Talk:Common aircraft properties
Related Discussions
You'll probably want to check out some related discussions, such as these:
- http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg10759.html
- http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg10760.html
- http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg10778.html
- http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg11976.html
- http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg40025.html
Pay particular attention to postings made by David Megginson, the original designer/developer of the property tree code in FlightGear/SimGear. Reading up on what's been said and suggested back then, may save you a fair amount of time. Personally, I belong to the camp of people who believe that we should be using scripting and XML attributes to make the property tree self-documenting, otherwise, info will get out of date too quickly - especially because aircraft developers are free to make up their own properties.
Property Origin
Short comment time: some of these you are mentioning are created/initialized/tied in C++ code, so making sure they are there is not an issue (or did I misinterpret what you said?). —Philosopher (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Existing defaults
Hi,
How does that justify moving/copying all of the other properties that do have the same path for all aircraft? The properties I changed are hardcoded and thus they exist for all aircraft. They are independent of the aircraft configuration and/or FDM used.
I like the idea of unifying properties among aircraft, but I don't see why we need to move existing defaults that have been around for years and are used all over the place (joystick configs, animations, custom protocols etc).
Gijs (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. The plural of gear is gear anyways [1] (just like deer and deer), so no need to rewrite the rules of grammar as well :P —Philosopher (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So the general apathetic support for actually forming a standard is quite frustrating. A user even said having aircraft specific joystick code was no reason to create a standard as he had already hard coded it. Such an attitude of 'I'll do whatever I want and walk my own path' will not lend itself to any open standard. The original intention of this was to create a more definitive standard as opposed to the loosely enforced guidelines from the original as noted by the email, while still maintaining the best compatibility (read as: least amount of work) with existing aircraft and/or existing code.
Fusionstream (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (EST)