Talk:Airbus A320neo

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Availability in the aircraft center

This aircraft doesn't appear in the Aircraft Center (FG 3.2)

This unsigned comment was added by Rixi.muxaxo (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The development forum topic is a better place to look for support. That being said I can say though that it for some reason never was available in the fgdata git repository where all the official aircraft are.
At the other hand it should be available both from the download link and the repository link on this wiki page. It can also be found through links in the development forum. For how to install an aircraft without using the Aircraft center, see Howto:Install aircraft.
Johan G (Talk | contribs) 20:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


The situation with FGMEMBERS, FGAddon and private development occasionally published via the forum thread is unfortunate. It would be really nice if everybody could agree on a central repository with a decent bug tracker (for which a forum thread is not really adequate and the sourceforge one is still much inferior to the github one) and cooperated on it. Unfortunately they don't. I am sad about that, but don't know how to resolve that split.

For the moment I've added the FGMEMBERS repository back as simply additional link. It contains everything from FGAddon (because FGMEMBERS do sync with FGAddon) and the Artix's branch and at least does have a bug tracker. And some bugs got fixed.

JanHudec (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

The Artix GitHub repo of the A320neo has been updated until quite recently. But note that FGMEMBERS is specifically designed to crush and replace FGAddon and all 3rd party hangars. The same argument can and has been used for absolutely all aircraft on this wiki, and that is simply unacceptable (not to mention completely disrespectful to the original authors). Due to this deliberate hostility on the part of FGMEMBERS, that competitive infrastructure has no place here on the official infrastucture. It has been comprehensively rejected by the core FlightGear team. Those aircraft can be documented on the FGMEMBERS infrastucture itself - I think they were considering creating their own wiki for that purpose - but not here.
Bugman (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
Let me add, if you are the maintainer, why did you go with FGMEMBERS and not simply ask about FGAddon#Commit access? It is possible to setup a private team for git development using git-svn, and to host that git repository anywhere you wish, sending the changes back to FGAddon when desired.
Bugman (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
I am not maintainer, but I was looking for a way to propose some bugfixes and the FGMEMBERS repository was the only where it was clear how to do that, thinking that the branches were kept in sync. So thanks for the links, I didn't realize how big the split is. I'll look into posting bug-fixes into FGAddon in future then (despite saying the FDM is “OK”, it really isn't, with most serious problem being the engine performance as the default thrust tables provided by aeromatic are for turbojet and are inappropriate for turbofans).
JanHudec (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2016 (EDT)