Chris Metzler wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:17:48 +0200
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that (now that we have a separate Objects directory) it is
possible quite easily to add a command-line option to disable the static
scenery objects.
Fair enough. But with ground structures that are installable separately,
it's possible for a user to pick and choose what to install. For example,
someone could wish to see a set of landmarks in Paris, but not the
buildings at Orly (wanting smoother framerates during landing/takeoff,
but not caring so much when flying over the center of the city), or
something like that.
Regarding that particular issue it might even make somewhat more
sense to add another option to selectively adjust scenery
complexity for certain areas - that way, the scenery itself
would be available, while its actual level of complexity
could be customized for specific purposes at runtime,
so I could decide for a high level of detail during
approach/final segment while reducing scenery
complexity on the enroute segment.
As you mentioned this would not need to be restricted to
certain phases of flight, but rather could really be
specifically customized to certain sections during
flight.
So, this would be a bit more tweakable than the usual
approach to decide for ONE specific detail/rendering
profile, which usually is not changed during flight...
So while I really like having the separate Objects
directory, and agree that being able to toggle on/off the static scenery
objects would be a good thing, I think being able to pick and choose what
(non-random) static structures to install is *also* a good thing.
yes, it would allow for some more flexibility
My personal opinion would be to get everything at one place, preferably
(but not necessarily) in a separate CVS branch at flightgear.org just
like the world wide scenery right now. That would be easiest for
everybody (and provides mirror sites).
Browsing a CVS repository is possible, of course; but kinda
ugly and more oriented towards developers than users. I don't know much
about user-friendly CVS clients, especially for Windows.
There are a couple I know of, but to be honest for a NORMAL windows
*user* in general it cannot be considered "user-friendly" to require
installing a cvs client.
If you really want to keep using CVS for these purposes it
might rather make more sense to look into more powerful
web-frontends to CGI, as "even a windows user" :-) can deal
with a browser, and wouldn't have to install any extra software,
nor would a windows user require to get familiar with a new
interface if a browser can be used for these purposes.
As a workaround one might try to make CVS (via browser !)
itself a bit more end-user-friendly by including things
like screenshots in the repository (like in a specific
folder named "previews") - while this is certainly not what
CVS is meant for, it would provide some convenience
for users to really be able to tell what a specific
scenery addon is all about and who are not really
familiar with developer frontends.
The other thing is that I think it'd be good to avoid putting any more work upon the
existing developers (e.g. not asking Curt to take on more website work).
yes, gotta agree on that one too, to be honest: being new to this
mailing list my current impression is really that most of the
developers are simply way too busy to take care of all the suggestions
that keep being made by users, not necessarily talking of my own
suggestions here:
I've spoken to several people who have similar impressions, this is
really not meant to be critique, but rather something you ought to
think about: it seems to be a matter of fact, that the current
infrastructure for the FlightGear project requires a lot of
decision making of the right people (mostly Curt and the
main-developers).
So, while these people are - understandably - very busy new ideas
which might benefit the normal user (usually, more than developers !)
are not necessarily addressed properly.
I don't mean to say that the project itself should be separated
into parts, but rather some more of the responsibility should be shared,
so that there's really less interaction by the main people required.
Talking of the webpage, which currently seems to be maintained
-also by means of - CVS, is such an example: if there was a simple
CMS (content management system) running, the webmaster could assing
different sections of the page to different people for maintenance.
So, Curtis would not have to make changes to the page by himself,
but could rather ask someone else to take care of things like
updating the news section or whatever, this might even be done
by a general request to the mailing list.
That way even those users who are not familiar with CVS etc. could
help keeping the webpage updated (adding downloads etc.) and they
would not require to be familiar with any special software.
Currently, all this seems really to be a pretty static solution which
seems to require more interaction by the project leaders than would
be necessary.
Just my 2 cents though :-)
---------
Boris
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
