20,741
edits
Aircraft Center: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Background: moved from FlightGear Sessions
m (→Background) |
m (→Background: moved from FlightGear Sessions) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Background == | == Background == | ||
| Line 43: | Line 44: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
== The FlightGear Frontend Debacle == | |||
{{Note|This is currently being addressed via the [[Canvas]] system, see {{Issue|1295}} and [[Aircraft Center]]. }} | |||
<!-- | |||
{{Out of date}} | |||
--> | |||
That in fact '''many''' users do feel a need to improve the current situation, can be seen by the multitude of GUI frontends that have been developed for FlightGear during the last couple of years. | |||
In fact, in 2006 there were reported to be at least five different GUI launchers available for FlightGear [http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3655762]: | |||
* [[Fgrun]] | |||
* KFreeFlight | |||
* MacFlightGear | |||
* FGTools | |||
* [[JFlightWizard]] [http://sourceforge.net/projects/jflightwizard/] | |||
* fgkicker | |||
* [http://www.geocities.com/invent6620032003/FGWalk/index.html FGWalk] [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21940.html] | |||
* [http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6279 FGo!] | |||
* [http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&p=97639#p97639 FG Flier] | |||
* [http://fgstartup.sourceforge.net/ FGStartup] | |||
* [http://gitorious.org/fgx FGX] | |||
All of which supporting different functionality/features, having different library/system dependencies and being different code bases, with little -if any- reuse of existing code, all of which serving however the very same purpose of providing: '''a GUI frontend for FlightGear'''. | |||
Furthermore, plans to develop even more new frontends in addition to the plethora of existing ones are still being discussed [http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4890&p=36283#p36280]. | |||
As has been pointed out in the original discussion [http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3655762], this pattern is a not only a very unfortunate one, but also a recurring one - which is also likely to drain development resources from FlightGear itself - simply because a number of developers and potential contributors spend time developing redundant software that wouldn't need to be developed in the first place if the FlightGear design were to be fixed so that the key facilities provided by existing launchers would be directly supported by FlightGear itself. | |||
While it was pointed out in one case that the reason for yet another FlightGear GUI frontend, was motivated by non-technical reasons (such as native/platform "look & feel"), all other remaining reasons for developing these launchers were indeed technical ones, meaning: | |||
'''None of these standalone frontends would likely need to be in existence today if FlightGear itself featured a native, built-in GUI frontend''' | |||
Indeed, FlightGear's cross-platform nature obviously provides additional challenges for developing standalone launchers, so that some launchers may only work on specific platforms. | |||
So, the most natural thing to do would be to '''directly integrate these facilities into FlightGear''', where they can make use of extensive FlightGear APIs that are known to compile and work across all supported FlightGear platforms. | |||
== Status == | == Status == | ||