how many new contributers and public interest this project will get. In other words, my estimation is (when i look into my crystal ball :) ), that we will get more people that start contributing to FlighGear with things like creating 3d models and aircrafts when it's possible to switch aircrafts during runtime. When this isn't the case, people might think/say: OK, this looks nice, but i will wait with contribution until this issue is fixed,. or: Hm, i think i will give the project a next try when version 2.0 is out. On the other side we will get more attention even in none computer specific newspapers when the issues are fixed and people start to say: Wow, this is so perfect, this looks so great, what a wonderfull simulator... That's why we should be carefull about which version we call 1.0 In my opinion version 1.0 is an important release, it's not just a number. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Release of v0.9.9 source code
Oliver C. wrote: I don't think so, in my opinion the status of version 1.0 will decide how many new contributers and public interest this project will get. In other words, my estimation is (when i look into my crystal ball :) ), that we will get more people that start contributing to FlighGear with things like creating 3d models and aircrafts when it's possible to switch aircrafts during runtime. When this isn't the case, people might think/say: OK, this looks nice, but i will wait with contribution until this issue is fixed,. or: Hm, i think i will give the project a next try when version 2.0 is out. On the other side we will get more attention even in none computer specific newspapers when the issues are fixed and people start to say: Wow, this is so perfect, this looks so great, what a wonderfull simulator... That's why we should be carefull about which version we call 1.0 In my opinion version 1.0 is an important release, it's not just a number. I am *very* adverse to 'marketing' via version numbers because it is all so meaningless, so I'm not even sure why I'm participating in this thread, but the flip side of this is if we stay at 0.9.x too long, all these same people are going to look at FG and say ... ohh, they've been diddling around with 0.9.x versions for ever, they must not be doing anything serious over there. I think the issue can be argued both ways, but time (and version numbers) marches on. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
