Hello Erik, > That's great, I already wondered what happened to that project. This > would really be a great addition for FlightGear.
Unfortunately I am studying and currently try to compensate for the tremendous lazyness of my past semesters :-) So that project had to wait for the christmas break. > As I understood you where using your own SceneGraph engine, what would > be the best way to handle this; > 1. Adding a SceneGraph API > 2. You change your code to use plib > 3. FlightGear starts to use your SceneGraph library I am not yet sure what the best solution will be, but I want to either: 1) Wrap it into a plib scenegraph node 2) Abstract out the scenegraph and only offer a render() method, which would just render to the current OpenGL context. I prefer the second method, because of the simplicity of the interface; implementation-wise the difference is small, it's more of a design question at what level the rendering should be encapsulated. IMO the earlier, the better (i.e. simpler). > Hmm, I've seen work on branches and they have their pro's and con's. I'm > not sure I like branches all that much. I think in this case a branch makes a lot of sense, because otherwise the modifications would greatly disturb the main-branch; or I would be forced to hold back a gigantic monolithic patch until coding&testing has finished, which would leave me without version control (and others wouldn't be able to test or contribute). bye, Manuel _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d