Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Proposal for 1.0
Melchior FRANZ wrote: I would *really* like to switch to a new plib version (and make this a requirement), because ... - several pu.h widgets are depreciated, and are now in puAux, where they are actually maintained. (It's quite embarrassing if one has to submit bugfixes for obsolete widgets, when there are already newer ones.) - 1.8.4 has a few bugs that cause gui style problems (pink input field) - we have still our own version of puList, although that has now been included in puAux. (Cleanup of our code base.) - we have #ifdefs for plib >1.8.4 that shouldn't be there forever - we have at least one ugly workaround for a bug that is fixed in plib/CVS - puAux contains new widgets that we could use I don't think we gain much from forking plib. *If* we have people interested in working on plib, those can as well ask for plib write access. (The texture compression was IMHO not "advertized" well, so I'm not really surprised that it was ignored.) In the past, when we've lobbied the plib people for a new release, they've been very forth coming. Has anyone asked them to consider rolling out a new release? Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Proposal for 1.0
Melchior FRANZ wrote: I don't think we gain much from forking plib. *If* we have people interested in working on plib, those can as well ask for plib write access. (The texture compression was IMHO not "advertized" well, so I'm not really surprised that it was ignored.) Forgive me my ignorance, I have only tested the first posted version of the patch. Is compression with this patch optional? Using the patch was no problem with my ATI card (although it didn't help much), but results were just ugly after I switched to nvidia. Nine --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Proposal for 1.0
On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:32, Stefan Seifert wrote: > Forgive me my ignorance, I have only tested the first posted version of > the patch. Is compression with this patch optional? Using the patch was > no problem with my ATI card (although it didn't help much), but results > were just ugly after I switched to nvidia. It's true that the results can be a wee bit "ugly" but at the same time I'm very happy to live with surfaces showing slight compression noise artefacts when it means I can use the carrier and detailed models like the Hurricane with decent fps on old hardware (64Mb MX420.) On the very same box with a nvidia 6200 card installed I don't see any noise visible at all... Cheers, AJ --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Proposal for 1.0
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > I don't think we gain much from forking plib. *If* we have people > interested in working on plib, those can as well ask for plib > write access. Maybe my explanation was a bit incomplete. The idea was not so much about spending effort to maintain PLIB. I thought about copying PLIB into SimGear and fix only those parts, that are actually required by SimGear. Parts that are not used should be removed. I thought this would be a nice basis for those people who consider working on a transition to OSG. During this transition the scenegraph parts of PLIB that are being replaced by OSG could be removed from the PLIB copy as they are being mapped to OSG, those parts that that are probably still being used after the transition, like a subset of the keyboard/joystick-handling, remain. One major difficulty that I experienced with PLIB are the occasional portability issues. PLIB is a collection of several libraries of which one has issues on platform A and another has issues on platform B. If a copy is put into SimGear that is being reduced to those parts that are required, we could circumvent a notable number of portability issues. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
