Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
Danie Heath wrote: > I finally got the sim running. Here's my first impressions > > > > * Ground texturing excellent, except taxiways and ramps We are aware of that. But nobody had been able to create new ones ;-) > * I've only seen the default aircraft, but I will start development > of hi-res aircraft as of now. That's a good thing. One thing to consider is the number of polygons, which we think shouldn't bee too high because of the hardware we want it to run on. > * Aircraft handling not too bad. We're (they are) working on it. > * Gauges of quite high quality > > Flightgear is not up to top standard yet, but from what I've seen and > heard, I'm incredibly impressed. I'm glad to have joined you guys, and Good to see some new developers joining lately. Welcome. > looking forward to some nice developments. As a fan of anti-Microsoft > bans, I can't wait to screw Bill Gates and his company with this amazing > piece of software. Hmmm. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
On Sunday 03 March 2002 04:56 am, you wrote: > Danie Heath wrote: > > I finally got the sim running. Here's my first impressions > > > > > > > > * Ground texturing excellent, except taxiways and ramps > > We are aware of that. But nobody had been able to create new ones ;-) > > > * I've only seen the default aircraft, but I will start development > > of hi-res aircraft as of now. > > That's a good thing. One thing to consider is the number of polygons, > which we think shouldn't bee too high because of the hardware we want it > to run on. Also, there is currently a bug in the model loader that is preventing the default model from being smoothed. > > > * Aircraft handling not too bad. > > We're (they are) working on it. > > > * Gauges of quite high quality > > > > Flightgear is not up to top standard yet, but from what I've seen and > > heard, I'm incredibly impressed. I'm glad to have joined you guys, and > > Good to see some new developers joining lately. > Welcome. > > > looking forward to some nice developments. As a fan of anti-Microsoft > > bans, I can't wait to screw Bill Gates and his company with this amazing > > piece of software. > > Hmmm. I haven't heard that 'tude in a while either. FWIW Danie, we have our share of developers who are windows guys. Anyway, looking forward to your contibutions. TTYL John ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
John Check writes: > > That's a good thing. One thing to consider is the number of polygons, > > which we think shouldn't bee too high because of the hardware we want it > > to run on. > > Also, there is currently a bug in the model loader that is preventing > the default model from being smoothed. If he's not using the latest CVS, the default model he's referring to might be the yellow and blue glider. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
On Sunday 03 March 2002 08:47 am, you wrote: > John Check writes: > > > That's a good thing. One thing to consider is the number of polygons, > > > which we think shouldn't bee too high because of the hardware we want > > > it to run on. > > > > Also, there is currently a bug in the model loader that is preventing > > the default model from being smoothed. > > If he's not using the latest CVS, the default model he's referring to > might be the yellow and blue glider. > Heheh Ouch. In that case, his criticism is mild. > > All the best, > > > David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
Danie Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > forward to some nice developments. As a fan of anti-Microsoft bans, I can't > wait to screw Bill Gates and his company with this amazing piece of > software. > We have a lot to thank Bill Gates for, including the way he (especially) and others got under Richard Stallman's (and others) skin with their shrink-wrap revolution. We owe Bill a debt of gratitude for making sure that open source became a popular idea, even for windows users and developers. :-D Mainly it's just fun to work on something great that's unencumbered by business goals. Welcome! Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
Jim Wilson writes: > > We have a lot to thank Bill Gates for, including the way he > (especially) and others got under Richard Stallman's (and others) > skin with their shrink-wrap revolution. We owe Bill a debt of > gratitude for making sure that open source became a popular idea, > even for windows users and developers. :-D Hmm -- as I recall, it was AT&T and Sun that got under Stallman's skin, especially when AT&T started requiring a license for the Unix code. Microsoft was barely on the radar screen then, any more than, say, Nintendo is today for computer researchers. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jim Wilson writes: > > > > > We have a lot to thank Bill Gates for, including the way he > > (especially) and others got under Richard Stallman's (and others) > > skin with their shrink-wrap revolution. We owe Bill a debt of > > gratitude for making sure that open source became a popular idea, > > even for windows users and developers. :-D > > Hmm -- as I recall, it was AT&T and Sun that got under Stallman's > skin, especially when AT&T started requiring a license for the Unix > code. Microsoft was barely on the radar screen then, any more than, > say, Nintendo is today for computer researchers. > Yes, originally, that's correct. Something to do with AT&T and a printer driver, I think. I was just speaking of Bill...since back in those days the profile for Stallman's project was lower too. That is to mean lower than after the mid eighties, when desktop/workstation unix emerged, not to mention later with linux. The "and others" are significant. If it wasn't for Bill, linux probably would not be where it is today. Putting on my asbestos suit now :-) Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear first impression
Jim Wilson writes: > Yes, originally, that's correct. Something to do with AT&T and a > printer driver, I think. I was just speaking of Bill...since back > in those days the profile for Stallman's project was lower > too. That is to mean lower than after the mid eighties, when > desktop/workstation unix emerged, not to mention later with linux. > The "and others" are significant. If it wasn't for Bill, linux > probably would not be where it is today. Maybe, but I'd give the two Andys more credit than Bill. In the early 90's, Andy Tannenbaum was uncooperative enough that Linus decided to fork Linux rather than providing i386 patches to Linux (I was on the Minix list at the time); by the late 90's, Andy Grove's Intel made cheap desktop hardware powerful enough to provide a reasonable alternative to painfully overpriced servers from Sun, IBM, and (once upon a time) DEC. Strife with Microsoft gets Linux its press, but they're not really in competition -- you'd have to be nuts to try to build something like Google using WinNT or Win2K (heck, even Microsoft knows not to use Windows for HotMail), and you'd have to be almost as crazy to try to convince a big company to switch to Linux on the desktop. Microsoft may be lusting after the server market with its bigger margins, but they're not smart enough to get much of it above the workgroup level; Linux advocates may be lusting after the desktop with its high visibility and coolness factor, but it's probably too late to grab it, even if they weren't all bogged down into the KDE vs. Gnome wars. It's Sun and IBM that Linux is hurting, much more effectively than Microsoft ever could; IBM is trying an if-we-can't-beat-them-join-them campaign, but that doesn't change the fact that cheap Intel hardware running Linux in a cluster beats the stuffing out of any big iron from Sun or IBM by a couple of orders of magnitude (both in cost and performance). Google is a famous public example of this fact, but there are several private examples I've been involved with that are even more dramatic. It does Fortune 50 companies no good to make public noise about how important Linux is to their operations (they still need goodwill from the commercial vendors), but trust me, it's mission critical to at least one I've been involved with, and it's not Microsoft who's losing the sales. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
