Curtis Olson wrote: > This isn't an argument for or against Tim's proposal in and of itself, > but it's at least interesting to observe other real world cases that > are at least partially similar. Has JSBSim run into any problems with > it's journey down this path? This has been one reason why I have been cautious about including it, this setup does tend to result more errors than laying it down is separate xml nodes. Also, the JSBSim configuration files are often generated by a script (aeromatic in this case) first and then altered. This minimizes human error.
That said, it looks to me the best way to eliminate all concerns is to make sure that subsystems that are going to use array-properties use a detached property tree (not attached to the root tree as shown in the property manager). It looks to me that would be no problem for the shader subsystem since it (like JSBSim) only uses the property tree to read the configuration file. After it has been read there would probable little or no need to adjust the individual properties using the property manager, or to send them over the network, anyhow. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
