20,741
edits
Release plan: Difference between revisions
→2.10
(→2.10) |
(→2.10) |
||
| Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
** {{Thumbs down}} A little downside is how the FGcom is done as a standalone program just cooperating with FG itself. It took me some fiddling with the settings for about two hours to get it working, but again installation was simply done from repos (FGcom and than FGcomGui as well). [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (this is planned [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38057.html]) | ** {{Thumbs down}} A little downside is how the FGcom is done as a standalone program just cooperating with FG itself. It took me some fiddling with the settings for about two hours to get it working, but again installation was simply done from repos (FGcom and than FGcomGui as well). [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (this is planned [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38057.html]) | ||
** {{Thumbs down}} Most likely because of the Intel graphics, I suffered for a long time from a problem with aircraft models (and some ground textures too) being black or missing some parts (see my post in an older thread complaining about similar problem). I solved it by adding a command line option turning off texture compression. [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ** {{Thumbs down}} Most likely because of the Intel graphics, I suffered for a long time from a problem with aircraft models (and some ground textures too) being black or missing some parts (see my post in an older thread complaining about similar problem). I solved it by adding a command line option turning off texture compression. [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]]) | ||
<!-- | |||
** I also vote for hosting a non-GPL hangar on the FG site, and tighter coordination with the aircraft developers (I think they should be asked to actively propose their models to the hangar once it is created, of course there could be link to their site/hangar). It would help nice models to be more easily found, an more people could enjoy them. And that's why people spend time creating them, right? [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] | ** I also vote for hosting a non-GPL hangar on the FG site, and tighter coordination with the aircraft developers (I think they should be asked to actively propose their models to the hangar once it is created, of course there could be link to their site/hangar). It would help nice models to be more easily found, an more people could enjoy them. And that's why people spend time creating them, right? [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] | ||
--> | |||
** We should probably add a new menu to the menubar for our online resources (wiki, forum, issue tracker, FAQ) so that people more easily find important resources just by selecting them from a menu. | ** We should probably add a new menu to the menubar for our online resources (wiki, forum, issue tracker, FAQ) so that people more easily find important resources just by selecting them from a menu. | ||
<!-- | |||
** Our GUI dialogs are currently not designed with a fixed resolution in mind, also they cannot be easily resized/changed, so that some dialogs may not be usable under certain circumstances [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=17625&p=170292&hilit=canvas+screen#p170232][http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=18942&p=175738&hilit=768#p175738] We should ensure that all dialogs can be used with the recommended minimal screen size, or even better, provide a way to dynamically make dialogs resizable/tabbed to support smaller screen devices (like netbooks). This should be easier with the upcoming [[Canvas GUI]] system. | ** Our GUI dialogs are currently not designed with a fixed resolution in mind, also they cannot be easily resized/changed, so that some dialogs may not be usable under certain circumstances [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=17625&p=170292&hilit=canvas+screen#p170232][http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=18942&p=175738&hilit=768#p175738] We should ensure that all dialogs can be used with the recommended minimal screen size, or even better, provide a way to dynamically make dialogs resizable/tabbed to support smaller screen devices (like netbooks). This should be easier with the upcoming [[Canvas GUI]] system. | ||
--> | |||
* '''Release Candidates''': | * '''Release Candidates''': | ||