Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:56:21 +0200 From: Alexey Shuvaev <shuvaev@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> To: Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: About games/flightgear-aircrafts Message-ID: <20111003215621.GA55805@lexx.ifp.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <20110922181915.M87413@martymac.org> References: <20110922071857.M71817@martymac.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109220755260.11525@wonkity.com> <20110922181915.M87413@martymac.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As for me, I have played fgfs some time ago (5 years?), so... On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:21:24PM +0200, Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:38:33 -0400, Greg Larkin wrote > > You can also break them by first letter of the distfile names, > > combining where appropriate. > > [...] > This would not solve any problems with the port, only add troubles for the end-user. > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:57:58 -0400, Robert Huff wrote > > my first reaction was to break it into broad categories. > > For example: > > > > aircraft-required > > aircraft-25-most-popular > > aircraft-civilian-prop > > [...] > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:58:03 +0200, Guido Falsi wrote > > A "civialian-aerobatic" category could be sensible. > > [...] > > Greg, Robert, Guido, thanks for your suggestions ; anyway, this would > not solve one of the problems : maintainability of the port :/ > Well, this depends, how many aircraft would go into each of categories. See below... > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:11:39 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block wrote > > #2 is reasonable, IMO. > > > > Other options, like breaking it up into multiple > > ports, would not make it easier to maintain and might be more > > difficult for users. > > Warren, I agree with you : it would make the port even more complex. > >From a maintainer port of view, we will still have to keep up-to-date > with those 350+ zip files which regularly change upstream, but will now > have to deal with sorting them and updating several different ports. > >From a user point of view, it would also be a pain : users would have to > browse into each "category" ports to be able to get all the planes they > need. I am not sure this is the right way to go :/ > > I would also vote for #2, or, if we can get a limited list of "good" > airplanes, option #1. I will try to find if I can get a list of top > planes on FLightGear website, but I have not seen such a page so far. > I have not looked what is needed to install new aircraft as a user, but it it would be something against the habbits of a typical FreeBSD user. At least I would certainly forget to update an aircraft installed this way... > > (Note: "aircraft" is both singular and plural, so the port > > name really should be just flightgear-aircraft.) > > Thanks, I'll fix its name if we can manage to keep this port alive :) > >From my experiency a while ago, the quality of the aircraft models varied greatly from model to model. I remember, there was some transition from one simulation engine to another more advanced one (JSBsim -> YASim or vice versa?). For example, some WW II planes were able to perfom "back" loop in the simulator, which is a non-sense... So, my 0.000002$ is if you are somewhat familiar with at least some of aircraft, you can chose those which are mature enough (such as default Cessna 172). >From another point of view, you are the maintainer of the port, so it is up to you to decide (according to your personal prefereces) which aircraft to include in the port. If somebody lacks his favorite aircraft, he is free to create another aircraft add-on port, after all... HTH, Alexey.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111003215621.GA55805>