On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:47:26 +1300 dene maxwell wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > agreed, 3-D is not a 099 peculiarity... but I can't run 3-D cockpits > under my implementation of 098a, I've put this down to hardware > restrictions and it hasn't been important as there are plenty of > options in the way of equally enjoyable aircraft. > Some of the new aircraft are designed to run under FGFS 099 and have to > have special makes to run under 098a. Again I reiterate this not > because they have 3-d cockpits but for other reasons related to the > changes from 098a to 099 (JBSim 2.0 and the changes to the FDM for > example)
Sorry, I'm feeling really slow (probably because it's late where I am, and
I should go to sleep). There was a change in JSBSim configuration file
format in going to JSBSim 2.0; that has caused a lot of aircraft that
haven't yet been updated to not run under FG 0.9.9, and still others that
*have* been updated to not run under earlier versions (although one can
always hang on to an old version, I guess). But as you note above, that's
separate from the ability to run 3D cockpits. You're saying you can't run
3d cockpits under 0.9.8a? Were you able to under other versions? How does
the version come in, as opposed to "I can't run 3d cockpits, period"? Put
another way, you suggested that adding the 3D cockpit wouldn't be popular
with 0.9.8a users:
>>>> A separate A-10-3Dcockpit would make the existing A-10 redundant
>>>> - who would want to fly it without your cockpit? :)
>>>
>>> Maybe those langishing on 098a? From what I've seen of Alexis
>>> cockpit, I would love to fly it with his cockpit, as I enjoy the
>>> A10 FDM. But any new a/c, unless they have a 098a implementation,
>>> are useless to us.
. . .and I'm wondering why the FG version matters when it comes to
adding the 3D cockpit. Plenty of people used 3D cockpits with 0.9.8a.
The reason I'm looking at this is because you described FG as "not
maintaining backward compatibility"; for the most part, I don't think
that's fair to FG. I agree that the JSBSim config file change is an
example of failing to maintain backward compatibility; but I'd claim
that it's not breaking backward compatibility in the way you describe.
Using the rest of the software industry as a guide, the breaking of
backward compatibility there is *not* in 0.9.8a not being able to digest
new aircraft; rather, it's in 0.9.9 not being able to use old aircraft
files as is. That's the norm: new versions of software able to read
files for old versions of software; but not vice-versa, since that
would make adding functionality very difficult. For example, you can't
use MS Word 2003 .doc files in Word 97; but older .doc files will work
in newer versions of Word OK. And I don't think it's fair to call the
adding of more functionality, which in turn overtaxes older hardware,
as breaking backward compatibility. After all, that'll always be a
problem with sophisticated software -- try running Windows XP on
a 486DX machine.
Of course, even if the above is true, it doesn't change that you've
got a problem. If the new 3D cockpit for the A-10 were to get added to
the A-10 in CVS, how would that mess with your A-10 experience? (I'm
not saying it wouldn't; I'm asking how you'd end up with those files
instead of the older version) You're running a set version, namely
0.9.8a; so I'm presuming you're using the 0.9.8a base package (data).
Is that right? Or are you using 0.9.8a with CVS data somehow, so that
a change to the A-10 would get you when you update the data from CVS?
Is it possible for you to just preserve an older copy of the A-10
somewhere, copying it back in or pointing FG to it as needed?
-c
--
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
