Gather a list of features and bugs we fixed in 2016.2

[onox]

We should gather a list of all the new features, major changes, and bugs we fixed. Please create a list (use * to create bullet points) here.

• Decreased rudder authority
• Added propwash effect for 180 HP version
• Improvements to the irradiance effect
• Better oil dialog
• Flap lever is now dragable and scrollable
• Added normal map to wheels and other objects
• Improvements to the heading indicator
• Correct rudder pedal animation
• Updated tutorial to Barcelona
• Changed "Autostart" menu item to actually start the engine as well
• Split instrument light knob into a knob that two knobs: one that controls the instruments, and one that controls the radio's

[onox]

@gilbertohasnofb Anything else or can I start making a branch?

[gilbertohasnofb]

That's all that I had in mind as well, so I guess we are ready for a branch!

[onox]

I forgot to update NEWS.md. Will do that now.

[gilbertohasnofb]

:+1:

Then I suppose we can close this issue, and then create new labels for 2016.3 as well as a new issue to gather the list of features for that next version.

[onox]

I have already moved all the remaining open issues to new milestones.

[onox]

I have created #759

[onox]

I'll update and simply the wiki release page because we don't freeze anymore.

[onox]

@gilbertohasnofb Could you notify the core devs of the release? Point them to https://github.com/Juanvvc/c172p-detailed/tree/release/2016.2

[gilbertohasnofb]

Perfect, thanks a lot @onox! :+1: So now I suppose we must contact Stuart for a merge with FGDATA.

[gilbertohasnofb]

Sure, I will do it right now.

[onox]

@wlbragg Can we delete regression-to-3.2 branch? It is old and unmaintained.

[wlbragg]

That is fine with me. Is there a way for an average user that has 3.2 - to get that version?

[gilbertohasnofb]

I would maybe keep that branch still a bit longer. Surely it's unmaintained and old, but some people still use FG 3.2 or older.

As for contacting the devs, I just did it: https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35095319/

[wlbragg]

but some people still use FG 3.2 or older.

That would be my only hesitation. But if there is a way to get it anywhere else, like you can prior versions of FG repo aircraft. I have no idea if that was ever done with this version though as it was kind of unique.

Can you create a tag to the history like you do versions?

[onox]

But who is aware of our git repository and still actually uses 3.2?

[onox]

I don't see the point in creating a tag for a commit that is still compatible with 3.2. It would have to be a really old commit.

[gilbertohasnofb]

In the past we had a couple of people asking about it in the forum, and then some of us would redirect the person to that branch. I think we even have a message about it in the first post of the c172p forum thread.

[onox]

But that was because 2016.1 wasn't yet released back then?

[gilbertohasnofb]

But either way is fine with me, it would just be cool if that work would still be available somehow if someone would be interested.

@wlbragg crazy idea, but what about creating a new repository for that branch only, announcing it in the forum (and making sure people understand it's unmaintained). This way it would still be available somewhere, but we wouldn't need to keep the branch

But that was because 2016.1 wasn't yet released back then?

I don't get it. That branch was created for people who could not run FG 3.6 with all the new effects (which caused the grey windows, for instance), let alone 2016.x

[onox]

I have to update the version number in the set file. Named it 2016.3

[onox]

Fixed.

[gilbertohasnofb]

:+1:

[onox]

crazy idea, but what about creating a new repository for that branch only, announcing it in the forum

Let's not do that. I rather keep that old branch around than creating a whole new repository for slow people.

[onox]

I'm gonna fix this version mess and force push in half an hour, so no commits until then :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

[gilbertohasnofb]

so no commits until then

Ok!

Let's not do that.

Yeah, on a second thought that is unecessary

[wlbragg]

Would you rather I update this current version to work on 3.2? If I remember correctly it was very little code to tweak. Of course that may have changed. I agree at some point we don't need to continue to offer it. But without a fallback (although I suppose you could call "git history" a fallback) it seems like it should be available somewhere? Although it was an intermediate upgrade, you could argue that one could use the c172p prior to any of the "detailed" development. I'm not adamant either way, it is in history if push comes to shove (yea GIT).

[onox]

I don't think you should spend any more time on it. If people want the lastest-and-greatest, then they can choose 2016.1 or 2016.2.

[gilbertohasnofb]

Hmm guys, did we miss the deadline for the Barcelona release?! See: https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35094726/

[onox]

It seems Torsten didn't bother to notify us about the imminent release. I guess it's gonna be either a 2016.2.2 or 2016.3.

[gilbertohasnofb]

Yeah. I think the 2016.x.1 are planned to be always released on the 17th day of the 3n + 2 months (for n between 0 and 3). So we can try next time to get a branch prepared for it let's say a week before, so that we have time for a merge.

[wlbragg]

What about the totorials being changed to the new airport?

[onox]

That's in (our) new release.

[wlbragg]

So 2016.2.1 has a new airport and the flagship doesn't support it?

[gilbertohasnofb]

Yep

[onox]

What do you mean flapship?

[wlbragg]

So 2016.2.1 has a new airport and the flagship (the c172p that comes with the new release) doesn't support it?

@gilbertohasnofb answered it.

[gilbertohasnofb]

flagship: the ship in a fleet that carries the commanding admiral. The best or most important thing owned or produced by a particular organization.

[onox]

The version in FGDATA is still the old version (2016.1).

[onox]

At least in the next branch that is.

[wlbragg]

I got issues with the new Radio/Panel LT. Was that issue closed?

[onox]

Yes. What's the problem?

[onox]

Their release/2016.2 branch contains still the old version.

[wlbragg]

Hang on, I'm preparing the example.

[wlbragg]

The difference in brightness and I thought the LED's of the radios weren't suppose to be changed with either of those knobs.

[wlbragg]

Refresh if you don't see the yellow arrows.

[gilbertohasnofb]

The difference in brightness

I think these have always been there. E.g. the AP has brighter digits than the COMs and NAVs, which in turn are brighter than the ADF

and I thought the LED's of the radios weren't suppose to be changed with either of those knobs.

After a lot of discussion, both @onox and I become convinced that the digits must change with the knob. But there was a lot of conflicting information in the process, plus I know for a fact that some good simulations of the 172 for X-Plane and FSX do not dim the radio digits, so we decided to go ahead with what we understood from the POH and other sources but be prepared to change something in the future if someone with RL experience could explain exactly what the RADIO LT knob affects

[wlbragg]

OK, as far as the difference in brightness, I'll take a look at that and see if I can fix it?

[gilbertohasnofb]

Sounds perfect!

[wlbragg]

:+1:

[onox]

LED digits should remain/be dimmable.