John Check wrote:
>>I would think 0.8.0 is reserved for a *stable* release. Although much
>>has changed in the recent past, changes ar this release won't be a good
>>and stable release as expected for a 0.8 release.
>>
>>Erik
> We need hotspots to work in the 3D cockpit to earn the .8.0
And as
>On Behalf Of Cameron Moore
> What exactly do we want 1.0 to be? Here are some things I'd like to see
> in 1.0:
>
> - Runway lighting
> - Sane gear model in JSBSim
In work, as we "speak". Of course, this has been "in work" for months, and
is likely to continue to be for at least days if not wee
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Curtis L. Olson) [2002.04.19 21:24]:
> Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon? If anyone wants a real
> time wasting discussion, what do people think about switching from
> 0.7.10, 0.7.11, 0.7.12, etc. to going 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
> that way it looks like our
On Friday 19 April 2002 04:34 am, you wrote:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > As for the numbering, how about jumping to 0.8 and then continuing on as
> > we have? This will look like a pretty major update with the new models
> > and 3d internal view.
>
> I would think 0.8.0 is reserved for a *stable* rel
> Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon?
I wouldn't object a 0.7.10 release as long as where were at least two or
three weeks for fixing obvious known bugs that prevent users from using
functionality that is _supposed_ to be usuable right now (see my posting on
the Beech99).
In the meantim
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon?
>
> Yes, now (or as soon as practicable). While there will always be new
> features to add, I think it's starting to get silly that we're not at
> 1.0 yet (or soon) -- the p
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon?
Yes, now (or as soon as practicable). While there will always be new
features to add, I think it's starting to get silly that we're not at
1.0 yet (or soon) -- the program, as-is, is already very suitable for
VFR training,
Jim Wilson wrote:
> As for the numbering, how about jumping to 0.8 and then continuing on as we
> have? This will look like a pretty major update with the new models and 3d
> internal view.
I would think 0.8.0 is reserved for a *stable* release. Although much
has changed in the recent past, ch
On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 09:19 PM, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon?
Oh, oh, ME! I will need to beat on my interface between our (at work)
proprietary FDM and FlightGear's display first. I've let it languish
since the 0.7.9 release, anything I sho
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Curtis L. Olson) [2002.04.19 21:24]:
> Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon? If anyone wants a real
> time wasting discussion, what do people think about switching from
> 0.7.10, 0.7.11, 0.7.12, etc. to going 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
> that way it looks like our
Jim Wilson writes:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon? If anyone wants a real
> > time wasting discussion, what do people think about switching from
> > 0.7.10, 0.7.11, 0.7.12, etc. to going 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
> > that w
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyone up for a 0.7.10 release sometime soon? If anyone wants a real
> time wasting discussion, what do people think about switching from
> 0.7.10, 0.7.11, 0.7.12, etc. to going 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
> that way it looks like our developmen
A fair amount has changed in cvs today. If you are tracking cvs, make
sure you update both your FlightGear cvs tree and your base package
cvs tree ... otherwise you will have problems.
The view manager code is really shaping up, David made some nice
changes to the C172 3d model, I fixed a crash
13 matches
Mail list logo
