> 1) What's the version number of the new release? > a) 2.8.0 > b) 3.0.0
My impression is that it would be best to advertize Rembrandt as a new, exciting, but optional and stil experimental development. The reason is similar to what others have said - it seems to do really impressive things with light sources on some systems, it seems to make other systems really slow and it doesn't seem to be guaranteed to work everywhere. Personally, I'm not using it since it makes my system just a bit too slow to enjoy and I can't really see how to port lightfield development to Rembrandt (I guess we're not quite there yet as far as infrastructure is concerned, and I'd have to learn a few things, but also if Rembrandt + lightfield becomes even 20% slower than Rembrandt alone, then I can't fly it any more - Rembrandt costs me more than 50% of my framerate ). So personally, I really need it as optional, and I'd drop out of shader development if it weren't because if I can't enjoy it, I somehow lose the motivation to do it. I have also continuing concerns with 'converting' things to Rembrandt - do they still work for non-Rembrandt? I know some people create optional Rembrandt and non-Rembrandt versions. I'd ask everyone who has no problems with Rembrandt to really be aware that there are people who can't run it on their hardware at all and that there are others who may not want to run it but may want to use Flightgear and their favourite planes nevertheless. Going to a version 2.8 would really expose Rembrandt (lightfields, ...) to a larger user-base so that we can have a much better picture (via Forum response) where the issues are. I think overemphasizing exciting new features will backfire badly if there are issues. I'd really approach this with caution. > Rembrandt has been around for quite a few months now, > and the changes required to make an aircraft Rembrandt-compatible are > pretty small, even if the changes to add proper lights are more involved. > > If I was being harsh I'd suggest that the aircraft maintainers should > "man up and do it". Is the implication of this that Rembrandt is considered the default and aircraft maintainers are expected to switch? When did we make this decision? I know all people for whom Rembrandt runs well would like to see everything converted asap, but what for these where it really means a lot of performance drain? > 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? > a) just the c172 > b) same as before > c) [name your preferred aircraft] I like the DR-400 JSBSim very much - I seem to remember it was offered to the repository by the PAF hangar, I'm not sure if it ended up being committed. Anyway, I think it's a great plane, both in terms of the FDM and the visuals. Otherwise I'd like to see either the IAR-80 or the P-51D. There was also some work on the DHC6 - that's also a really popular plane - we might include that. > 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the > feature freeze? > a) yes > b) no I would allow to commit aircraft freely up to the last point. It doesn't make any sense to restrict new commits as long as we don't have any effort in place to control quality of the aircraft which are already committed at least to the level where we make sure they run with the new version. We always seem to distribute some non-functional aircraft with a release, and as long as that is the case, what's the point in controlling what happens to new aircraft? Last minute changes are likely to be better than the non-functionals lying around. I would perhaps make an exception for any aircraft in the base package - quality control for those should be better and there should be some time for testing them. Cheers, * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
