elgaton wrote in Sun May 01, 2016 9:05 pm:Definitely not. Are you running a nightly build?
Necolatis wrote in Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:58 pm:Thats also not the correct link, try this:
http://fgfs.goneabitbursar.com/official/catalog.xml
jaxsin wrote in Sat May 07, 2016 3:26 pm:The reason you have an empty aircraft list seems to be tied to the fact you do not use the Qt Launcher.
Durk wrote:There's been a strong devision of opinion among a couple of core
developers with respect to the question whether a QT dependency is
desirable or not. In one of the hangouts, a couple of months ago, we had
the chance to discuss the pros and cons, when the most outspoken
developers regarding this issue were both present. We concluded that a
QT dependency was undesirable, unless it had a specific benefit. With
this in mind, I proposed to consider the option of allowing a QT
dependency in only one module (call it FGGui). For all practical
purposes, this would be a platform independent replacement of fgrun, but
because of the proposed modularity, it will appear to be seamlessly
integrated with FlightGear. Both developers representing the opposite
ends of the debate could live with this compromise.
Thorsten wrote:if [...] anyone who wants to
use FG without Qt has to re-create every aircraft-side dialog in a
different format to use that aircraft, then that's just not feasible in
practice and we might as well dispense with the fiction that this is not
a dependency.
Torsten wrote:My vision is to have some kind of service implemented in fg that wraps all
complex tasks into service calls and responses. The command system is a
good start to trigger something, but it does not yet return anything.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests