Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:17 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Norman Vine -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:05:
I guess I should mention the deficiencies of non MSoft OSs but
I will leave the *flames* for another time :-)
Yeah, don't bother.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Ross
> Sent: 26 May 2005 17:33
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear startup time
>
>
> Richard Bytheway wrote:
> &g
"Norman Vine" wrote:
> You mean gcc isn't supported on IRIX ??
Once I had GCC on IRIX and I spent numerous hours trying to build
FlightGear, dealing with dozends of ICE's. Now I use MIPSpro and I
admit that I don't want to go back,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about
Martin Spott writes:
>
> "Norman Vine" wrote:
>
> > Just use the source Luke :-)
>
> Yes, I do right on the track to figure how much effort it would
> be to 'port' CWXML to IRIX/MIPSpro. Apparently they rely on having GCC
> as compiler on _every_ supported Unix platform.
You mean gcc isn'
On May 26, 2005 01:43 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> How so? Python does it by compiling a new *.pyc everytime there is a
> change to the associated *.py file.
>
>
>
> Ampere
Beside, you don't compile Flightgear everytime you run it. You compile
Flightgear when there is a change in the source
On May 26, 2005 04:32 pm, Andy Ross wrote:
> > Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which
> > is automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules
> > similar to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled
> > version, rebuild the compiled version.
>
> So
Richard Bytheway wrote:
> Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which
> is automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules
> similar to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled
> version, rebuild the compiled version.
Sorry, but that sounds dumb. Wo
Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 à 14:12 +0200, Gerard ROBIN a écrit :
> Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 à 14:00 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> > * Martin Spott -- Thursday 26 May 2005 13:07:
> > > In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML files from the distribution should
> > > considered
> > > to be a no-go,
> >
> > Secon
"Norman Vine" wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:
>> This is a very interesting approach that you present here - and
>> probably the only one that doesn't destruct the whole idea of having
>> human-adaptable configuration files. In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML
>> files from the distribution should consi
Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 à 14:00 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> * Martin Spott -- Thursday 26 May 2005 13:07:
> > In my eyes _dropping_ ASCII XML files from the distribution should
> > considered
> > to be a no-go,
>
> Seconded. And then: it's *not* XML parsing that slows the startup process down
Martin Spott writes:
>
> "Richard Bytheway" wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which is
> > automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules similar
> > to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled version,
> > rebuild the compiled ver
"Richard Bytheway" wrote:
> Would it be possible to have a compiled form stroed on disk, which is
> automatically regenerated on startup of FGFS based on rules similar
> to make. If the ASCII version is newer than the compiled version,
> rebuild the compiled version.
This is a very interesting ap
Le jeudi 26 mai 2005 à 09:35 +0100, Richard Bytheway a écrit :
> > -Original Message-
> > Erik Hofman
> > Norman Vine wrote:
> >
> > >
> > http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-Se
> ptember/021434.html
> >
> > I don't see the XML files as being any different then an
> -Original Message-
> Erik Hofman
> Norman Vine wrote:
>
> >
> http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-Se
ptember/021434.html
>
> I don't see the XML files as being any different then any other source file
> and
> source code needs to be compiled.
>
>I've had this
Norman Vine wrote:
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-September/021434.html
I don't see the XML files as being any different then any other source file and
source code needs to be compiled.
I've had this in the back of my mind ever since you brought it up, but
not m
Gerard ROBIN writes:
>
> > > Durk Talsma wrote:
> > >>
> > Another issue that has been brought up a number of times is the ascii vs
> > binary file format disussion. While I absolutely believe that ascii/xml
> > files
> > are ideal for development work, combined they may have a pretty big impa
> > Durk Talsma wrote:
> >
>
> Erik, you are of course in a far better position to judge this than me. As
> far
> as I know, though there still seem to be a few design issues with the
> FlightGear architecture that have evolved into what they are today, yet being
> slightly less than ideal.
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 18:32, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Maybe this is a good time time to formulate a though I've had for some
> > time now: With rumours of a possible 1.0.0 version sometime in 2005, I
> > don't think it's a good time to start digging into the basic architecture
>
Durk Talsma wrote:
Maybe this is a good time time to formulate a though I've had for some time
now: With rumours of a possible 1.0.0 version sometime in 2005, I don't think
it's a good time to start digging into the basic architecture of FlightGear.
However, once version 1.0 is out, wouldn't t
Le mardi 24 mai 2005 à 17:42 +0200, Durk Talsma a écrit :
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 13:45, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> >
> > (1) loading airport and navigation data; very rough guess: ~ 45%
> > (2) initializing subsystems (atc, weather, ai, ...) ~ 30%
> > (3) creating MipMaps (no perc
Drew wrote:
> Believe me, guys, if I could use Linux for this application, I
> would...I am much more familiar with developing in Linux than Windows.
> Unfortunately, that isn't an option for me in this case.
Well, I wouldn't use Windows either and I actually don't. But I
installed the latest rel
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 13:45, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
>
> (1) loading airport and navigation data; very rough guess: ~ 45%
> (2) initializing subsystems (atc, weather, ai, ...) ~ 30%
> (3) creating MipMaps (no perceived delay, because it's done in another
> thread)
>
Maybe this is
Believe me, guys, if I could use Linux for this application, I
would...I am much more familiar with developing in Linux than Windows.
Unfortunately, that isn't an option for me in this case.
Drew
On 5/24/05, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Norman Vine -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:05:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:26:17 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Norman Vine -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:05:
> > I guess I should mention the deficiencies of non MSoft OSs but
> > I will leave the *flames* for another time :-)
>
> Yeah, don't bother. 99% of Windows users don'
>
> * Drew -- Tuesday 24 May 2005 07:54:
> > FlightGear takes nearly a minute to start up from my Windows build,
> > and I'm just wondering if there's an easy way to shorten this if I'm
> > not using all of flightgear's features. Is there one particular task
> > that takes particularly long?
>
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
