Durk Talsma wrote: > Just to make a blunt suggestion, although not completely of my own > imagination: would it be an idea to release this version as 2.0?. Initially, > we wanted to do a 1.9.0 release, because we felt that the OSG transition > wasn't quite there yet. Since then, enormous progress has been made, in > particular in the 3D clouds departments. So given this unexpected progress, > would labeling this release as 2.0 be a viable option? I know that Curt's > been in favor of calling this release 2.0. I initially was a bit more > reluctant, but given the enormous progress, I have to say I'd be open to the > suggestion. > > I agree with Tat that we need to think of a good versioning system for future > releases.
There are still problems with the clouds (the draw order problem with particles), and Tim has already mentioned his intention to start committing the code required for shadows after this release. I believe that code also makes landing lights a possibility. I'd be tempted to make the first release including both of those features 2.0 Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
