On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:43:28 -0600, Jon wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I don't see how adding a flight planner, aircraft selection and > > > other useful features is going to bloat the code so much that is > > > runs like a snail. > > > > ..these should be _separate_ small programs, not one big ass binary. > > And, yes, I agree these are useful, and they should be called from > > FG as needed, and not carried as dead weight when they're not being > > used. > > > > ..take yasim and uiuc fdm's; If I don't use them, they should not be > > loaded as the dead weigh part of the one big ass binary. They > > should be stand-alone binaries precisely like jsbsim. If I use > > them, I like fgfs to call yasim as needed. Etc. > > Well, JSBSim _can_ be a standalone binary, but when integrated with > Flightgear, _all_ of the FDMs (and other subsystems too as far as I > know) are compiled and linked in to FlightGear as static libraries, I > believe. > > Is that correct? ..I dunno, but that's how IUI too. Ideally, in the unix tradition, some of these would be dynamic libs, some would be standalone programs, I see no reason why yasim couldn't be used stand-alone just like jsbsim, but the uiuc extensions to larcsim is IMHO a more likely candidate for a dll, also for the other fdm's, as in yasim-uiuc and jsbsim-uiuc whenever someone decides he wanna play with iceing so badly he just does the coding. ;-) Etc. But I can see the FG static lib experience being the easier way to do it cross-platform, even when it's "wrong." ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
