On Thursday 20 January 2005 21:25, Frederic Bouvier wrote: > Oliver C. wrote > > > FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a > > 1.0 production release. > > Hey, there is a life after 1.0. Why not 1.1, 2.0 etc... > Trying to reach the perfection the first shot is the best way to drag > our 0.x forever that make feel that FG is still in beta and unusable for > the mass.
I partly agree with you, sure FlightGear shouldn't get another "Duke Nukem Forever" (a game, that will be released when it's done) but i consider a working inbuilt GUI (see "Giles Robertson's message), a way to switch the aircraft and airport when flightgear is running as basic features which are a must have in a 1.0 production release. So if you ask: "Is FG still beta or unusable for the mass." I would answer this with: "Yes, it is. As long as the above features are missing." After your message I though about the idea of moving the gear problem and "learn to fly" feature to the 1.1 release, this might be okay, but the other above mentioned features really need to get into 1.0. For a 2.0 release i could see when i look in my crystal ball features like thermal lift support, working 3d clouds and Multitexturing and Vertex Buffer Objects (VBO) support, but the latter 2 features depend on plib 2.0 or a switch to another scene graph library. > People will be happy to see FG progressing beyond 1.0 and will wait new > versions with more expectations. I agree, but people could also see the 1.0 version as a beta version when there is no inbuild GUI or way to switch the aircraft and airport. Best Regards, Oliver C. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
