Vegard Ovesen wrote:
> Sent: 18 October 2004 09:26 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Submodels > > On Monday 18 October 2004 00:24, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > The ability to set a serviceability state for each submodel system would > > seem to be the correct approach, but if I understand your proposal > > correctly, it will end up in more files overall. > > Actually the systems and instrumentation configuration files are already > in > CVS. So my point of view is that integrating the submodels configuration > into > the already existing systems configuration file would result in fewer > files. > It seems to me that your point of view is that adding systems and > instrumentation configuration files would result in more config files. > Which > of course is true, but as I said systems and instrumentation config is > already there (and the won't go away ;-)). > > > > > As a major user and part-author of the submodel system, I have no > > objections, > > A quick grep through the base package revealed that three aircraft use the > subsystem: F16, Spitfire and Hunter. I will of course move the subsystem > config to system config so that they don't get broken. > > > but David Culp was the originator: his view might differ. You > > may wish to seek his approval before going ahead with this change. > > On Wednesday 08 September 2004 01:11, David Culp wrote: > > > David Culp, is it ok if I modify the new submodel so that it can be > > > configured in the systems.xml file along with the rest of the systems? > Or > > > do you have another plan for this? > > > > Sounds OK to me. > > > > > > Dave > > I'm not that an experienced programmer, so I am wondering if the vector of > submodels approach has superior preformace compared to my approach. > Having dwelt on this overnight, I think that there are advantages to the vector approach. It is more or less consistent with the electrical system. I briefly suggested separating the various sub-types of submodel during development, but Erik advised against IIRC. On the other hand, it would be nice to place the serviceability property where it more properly belongs: with each sub-sub-model. Unless there is a pressing need to change, or there are definite advantages, I would suggest that we leave things as they are for now. If we all agree, I'll look at moving the serviceability property once I have completed the Seafire (nearly there). V. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
