Vivian Meazza wrote:
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. YouOn Wednesday 08 September 2004 01:11, David Culp wrote:
may wish to seek his approval before going ahead with this change.
OrDavid 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?
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).
Roy, Dave, Vivian, Erik
One thing that is not clear to me, is what happens with the submodel stuff in a multi-display environment? Is there any facility for replicating and syncing these objects across multiple visual channels?
Thanks,
Curt.
-- Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
