From: Curtis O. <cur...@gm...> - 2007-11-30 15:29:06
|
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no "fear" involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try "respect". It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not "getting it", there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's "go time". :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d |
From: Heiko S. <aei...@ya...> - 2007-11-30 15:32:23
|
Hi, My vote: This release: 0.9.9 Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 Regards HHS --- Curtis Olson <cur...@gm...> schrieb: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal > thread here to do a poll on > what what folks are thinking for the next version > number. > > I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is > what I'm thinking. > > 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd > like to avoid possible > unintended connections that end users might > interpret from such a version > number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they > don't care what version > numbers we use or don't use. There is no "fear" > involved in wanting to > avoid using this number. Try "respect". It might > have something to do with > showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 > and those many heros > that gave up their lives without hesitation to try > to save the lives of > others. I don't fault people who live outside of > the USA or who have never > been to New York or were never near ground zero for > not "getting it", > there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little > sphere of vision that I will > never understand. But give me a break, what's the > problem with yielding a > small amount of leeway and respect to those that > were affected by 9/11 or > had connections there? > > We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are > staring in the face of > 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we > pick a version # 13? > I wore > number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other > evening and missed all my > shots. I wore a different number last night and > scored two goals. These > facts cannot be ignored! > > We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even > version number proponents > are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is > going to mire in it's own > set of politics. > > We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 > years, and averaging > 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my > preference. FlightGear > is > developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with > 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it > seems like we are bumping along with very minor > increments every few (or > many) months. > > Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who > cares what the actual > numbers are really, as long as they increment in a > sensible way. But what > image do we want to project to the world? > > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks > that way sometimes!) :-) > inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic > exciting group with fast > paced development continually adding new and > exciting features and > aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we > really only managed a > 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that > version number really > mean > anything, other than to project our image to the > world. > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4> _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > __________________________________ Ihr erstes Fernweh? Wo gibt es den schönsten Strand? www.yahoo.de/clever |
From: Curtis O. <cur...@gm...> - 2007-11-30 15:39:44
|
On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Heiko Schulz <> wrote: > This release: 0.9.9 Unfortunately we have already done a 0.9.9 release and a 0.9.10 release. > Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 Yes, or maybe OSG: 2.0 Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d |
From: Heiko S. <aei...@ya...> - 2007-11-30 15:44:46
|
Upps... I meant 0.9.90.... --- Curtis Olson <cur...@gm...> schrieb: > On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Heiko Schulz <> wrote: > > > This release: 0.9.9 > > > Unfortunately we have already done a 0.9.9 release > and a 0.9.10 release. > > > > Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 > > > Yes, or maybe OSG: 2.0 > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4> _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite. Los geht's: http://de.yahoo.com/set |
From: Lee D. <du...@ra...> - 2007-11-30 15:35:35
|
12.7.1941 is a good number to avoid as well. Curtis Olson wrote: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a > poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. > > I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. > > 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid > possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from > such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they > don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no > "fear" involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try > "respect". It might have something to do with showing respect to > those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up > their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I > don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been > to New York or were never near ground zero for not "getting it", > there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that > I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with > yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were > affected by 9/11 or had connections there? > > We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of > 0.9.13 and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # > 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening > and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and > scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! > > We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number > proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to > mire in it's own set of politics. > > We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging > 0.1 versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear > is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, > 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments > every few (or many) months. > > Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual > numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But > what image do we want to project to the world? > > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) > :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group > with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting > features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really > only managed a 0.9.x release in all that time? Again, not that > version number really mean anything, other than to project our image > to the world. > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > <http://baron.flightgear.org/%7Ecurt/> > Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > |
From: Thomas <tho...@gm...> - 2007-11-30 15:40:31
|
On Nov 30, 2007 9:29 AM, Curtis Olson <cur...@gm...> wrote: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll > on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > Curt. > -- When the worst of the 'stuttering' problem was resolved, it began to feel like a v1.0.0 to me. |
From: AnMaster <anm...@te...> - 2007-11-30 15:52:26
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 0.9.11 or 0.10, there are too may problems and missing features to call it 1.0 IMO. Regards AnMaster Curtis Olson wrote: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on > what what folks are thinking for the next version number. > > I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. > > 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible > unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version > number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version > numbers we use or don't use. There is no "fear" involved in wanting to > avoid using this number. Try "respect". It might have something to do with > showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros > that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of > others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never > been to New York or were never near ground zero for not "getting it", > there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will > never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a > small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or > had connections there? > > We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of > 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? > I wore > number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my > shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These > facts cannot be ignored! > > We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents > are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own > set of politics. > > We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging > 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear > is > developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it > seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or > many) months. > > Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual > numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what > image do we want to project to the world? > > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) > inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast > paced development continually adding new and exciting features and > aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a > 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really > mean > anything, other than to project our image to the world. > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > Curt. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUDGwWmK6ng/aMNkRCtJ/AJ94Pp320czQVGdG9CmGnm/l4bnAdgCfYUGe FcnIPx5FtSJC8xl3uueJMqg= =3S9g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: John W. <ca...@mm...> - 2007-11-30 15:54:13
|
Curtis Olson wrote: > >I say it's "go time". :-) > >Curt. > > I say go with 0.9.11. And for those worried about that number, work extra hard updating/improving the code so we can then quickly move to 0.9.12 :-) Or better still, start a new versioning system with OSG. JW |
From: Stuart B. <stu...@ya...> - 2007-11-30 15:58:42
|
--- Curtis Olson wrote: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll > on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. Let's go with v1.0. It is a great way to recognise the massive amount of work that has been done since 0.9.10. We've been talking about the mythical v1.0 for ages, and I think that it is high time we just did it. I think the quality and feature set is more than good enough. It would also be a fantastic opportunity to do a bit or marketting, blow our own trumpets, pat ourselves on the back and bask in the glory. I've noticed that the past year has been a bit tenser than previous years, with tempers frayed on-list, so it would also have a cathartic effect of reminding us why we do this. I'd also much rather have the final plib release be v1.0 rather than the first OSG release. I don't have a problem with v0.9.11, and don't see it as a possible issue. I'm also not too bothered about a subsequent 0.9.13 release, given my birthday (13th June) and address (13 Mertoun Place). However, going to v1.0 neatly side-steps both these issues and encourages global harmony. -Stuart __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com |
From: alexis b. <xi...@g2...> - 2007-11-30 16:53:52
|
Stuart Buchanan a e'crit : > I'd also much rather have the final plib release be v1.0 rather than > the first OSG release. good point ! - having a 0.9.11 is not such a big deal. - the lake of lights is a concern but waiting for this for a 1.0 doesn't have such sense. I vote v-1.0 because it clearly shows that our development is alive. Alexis |
From: Thomas <t.f...@bi...> - 2007-11-30 16:06:08
|
Am Freitag 30 November 2007 schrieb Curtis Olson: > ...[lots of version number discussion]... > I say it's "go time". :-) If it comes down to marketing and a reasonable version number scheme (i.e. one that correlates with the major feature development), why not skip 1.0 altogether. v1.0 has that magical, shining appearance of bugfree, feature complete etc. something the current version definitely is not (given the other testing thread). So my proposal is to go back over the changelog, count the biggest improvements and call it v4.0 or v5.3. Together with some explaining notes in the distro and on the website this should not raise the excitement (which IMO backfires at us ATM) that a silent 1.0 is going to produce. OTOH the version number is the most uninteresting thing for me in FG. The versions important to me are usually called HEAD... :P Thomas |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2007-11-30 18:21:49
|
On ven 30 novembre 2007, Thomas F=F6rster wrote: > Am Freitag 30 November 2007 schrieb Curtis Olson: > > ...[lots of version number discussion]... > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > If it comes down to marketing and a reasonable version number scheme (i.e. > one that correlates with the major feature development), why not skip 1.0 > altogether. v1.0 has that magical, shining appearance of bugfree, feature > complete etc. something the current version definitely is not (given the > other testing thread). > > So my proposal is to go back over the changelog, count the biggest > improvements and call it v4.0 or v5.3. Together with some explaining notes > in the distro and on the website this should not raise the excitement > (which IMO backfires at us ATM) that a silent 1.0 is going to produce. > > OTOH the version number is the most uninteresting thing for me in FG. The > versions important to me are usually called HEAD... :P > > Thomas > > I fully agree, with Thomas, don't be shy, the quality of that FG-Plib version, (being the last or not) can be said = to=20 be a successful result of so many years of work. 1.0 should say it. Cheers =2D-=20 G=E9rard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ |
From: Vivian M. <viv...@li...> - 2007-11-30 16:31:13
|
I think that the juxtaposition of 9.11 and "Flight Simulator" would be unfortunate, to say the least. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about = that personally, but I recognise that there are those, particularly the other side of the pond, who do or might. Why give gratuitous and unnecessary offence?=20 =20 On the other hand Version 1.0. But we have OSG waiting in the wings, = don;t we?. This is just a temporary release isn't it? perhaps 9.12 or = something would be more appropriate. =20 Vivian -----Original Message----- From: fli...@li... [mailto:fli...@li...] On Behalf = OfOlson Sent: 30 November 2007 15:29 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll = on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid = possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a = version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what = version numbers we use or don't use. There is no "fear" involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try "respect". It might have something to do = with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have = never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not "getting it", there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I = will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding = a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 = or had connections there?=20 We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of = 0.9.13 and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed = all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. = These facts cannot be ignored!=20 We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number = proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's = own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1 versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 = it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months.=20 Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But = what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) = :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with = fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and = aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.x release = in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, = other than to project our image to the world. I say it's "go time". :-) Curt. --=20 Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d=20 |
From: AnMaster <anm...@te...> - 2007-11-30 16:44:49
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Vivian Meazza wrote: > I think that the juxtaposition of 9.11 and "Flight Simulator" would be > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about that > personally, but I recognise that there are those, particularly the other > side of the pond, who do or might. Why give gratuitous and unnecessary > offence? > > On the other hand Version 1.0. But we have OSG waiting in the wings, don;t > we?. This is just a temporary release isn't it? perhaps 9.12 or something > would be more appropriate. > That means an ilogical jump. In that case 0.10.0 would be better. /AnMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUDxWWmK6ng/aMNkRCpyQAJ44QiM3gbY2hUrvbu6WJy4xKBNRbwCfWD58 so0cNjX/Zso9UHQw2/GwM8s= =d8c7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Anders G. <and...@gi...> - 2007-11-30 16:44:26
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on > what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG release. It'd even make sense to people used to reading an odd middle number as a development branch. I think we might want to have a OSG based (development) release around soon - if nothing else a bunch of the new aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some have pick animations only and no 2d hotspots). And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we could move on to 1.2.0 :) Cheers, Anders -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/JSBSim-LTA/ |
From: AnMaster <anm...@te...> - 2007-11-30 17:11:27
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot of odd bugs, most of them seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard to reproduce. Nothing puts off users more than unreproducible bugs in my experience. Some example: * Sometimes when starting fg, a few or more keybindings refuses to work. Just restarting fligtgear fixes it. * Sometimes when starting fg, you get just ocean under you, and not from missing scenery at that location, restarting fg at same location helps. And I did not run terrasync then. * Sometimes when starting fg thrust doesn't work. If you activate HUD you see the trottle move, so it isn't the keybidnings problem. Restarting fg helps... And there are more. /AnMaster Anders Gidenstam wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: > >> How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on >> what what folks are thinking for the next version number. > > I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG > release. It'd even make sense to people used to reading an odd middle > number as a development branch. I think we might want to have a OSG based > (development) release around soon - if nothing else a bunch of the new > aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some have pick animations only > and no 2d hotspots). > > And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we could move on to 1.2.0 :) > > Cheers, > > Anders -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUEQ4WmK6ng/aMNkRCvRqAKCv8mFVTG1pmm/oWSqbtzMrNw+qGwCgluS/ szQxHCdGhRr3vB/fPyECxI0= =Nnut -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Heiko S. <aei...@ya...> - 2007-11-30 17:28:47
|
Never ever had this problems.... have you look at your hardware? --- AnMaster <anm...@te...> schrieb: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot > of odd bugs, most of them > seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard > to reproduce. Nothing puts > off users more than unreproducible bugs in my > experience. > > Some example: > * Sometimes when starting fg, a few or more > keybindings refuses to work. Just > restarting fligtgear fixes it. > * Sometimes when starting fg, you get just ocean > under you, and not from missing > scenery at that location, restarting fg at same > location helps. And I did not > run terrasync then. > * Sometimes when starting fg thrust doesn't work. If > you activate HUD you see > the trottle move, so it isn't the keybidnings > problem. Restarting fg helps... > And there are more. > > /AnMaster > > Anders Gidenstam wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: > > > >> How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal > thread here to do a poll on > >> what what folks are thinking for the next version > number. > > > > I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and > 1.1.0 for the first OSG > > release. It'd even make sense to people used to > reading an odd middle > > number as a development branch. I think we might > want to have a OSG based > > (development) release around soon - if nothing > else a bunch of the new > > aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some > have pick animations only > > and no 2d hotspots). > > > > And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we > could move on to 1.2.0 :) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Anders > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFHUEQ4WmK6ng/aMNkRCvRqAKCv8mFVTG1pmm/oWSqbtzMrNw+qGwCgluS/ > szQxHCdGhRr3vB/fPyECxI0= > =Nnut > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail |
From: AnMaster <anm...@te...> - 2007-11-30 17:54:48
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Heiko Schulz wrote: > Never ever had this problems.... > have you look at your hardware? I had the problems I listed on several computers, both single- and multi-cpu. /AnMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUE5iWmK6ng/aMNkRCpCGAKCLNjKeq2z3BN3STdOvXjzGoo2zpwCfRoT0 kkQX4V/Xyfn0KUzMay8B9VM= =meCW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Heiko S. <aei...@ya...> - 2007-11-30 18:24:03
|
I mean your input hardware like joystick, keyboard.... --- AnMaster <anm...@te...> schrieb: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Heiko Schulz wrote: > > Never ever had this problems.... > > have you look at your hardware? > > I had the problems I listed on several computers, > both single- and multi-cpu. > > /AnMaster > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFHUE5iWmK6ng/aMNkRCpCGAKCLNjKeq2z3BN3STdOvXjzGoo2zpwCfRoT0 > kkQX4V/Xyfn0KUzMay8B9VM= > =meCW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > __________________________________ Ihre erste Baustelle? Wissenswertes für Bastler und Hobby Handwerker. www.yahoo.de/clever |
From: AnMaster <anm...@te...> - 2007-11-30 18:38:09
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Heiko Schulz wrote: > I mean your input hardware like joystick, keyboard.... They work correct yes and I did check them + they worked in other programs. (Oh and I used different input devices one the different computers, one was a laptop)... /AnMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUFiMWmK6ng/aMNkRCnfrAJ0Qq6gakYvFruvgJIgo2KBVaTKSaACfZe2E x/9wKzxZHV//C9T9IqZBTTQ= =6fGT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Heiko S. <aei...@ya...> - 2007-11-30 17:29:09
|
Never ever had this problems.... have you look at your hardware? --- AnMaster <anm...@te...> schrieb: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot > of odd bugs, most of them > seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard > to reproduce. Nothing puts > off users more than unreproducible bugs in my > experience. > > Some example: > * Sometimes when starting fg, a few or more > keybindings refuses to work. Just > restarting fligtgear fixes it. > * Sometimes when starting fg, you get just ocean > under you, and not from missing > scenery at that location, restarting fg at same > location helps. And I did not > run terrasync then. > * Sometimes when starting fg thrust doesn't work. If > you activate HUD you see > the trottle move, so it isn't the keybidnings > problem. Restarting fg helps... > And there are more. > > /AnMaster > > Anders Gidenstam wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: > > > >> How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal > thread here to do a poll on > >> what what folks are thinking for the next version > number. > > > > I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and > 1.1.0 for the first OSG > > release. It'd even make sense to people used to > reading an odd middle > > number as a development branch. I think we might > want to have a OSG based > > (development) release around soon - if nothing > else a bunch of the new > > aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some > have pick animations only > > and no 2d hotspots). > > > > And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we > could move on to 1.2.0 :) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Anders > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFHUEQ4WmK6ng/aMNkRCvRqAKCv8mFVTG1pmm/oWSqbtzMrNw+qGwCgluS/ > szQxHCdGhRr3vB/fPyECxI0= > =Nnut > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail |
From: Torsten D. <To...@t3...> - 2007-11-30 16:44:59
|
> How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on > what what folks are thinking for the next version number. Technically: 0.9.11 because it's a big step ahead, not a giant leap Personal feeling: 0.10.0 with respect to 9/11 Marketing: Make it 0.10.0 and strip the leading zero so we get 10.0. That is an impressing version number and we can also call it FGFS-X - if we really want that ;-) I seriously think, that FlightGear has already passed the 1.0 state. Yes, there are missing features, but it does all it promises to do and it is -nearly- stable. So my vote is: 10.0 Torsten |
From: Arnt K. <ar...@c2...> - 2007-11-30 17:49:35
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:29:05 -0600, Curtis wrote in message <ef5...@ma...>: > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) ..delurking... ;o) > inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast > paced development continually adding new and exciting features ..one such feature could be SG or FG modelling the sea level rise from carbon emissions, we would need adding sea floor data to the scenery, and modelling water as a fluid rather than an ellipsoid surface. ..to model all known sea levels possible, we need "tide water" rising and dropping 150 meters above and below todays current sea level and todays tide water. Ties nicely in with weather modelling too. ..going beyond this, we could model carbon sinks like the oceans, the woods, marshland and farming. Some believe the Amazonas jungle is pre-columbian slash-n-char wood based farmland, you find pockets of nice fat farmland soil, way rich in carbon and known as "terra preta" and with pieces of old charcoal in it. Some suggest this kinda farming was done for between 6000 to 20000 years. ..some suggest Maya "milpa" agriculture is a response to the European invasion, dispensing with soil production from charcoal in favor of slash-n-burn and mobility by shortening the cycle from 20 years to 2, 5 or 7 years. .."yanking" down the 350 gigatons CO2 since AD 1600, "out of thin air", and put it into soil to produce new farmland soil, will do 3 things I find important, 1 provide an actual viable control response to the global heat-up instead of todays politically correct emission rate "reduction" joke, and 2 triple the volume of farmland soil worldwide which, 3 will allow us feeding another 15 billion people on this planet Earth. ..so, we _can_ show a viable alternative way forward. We have all the skills we need to do it. And, us cranky old hobbyists doing a cranky flight sim isn't as likely to land nice fat funds as a bunch of cranky developers doing a flight 'n climate sim with real weather because we hate todays politically correct stupidity like "cut emissions to 1990 levels." Etc. ..the only other viable option is, really, carry _on_ with the demand cut scheme started on 9/11-2001, and take it beyond _all_ conspiracy theories. ..for that, there is no need to even do tide water in FG, nor to ditch the 0.9.11 or 0.10.0 or 1.0 or whatever. (Nor would there be a need or point in tying keys to check list style menus to dodge keyboard layout etc issues. Or even try evade Microsoft litigation trap tactics.) > and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a > 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really > mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > Curt. .. ;o) GPL sea floor map data, anyone? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. |
From: Norman V. <nh...@ca...> - 2007-11-30 18:07:53
|
Arnt Karlsen writes: > > > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way > sometimes!) :-) > > ..delurking... ;o) :-) > .. ;o) GPL sea floor map data, anyone? http://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/mar_topo.html http://www.shadedrelief.com/cleantopo2/index.html Recloaking Norman |
From: Arnt K. <ar...@c2...> - 2007-11-30 21:14:26
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:07:48 -0500, Norman wrote in message <200...@mr...>: > Arnt Karlsen writes: > > > > > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way > > sometimes!) :-) > > > > ..delurking... ;o) > > :-) > > > .. ;o) GPL sea floor map data, anyone? > > http://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/mar_topo.html > http://www.shadedrelief.com/cleantopo2/index.html ..putting this into the scenery is the first step, means make new ocean tiles and then redo all coast line tiles, yank at least the ocean "ice ellipsoide shell" surface and call that scenery-0.9.11. ..how-to pointers? I have an 8 month backlog and must have missed things here. ..water is modelled as an ice surface now, which flexes for all sea planes now, or do these have "logic wheels" deep inside their floats? ..one easy test would be nose-it-over in water and see how it floats. ..what I like to see happen, is 0.9.11 add at least sea floor map data in the 0.9.11 scenery, water as a fluid and sea level rise could come next in say 0.9.12 or 0.10.0. ..I like to see "sea level rise" at least set-able like in a menu, no later than FlightGear-1.0. ..1.0 is "big" enough to have the press test FG-1.0, and being able to set a realistic date like 11/20-2345AD would warrant at least setting a viable corresponding realistic sea level, eh? ;o) ..and, it _would_ help modify public impression of us in a way I believe could be _very_ useful and even profitable. ;o) ..reason I'm looking for takers anyway, is I don't wanna waste _our_ time on learning something you can do better than me, when that means something I can do and that you can not, get stalled. Let's just say for now I'm pulling some strings and I like the responses I see. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. |