Hi fellow wiki editors!

To help newly registered users get more familiar with the wiki (and maybe older users too) there is now a {{Welcome to the wiki}} template. Have a look at it and feel free to add it to new users discussion pages (and perhaps your own).

I have tried to keep the template short, but meaningful. /Johan G

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Howto:Processing legacy PUI dialogs using Canvas

2,837 bytes added, 19:21, 7 March 2018
m
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=28378&p=328993#p328993
|script_version = 0.40
}}</ref>
 
In 01/2018, James said that he would not be especially invested in a QQ2 UI - it’s his ‘day job’ work - but obviously he also knows the technology. What he doesn't want to feel, is that he is forcing his approach on the community if people think a Canvas-based solution (or a Phi-based one or anything else) would be easier and also deliver a long-term basis for our UI. And he would be much happier if the Ui was a collaborative effort, since there are other areas he would much sooner focus on than 'more of his day job' <ref>{{cite web
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36195299/
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] QtQuick UI - current status + plans </nowiki>
|author = <nowiki> James Turner </nowiki>
|date = Jan 18th, 2018
|added = Jan 18th, 2018
|script_version = 0.36
}}</ref>
 
Furthermore stating, that his basic feeling is to step back and say, let’s see if a pure Canvas UI will work<ref>{{cite web
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36197666/
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] QtQuick UI - current status + plans </nowiki>
|author = <nowiki> James Turner </nowiki>
|date = Jan 20th, 2018
|added = Jan 20th, 2018
|script_version = 0.36
}}</ref>
 
James also said that his impression was that if someone makes a Canvas UI option, the Qt based solution will be still-born almost by default - because he won’t be able to create any enthusiasm or interest around it. But for sure Canvas based approaches attract a lot more support and man-power very easily (than a Qt5/QQ2 option). And his guess each person who works on the Canvas based Ui is one fewer who might ever help out with the Qt based one. (That is not probably 100% true, but there is some correlation) <ref>{{cite web
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36199572/
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] QtQuick UI - current status + plans </nowiki>
|author = <nowiki> James Turner </nowiki>
|date = Jan 22nd, 2018
|added = Jan 22nd, 2018
|script_version = 0.36
}}</ref>
 
The basic thinking being let’s say the Qt UI is 1/4 of James' time per week spent on FG (might be a little more, but he's got lots of other things to work on), vs Thorsten’s time and 4 or 8 enthusiastic people he can recruit - Qt5/QQ2 is obviously going to fall massively behind in comparison - within three or six months they might build a complete replacement UI. <ref>{{cite web
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36199712/
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] QtQuick UI - current status + plans </nowiki>
|author = <nowiki> James Turner </nowiki>
|date = Jan 22nd, 2018
|added = Jan 22nd, 2018
|script_version = 0.36
}}</ref>
 
 
 
 
It is also worth noting that we don't really need a 1:1 mapping between PUI and Canvas, because we can usually emulate/approximate most PUI widgets rather easily using similar workarounds - as a matter of fact, the whole PUI widget set is rather archaic, and we really only need 2-3 additional Canvas widgets to approximate the full set of supported widgets without much of an effort.
18,174
edits

Navigation menu