Melchior, On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:58, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > * Mathias Fröhlich -- Wednesday 26 July 2006 22:49: > > Because it is not a limitation but rather a gain. A *well* *done* and > > *well* *supported* scenegraph will help you some much more than you > > probably can imagine now. > > You completely miss the point: we are using ssg! There was no > decision made to switch to osg. So, if we switch to ssg wrappers > first, we lose capabilities, that we may or may not get back later. > > I don't accept that and object. > > > In fact, a proper design - like a well done scenegraph provides > > You miss the point. We are using ssg! > > > So why should we limit ourselves in the long term with ssg? > > Fact is: we are using ssg. We may or may not switch to osg later. > There has *no* decision been made, so we can't rip out stuff now > that osg may provide later. The way to go is: > > - formal decision to switch to osg (or at least to start working on it) > - generate osg branch in cvs > - parallel development > > In the osg branch you can do with the HUD what you like. But not > in the current, *SSG* branch.
I believe that you miss the point. The point is that we can, without loosing features, with a sensible design, prepare getting rid of ssg. As allmost allways, building sensible structures is a win even if no switch will happen. Just blocking that is not a good idea. ... did you ever look at the sceens of csp.sf.net? Greetings Mathias ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel