On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:05:03 -0500 David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a matter of fact, I'd suggest getting rid of the "yasim", "jsbsim", etc. in aircraft names altogether. We have only a tiny handful of aircraft (172, 310, etc.) supported by more than one FDM; in those cases, let's just call them something like "172-alternate", etc., and mention the FDM in the comments (if at all).
FYI, There will be more and more duplicate aircraft coming in the not-too-distant future.
Let's just put a status property in the config properties for each aircraft, and filter on that. For example, if the statuses available were
alpha beta production
options like --list-aircraft could, by default, show only aircraft with a status of "beta" or "production", but with the --show-all option, it could show aircraft with any status.
JSBSim already has an attribute in the FDM definition for a RELEASE. I think this is a good idea. There's more to an aircraft model than just the FDM, of course, so maybe there should be more than one release specifier. This is one reason I think there ought to be release NOTES included along with each model, and I'm thinking that JSBSim might benefit from a hangar approach that Dave Culp has mentioned. I foresee this is not only a collection of all the files needed for an aircraft, but a resource for the aircraft as well, with useful information embedded in the hosted "portal".
Jon
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
