Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Hi, I think having the wiki as default page for the project makes a lot of sense, there is way more information on the Wiki at this point, and it's pretty well organized. Of course, a few key pages would need to be locked-down (or maybe not, I'm an optimist !!). And dynamic pages like the aircraft download don't need to be scrapped, they could be referenced from the wiki and later integrated as MediaWiki extensions. What about having a poll on the forum about this topic? Tom On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Gijs de Rooy gijsr...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi, last week, James dropped the idea of moving our websitehttp://www.flightgear.org/(partly) over to the wiki http://wiki.flightgear.org/. So far I have discussed this with a couple of people, all of which have different opinions. Therefore, I would like to ask anyone that cares about our website to reply. I think we all agree that our current website cannot continue like it does right now. We've had multiple discussions in the past, even leading to some test website (like the ones by Pete), but none of them led to something. I have listed a couple of pro's and con's (IMO, and based on a small IRC duscission) below. This list is dynamic, as pro's can become con's and vice versa. + *Easy to update:* wiki articles can be edited by all people, in stead of just a single man (Curt :P). As we have seen in the past (and even till today), our website is often out of date. A good example of this is the CVS/Git page http://flightgear.org/cvs.html, which hasn't been updated since May (!), and still does not contain any useful info if I want to use Git. Of course we don't want some of our important pages (main page, download etc.) to be edited by just anyone with a wiki account. Luckily, we can add usergroups at the wiki and assign permissions to them. Thus, important pages can be locked (on the edit part) for the ordinary users. We've been doing this with all Newsletters, which can be edited only by wiki-admins after their publicication. We could create various groups, and people can be within multiple groups at once. + *Easy to link to detailed documentation:* rather than providing an external link, we can add internal links to each word (okay, that's a little too much). If a text mentions $FG_ROOT, we can make that word link to the wiki- article http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/$FG_ROOTabout it. This will decrease the amount of useless questions at the forum (which are replied by a link to the wiki), which is meant for special, personalised help and discussions. + *Download page:* since the wiki already contains quite some information per aircraft, it could be used to auto- generate a more detailed aircraft download page. Each aircraft on that page can link to the aircraft's private page (if existing) and thus provide manuals, status info etc. immediately to the user, even before downloading the aircraft. As we've had quite some complaints from people that are disappointed after dowloading. The wiki can provde various screenshots per aircraft (eg. interior, exterior), so users can see-what-they-get. + *Publicity of the wiki:* new FG users will be immediately aware of the existence of a wiki, and therefore be stimulated to start developing themselves. This will again decrease the useless questions at the forum. - *Less attractive layout:* currently the FlightGear wiki doesn't really look like a website. This could be solved though by creating/adding a different style/layout. - *Less open system:* for example, it will be harder to implement additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener... - *Not much examples:* of a complete wiki website about projects like ours. This could be a pro as well, as it will allow us to be renewed and different. Jester (IIRC) mentioned that it is important to check whether pages are cached at the wiki, so they won't have to be pulled from the database each time. If so, we should enable cache. A possible other solution is to have a static frontpage, which could be nice in various ways, other than the cache... I look forward to receiving your ideas/opinions/questions! When the list grow, we might benefit from setting up a wiki article to collect ideas/opinions. Cheers, Gijs -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Hi Curt, Curtis Olson wrote: 2. I've played a bit with drupal, and in comparison to wordpress, it feels much more adhoc and clunky, much less thought out, much more disorganized, much less intuitive, much harder to admin, and much harder to make it do what I want to do. Well, Drupal is primarily a website CMS whereas WordPress, to my understanding, is prominently meant to serve for blogs. Therefore it doesn't come by surprise that you're experiencing significant differences. Django in contrast has an even steeper learning curve, but it does almost everything for you, if you add some code - just the usual versatility vs. convenience story ;-) 4. I hear you folks who want to be able to program php/perl/python the backend and really customize the site. Let me put it into different words to clarify my intention: Re-doing a website almost from scratch requires a pile of work and when people start thinking about migrating the website over to whichever flavour of 3rd party 'framework', thus making the site _dependent_ on this framework, then I'd recommend not to choose one whose structural deficiencies are becoming obvious already _that_ in the early planning stage. It's a little bit like buying a house when you're thinking about having four kids. In the planning stage you'll never know the exact details, but even in the early phases it's pretty much obvious that the needs _are_ going to develop their own life ;-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Martin Spott wrote: Well, Drupal is primarily a website CMS whereas WordPress, to my understanding, is prominently meant to serve for blogs. This is all true, but wordpress does have some capabilities in the CMS arena too. Therefore it doesn't come by surprise that you're experiencing significant differences. Django in contrast has an even steeper learning curve, but it does almost everything for you, if you add some code - just the usual versatility vs. convenience story ;-) Not to mention everyone has a strong opinion about what the best platform should be. :-) Let me put it into different words to clarify my intention: Re-doing a website almost from scratch requires a pile of work and when people start thinking about migrating the website over to whichever flavour of 3rd party 'framework', thus making the site _dependent_ on this framework, then I'd recommend not to choose one whose structural deficiencies are becoming obvious already _that_ in the early planning stage. It's a little bit like buying a house when you're thinking about having four kids. In the planning stage you'll never know the exact details, but even in the early phases it's pretty much obvious that the needs _are_ going to develop their own life ;-) My concern is that it's so easy to over design initially and come up with a list of requirements that end up being too expensive, too time consuming, or too complicated to successfully build. This is a natural tendency any time we have an open discussion. Everyone wants to contribute (which is good) and people often times take it personally if their suggestion isn't given enough weight or isn't immediately acted upon. Any time we make a change we gain things and lose other things (often things that have substantial emotional investment.) Definitely CMS is the future ... Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
I knocked up this site with a templating engine, powered by NOREL on GAE, http://fg-www.appspot.com/ I also ported it to php5 to make everyone GPL happy ie not google, m$, oracle etc.. http://github.com/ac001/flightgear-php not online but same site powered by php5 http://fg-www.appspot.com/I have intentionally migrated away from tikiwiki, drupal etc php its fine for small site but scaling it is difficult, let alone with url rewriting and .htaccess fun http://github.com/ac001/FlightGear-AppEngine-Cloud python stuff with DJANGO templating (easily protable) I would however steer completely away from the wiki, instead integrate it into the main site... CDN is the word and if we increase the user base by 500% what will the consequences be ?? What we all want is a development enviroment of constant imprvment on the website shared by everybody with input at a guess. pete http://github.com/ac001/FlightGear-AppEngine-Cloud On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: Hi Curt, Curtis Olson wrote: 2. I've played a bit with drupal, and in comparison to wordpress, it feels much more adhoc and clunky, much less thought out, much more disorganized, much less intuitive, much harder to admin, and much harder to make it do what I want to do. Well, Drupal is primarily a website CMS whereas WordPress, to my understanding, is prominently meant to serve for blogs. Therefore it doesn't come by surprise that you're experiencing significant differences. Django in contrast has an even steeper learning curve, but it does almost everything for you, if you add some code - just the usual versatility vs. convenience story ;-) 4. I hear you folks who want to be able to program php/perl/python the backend and really customize the site. Let me put it into different words to clarify my intention: Re-doing a website almost from scratch requires a pile of work and when people start thinking about migrating the website over to whichever flavour of 3rd party 'framework', thus making the site _dependent_ on this framework, then I'd recommend not to choose one whose structural deficiencies are becoming obvious already _that_ in the early planning stage. It's a little bit like buying a house when you're thinking about having four kids. In the planning stage you'll never know the exact details, but even in the early phases it's pretty much obvious that the needs _are_ going to develop their own life ;-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Martin Spott wrote: It's a little bit like buying a house when you're thinking about having four kids. even though we bought a nice house last autumn which might be suited to accommodate four children, the above sentence wasn't meant to be understood as a self-portrait ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Gijs, This sounds like a worthwhile proposal. Why not set up the wiki page etc. so that we can compare and come up with an informed decision, rather than some pre-formed opinions. (4 FG Developers - 5 opinions. One will change their mind :-)) Vivian -Original Message- From: Gijs de Rooy [mailto:gijsr...@hotmail.com] Sent: 10 October 2010 11:07 To: FlightGear Development list Subject: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki Hi, last week, James dropped the idea of moving our http://www.flightgear.org/ website (partly) over to the wiki http://wiki.flightgear.org/ . So far I have discussed this with a couple of people, all of which have different opinions. Therefore, I would like to ask anyone that cares about our website to reply. I think we all agree that our current website cannot continue like it does right now. We've had multiple discussions in the past, even leading to some test website (like the ones by Pete), but none of them led to something. I have listed a couple of pro's and con's (IMO, and based on a small IRC duscission) below. This list is dynamic, as pro's can become con's and vice versa. + Easy to update: wiki articles can be edited by all people, in stead of just a single man (Curt :P). As we have seen in the past (and even till today), our website is often out of date. A good example of this is the CVS/Git http://flightgear.org/cvs.html page, which hasn't been updated since May (!), and still does not contain any useful info if I want to use Git. Of course we don't want some of our important pages (main page, download etc.) to be edited by just anyone with a wiki account. Luckily, we can add usergroups at the wiki and assign permissions to them. Thus, important pages can be locked (on the edit part) for the ordinary users. We've been doing this with all Newsletters, which can be edited only by wiki-admins after their publicication. We could create various groups, and people can be within multiple groups at once. + Easy to link to detailed documentation: rather than providing an external link, we can add internal links to each word (okay, that's a little too much). If a text mentions $FG_ROOT, we can make that word link to the wiki- http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/$FG_ROOT article about it. This will decrease the amount of useless questions at the forum (which are replied by a link to the wiki), which is meant for special, personalised help and discussions. + Download page: since the wiki already contains quite some information per aircraft, it could be used to auto- generate a more detailed aircraft download page. Each aircraft on that page can link to the aircraft's private page (if existing) and thus provide manuals, status info etc. immediately to the user, even before downloading the aircraft. As we've had quite some complaints from people that are disappointed after dowloading. The wiki can provde various screenshots per aircraft (eg. interior, exterior), so users can see-what-they-get. + Publicity of the wiki: new FG users will be immediately aware of the existence of a wiki, and therefore be stimulated to start developing themselves. This will again decrease the useless questions at the forum. - Less attractive layout: currently the FlightGear wiki doesn't really look like a website. This could be solved though by creating/adding a different style/layout. - Less open system: for example, it will be harder to implement additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener... - Not much examples: of a complete wiki website about projects like ours. This could be a pro as well, as it will allow us to be renewed and different. Jester (IIRC) mentioned that it is important to check whether pages are cached at the wiki, so they won't have to be pulled from the database each time. If so, we should enable cache. A possible other solution is to have a static frontpage, which could be nice in various ways, other than the cache... I look forward to receiving your ideas/opinions/questions! When the list grow, we might benefit from setting up a wiki article to collect ideas/opinions. Cheers, Gijs -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Hi, I like this idea as well! A good and fantastic simulation project as FlightGear needs a better represantion on the web if we want to be as successfull as we are now. The only thing I fear is: that it will be another useless discussion, without any resultat CheersHeiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html --- Gijs de Rooy gijsr...@hotmail.com schrieb am So, 10.10.2010: Von: Gijs de Rooy gijsr...@hotmail.com Betreff: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki An: FlightGear Development list flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Datum: Sonntag, 10. Oktober, 2010 12:06 Uhr Hi, last week, James dropped the idea of moving our website (partly) over to the wiki. So far I have discussed this with a couple of people, all of which have different opinions. Therefore, I would like to ask anyone that cares about our website to reply. I think we all agree that our current website cannot continue like it does right now. We've had multiple discussions in the past, even leading to some test website (like the ones by Pete), but none of them led to something. I have listed a couple of pro's and con's (IMO, and based on a small IRC duscission) below. This list is dynamic, as pro's can become con's and vice versa. + Easy to update: wiki articles can be edited by all people, in stead of just a single man (Curt :P). As we have seen in the past (and even till today), our website is often out of date. A good example of this is the CVS/Git page, which hasn't been updated since May (!), and still does not contain any useful info if I want to use Git. Of course we don't want some of our important pages (main page, download etc.) to be edited by just anyone with a wiki account. Luckily, we can add usergroups at the wiki and assign permissions to them. Thus, important pages can be locked (on the edit part) for the ordinary users. We've been doing this with all Newsletters, which can be edited only by wiki-admins after their publicication. We could create various groups, and people can be within multiple groups at once. + Easy to link to detailed documentation: rather than providing an external link, we can add internal links to each word (okay, that's a little too much). If a text mentions $FG_ROOT, we can make that word link to the wiki- article about it. This will decrease the amount of useless questions at the forum (which are replied by a link to the wiki), which is meant for special, personalised help and discussions. + Download page: since the wiki already contains quite some information per aircraft, it could be used to auto- generate a more detailed aircraft download page. Each aircraft on that page can link to the aircraft's private page (if existing) and thus provide manuals, status info etc. immediately to the user, even before downloading the aircraft. As we've had quite some complaints from people that are disappointed after dowloading. The wiki can provde various screenshots per aircraft (eg. interior, exterior), so users can see-what-they-get. + Publicity of the wiki: new FG users will be immediately aware of the existence of a wiki, and therefore be stimulated to start developing themselves. This will again decrease the useless questions at the forum. - Less attractive layout: currently the FlightGear wiki doesn't really look like a website. This could be solved though by creating/adding a different style/layout. - Less open system: for example, it will be harder to implement additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener... - Not much examples: of a complete wiki website about projects like ours. This could be a pro as well, as it will allow us to be renewed and different. Jester (IIRC) mentioned that it is important to check whether pages are cached at the wiki, so they won't have to be pulled from the database each time. If so, we should enable cache. A possible other solution is to have a static frontpage, which could be nice in various ways, other than the cache... I look forward to receiving your ideas/opinions/questions! When the list grow, we might benefit from setting up a wiki article to collect ideas/opinions. Cheers, Gijs -Integrierter Anhang folgt- -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb -Integrierter Anhang folgt- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Gijs de Rooy wrote: - Less open system: for example, it will be harder to implement additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener... I'm uncertain about how to read this final conclusion. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Hey! Torsten wrote: From time to time, I notices some abuse by inserted spam into our wiki pages. Great care must be taken, our home page is locked for the everybody group. Of course. Additionally I will look for some more anti-spam measures that we could install at the wiki. The layout/design is editable and with some knowledge, the skin may be replaced (you did this before, did you?) There are quite some skins available on the web (also GNU GPL ones), that we can choose from. Just like I did with the forum, it is possible to addapt an pre-existing skin slightly (or less slightly) and add our own logo/images to the header for example. Then, of course it is also important that the content looks nice. The main page as it is know exists of some very simple (colored) tables. We could easily replace the tablecolors with some rounder bars for example. That will be similar to the difference between the English and Dutch Wikipedia. Heiko wrote: The only thing I fear is: that it will be another useless discussion, without any resultat If we don't start the discussion we won't have any result at all. And given the fact that we were able to go through quite some updates the past year(s) (move to Gitorious, moving wiki and forum over to a new server, slightly updated forum layout and a different structure), I am hopefull. :) Scott wrote: I'd like to throw in WordPress as perhaps a better website content system than Wiki. It is good to look at alternatives. However, I don't really see the advantage of WordPress over the wiki. In the end, only a couple of pages will be static. Most of the content at our current website is documentation(-related) anyway... I might be wrong, so I'm open to other's opinions ;) Martin wrote: Gijs wrote: - Less open system: for example, it will be harder to implement additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener... I'm uncertain about how to read this final conclusion. I agree that I didn't explain it very well. What I meant is that with an ordinary HTML website, you have quick, full control over everything. Adding certain things is usually just a matter of uploading some files and adding some code. With CMS/Wiki, this involves installing addons. There are no addons for everything; and additionally certain thing can easily interfer with eachother. Therefore, it might be hard to add those features easily... Question is: are there really (that many) features that we cannot install easily on a wiki/CMS? I have requested the wiki admin to install a couple of addons. When that's done, I will set some example pages up, so we can see how it looks and feels. Thanks for sharing all of your thoughts so far! Cheers, Gijs -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
Hi Gijs, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Question is: are there really (that many) features that we cannot install easily on a wiki/CMS? The most prominent item that comes into my mind is what is probably well-decribed as dynamic content (choose a better term, if you like). Being the technical maintainer of another Wiki instance, the item which I'd consider to be most-needed is the ability just to drop some P* script programming language code into the page and let this program code render whatever fits my needs. Just as one among other obvious examples: Most of us certainly know, that editing tables in *Wiki is a major PITA (TM). I'd like to drop some P* code into the page which is capable of operating on top of a database handle and does the formatting of the DB query result (obviously accompagnied by some caching mechanism). Or, as a FG-related example, think of the aircraft download page: Wouldn't it be nice just to let some programming code hook onto whichever repository you like and have the download page generated on the fly (caching applies here as well). In general, with a 'sophisticated' website I'd like to have the ability to drop some scripting code into whichever place on a website I like to do whatever I like. According to my knowledge this is not going to work with *Wiki. I _guess_ it's possible with systems of the Drupal-league, certainly with Django and comparable (or bigger) systems. The latter ones, on the other hand, require more programming to get even the core setup running ;-) Nevertheless I agree with the forementioned opinion that the biggest obstacle on the way to a better (TM) website might not be a technical one. Best regards, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear website on wiki
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Torsten Dreyer wrote: From time to time, I notices some abuse by inserted spam into our wiki pages. Great care must be taken, our home page is locked for the everybody group. If you're using the Wikimedia engine, you can install a plug-in that will require accounts to be validated before posting access can be granted. Part of the sign-up process requires the user enter a biographical description that can require a specific number of words before they can submit the request. This would go a long way towards discouraging spammers and would give the admin something to help decide whether or not to enable the account. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
