Re: [Flightgear-devel] Website update request
Thanks, I wonder how I ever could have missed those ... ?!? ... but thanks for sniffing them out so we can get them fixed. Curt. On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, YOSHIMATSU Toshihide wrote: > Hi Curt, > > Again, thanks for updating the website. > > I found a few more broken links which seem to be happened by recent > changes. > > 7. http://www.flightgear.org/download/main-program/ > > 7-3. "FlightGear Manual" links to > http://www.flightgear.org/download/Docs/getstart/getstart.html > Should be corrected to > http://mapserver.flightgear.org/getstart/ > > 7-4. "FTP mirrors" links to > http://www.flightgear.org/download/mirrors.html#ftp > Should be corrected to > http://www.flightgear.org/download/mirror/ > > Cheers, > Toshi > > > > -- > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues
Hi Thorsten, Using z/Z to adjust visibility is something from the earliest days of the simulator project, before METAR weather, probably before clouds, and the sky dome. I don't personally mind if the z/Z key bindings go away. What I do care about though is that FlightGear continues to be useable as a flight training tool. An instructor working with a student may wish to set a specific visibility, specific cloud layers, specific winds, specific turbulence, all as part of a training scenario designed to instruct or challenge or catch a student off guard. We've always been able to set the individual weather parameters, either through the built in weather dialog box, or by setting raw property values. Setting raw property values allows nasal script control over the weather (as I'm sure you well know) :-) but it also allows external control of the weather, for instance by some external gui tool, or by some tool that wants to setup equivalent visual conditions across multiple FlightGear PC's running in sync. So whatever we do, we can't override the ability to get low level granular control of the weather parameters, and not just so that advanced weather can manipulate them exclusively, also so that external tools can manipulate them without advanced weather getting in the way or overriding the settings. BTW, your email name is configured as "Renk Thorsten" so if you do find yourself being called by your last name, it may be a simple misunderstanding deriving from that. My dad calls all his neighbors by their last name out of friendliness and respect, so it could also be that too. :-) Thanks, Curt. On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > You asked for ideas for a more descriptive text - I've gone one better > > and > > added descriptive texts to the gui. My design aim was to provide the > > average > > user with some indication of which option he should choose and in which > > circumstance. It's only a shallow redesign. It would be nice, I think, to > > allow max vis range to be as low as 10kms, and also if this could be > > driven > > by z/Z. However, these items are beyond the scope of what I set out to > > do. > > Thanks. > > I can do the first item easily (I do think 10 km max visibility are a bit > on the low side, but it doesn't hurt anyone..). > > As for z/Z - can we reach a decision first what to do with this? James and > Stuart seemed to be considering to drop this key binding, and I would > actually prefer that as well. Is there a compelling reason to manage > visibility by key? For me, this resembles more an arcade game strategy > than a realistic simulation. > > (If we keep z/Z, it'd be nice if anyone can give me a pointer how to link > it with the max. visibility or just do it, because I don't know how it's > done...) > > * Thorsten > > -- > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Website update request
Hi Curt, Again, thanks for updating the website. I found a few more broken links which seem to be happened by recent changes. 7. http://www.flightgear.org/download/main-program/ 7-3. "FlightGear Manual" links to http://www.flightgear.org/download/Docs/getstart/getstart.html Should be corrected to http://mapserver.flightgear.org/getstart/ 7-4. "FTP mirrors" links to http://www.flightgear.org/download/mirrors.html#ftp Should be corrected to http://www.flightgear.org/download/mirror/ Cheers, Toshi -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Renk Thorsten wrote: >> Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's >> mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with >> respect >> to the cockpit model. > > (I'd really appreciate if you guys would call me on first-name basis > 'Thorsten'...) > I think that's the result of how your name is shown in the email header - it says "Renk Thorsten", so us murricans think your first name is "Renk". :) You might want to stick a comma in there. :) > You are certainly right with the c172, but the fair comparison is e.g. > our DR-400 against the FSX C-172, and FG is going to win that one. > It's a "best foot forward" kind of thing. The quintessential "default" airplane in MSFS has been the 172. The default set of airplanes in FG should be the absolute best of the best, simply because that's what a new user is going to be exposed to for their first time. First impressions are everything. Someone will see the FG 172 and instantly assume that the rest of the simulator is like that. >> One thing I'd really like to see put together is a "The Hidden Secrets of >> FlightGear" page that illustrates all the little bits that people aren't >> necessarily aware of. Things like the hard science behind a lot of the >> things FG tries to get right that "other" simulation software completely >> ignores or fakes poorly. > > We've sort of started this here > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Unique_Features > I was hoping for more "hard science" items, such as all the great work that's gone into taking terrain masking into account with radio navigation aids. I _seriously_ doubt MSFS or XP has gone to that extreme, but I know for a fact big commercial simulators do it. > Honestly, I have no clue how to make a screenshot in FSX... and I don't > want to fiddle around with it much longer, suffice to say it gave me > some ideas how the GUI could be, but it doesn't draw me in in any way. > And you'll not going to find me argue that the Vinson doesn't measure > up. It's a spectacular model, and I do love doing carrier ops in FG. If you like, we can take this off-list and I can work with you to provide FSX screenshots to compare against ones you're doing in FG. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
Hi Thorsten, :) On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote: > My problem is that I often know very well how X is implemented in FG, I may > suspect that it's not in FSX or X-Plane, but since I'm not running X-Plane or > FSX with all addons I don't really know for a fact if it is a genuinely > unique feature or if there is a 3rd party addon to FSX/X-Plane which provides > the same thing. And we would want to be factually correct here. The 2.10 release has sparked some interest over at avsim.com (http://forum.avsim.net/forum/198-the-flightgear-forum/) where various FS-X and X-Plane users have been giving it a try and comparing it with other sims. It makes for interesting reading - I hadn't appreciated what a big deal not being able to configure a joystick from a GUI was until I read a couple of comments highlighting it as a big V2.10 feature. There's also positive comments about atmospheric rendering, smoothness and FDM quality. I agree that working out what's unique is difficult, and it's a moving target given the add-ons. Just last week I read a thread from someone asking about failure mode (MTBF/MCBF), something we've had in FG for years. Further down the thread someone responded saying they'd just written an iPhone/iPad app to do just that. Ah well, it was unique for a couple of years at least :). -Stuart PS: Further up the thread Thorsten mentioned that FS-X instruments seemed jerky. IIRC the instrumentation in MSFS has a fixed refresh rate (30fps?). -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Iceland textures
> > Did you test your airfield grass with some of the newer generated terrain > > (LOWI in my case)? > > No, I didn't. Shouldn't make a difference for rendering purposes how you > created it, at this stage it's all vertices and pixels and the shaders > don't care where they come from or how they connect. > Not sure about the airfield grass, but at least the concrete and tar surfaces for taxiways and apron use a different mapping. If i remember correctly 1 x 1 meter in the new scenery builds. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 20
Hello C-VALL, > No ! ESP is just an SDK by M$ And the work of Lockheed Martin is > absolutly separate of FS X. FS X and Prepar3D are totaly different. > Lockheed Martin also promises no compatibility with various X Addons FS. > And ESP is free. Lockheed Martin did not buy anything. > http://msdn.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/ff798293.aspx The french (!) page you linked says, that: "The Microsoft® ESP™ SDK is the core component of the ESP product. ESP is a set of tools that enables simulation of real-world objects." ... "The primary tool, ESP.exe, is a flight simulator, and this SDK can be used to create add-on components for it" So ESP is not a SDK, but contains SDKs. About Prepar3d: Lokheed Martin writes on their homepage http://www.prepar3d.com/ about Prepar3d: "Prepar3D furthers the development of Microsoft® ESP™ while maintaining compatibility with Microsoft Flight Simulator X, allowing many thousands of add-ons to be used within Prepar3D." It is different yes, but Prepar3d is based on ESP, and ESP is based on FSX. Lockheed Martin bought ESP and the licences and developed it further for their needs. Not the same, but the same origin and base, and it can be used in the same way for same thing and more. You won't see much difference between a image of FSX and Prepar3d. So I don't see why gene is wrong here. Regards -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues
> You asked for ideas for a more descriptive text - I've gone one better > and > added descriptive texts to the gui. My design aim was to provide the > average > user with some indication of which option he should choose and in which > circumstance. It's only a shallow redesign. It would be nice, I think, to > allow max vis range to be as low as 10kms, and also if this could be > driven > by z/Z. However, these items are beyond the scope of what I set out to > do. Thanks. I can do the first item easily (I do think 10 km max visibility are a bit on the low side, but it doesn't hurt anyone..). As for z/Z - can we reach a decision first what to do with this? James and Stuart seemed to be considering to drop this key binding, and I would actually prefer that as well. Is there a compelling reason to manage visibility by key? For me, this resembles more an arcade game strategy than a realistic simulation. (If we keep z/Z, it'd be nice if anyone can give me a pointer how to link it with the max. visibility or just do it, because I don't know how it's done...) * Thorsten -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 20
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, BARANGER Emmanuel wrote: > Geneb wrote: > >> As far as I know, they're still distributing it. Games typically don't >> get an official "EOL" like other products do. >> They do still support it through their website although further >> development ceased when they closed the ACES studio and sold the ESP >> assets to Lockheed-Martin. > No ! ESP is just an SDK by M$ And the work of Lockheed Martin is absolutly > separate of FS X. FS X and Prepar3D are totaly different. Lockheed Martin > also promises no compatibility with various X Addons FS. And ESP is free. > Lockheed Martin did not buy anything. > ESP is _not_ just an SDK. It's the core of both FSX and Prepar3D. It's a simulation environment builder. Version 1.0 of Prepar3D is, with the exception of GUI changes, IDENTICAL to FSX. FSX was built USING ESP v1.0. ESP WAS a commercial product offering. Only the SDK side (called SimConnect) is "free". Note that ESP v1.0 still shows up on my MSDN subscription. It's a four DVD set. Lockheed isn't guaranteeing compatibility because they do not want to be limited in what changes can be made to the core system. Their attitude is that if it works, great! If not, can't help ya, sorry. Lockheed DID buy ESP from Microsoft, regardless of whether or not you believe it. This sale was also a contributing factor to the ACES Studio (the group within MS that was responsible for FSX) being disbanded. Many of them are now working for Lockheed. There were also a number of companies building commercial simulation products (not entertainment products) around ESP that were understandably furious when they were cut off from ESP without warning when the assets were sold to Lockheed. I know of at least one company that was seriously considering legal action before deciding to just walk away from the market. (and no, I'm not going to name the company.) > http://msdn.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/ff798293.aspx > Congrats, you found SDK docs. Woo. > >> Yes, by Microsoft. > No by Lockheed Martin. FS X is still available magazin because there are > still boxes. This is normal, many user are left on FS FS 9 and refused FS X. > Wow. Do you just wander around pulling random "facts" out of thin air whenever you think it'll make you look good? The boxed copies of FSX that are being sold by Amazon retailers are NOT coming from Lockheed, they're coming from Microsoft. Yes, it may be existing stock, but it sure as hell ain't coming from Lockheed. > It should be noted also that Prepar3D fixes many problems of FS X. Like what > it was possible :) That's because the group working on Prepar3D doesn't have any mouth-breathing MBA types incessantly screwing with them. Also understand that P3D is a _training_ product, while FSX is an _entertainment_ product. They even state in the EULA (pfft!) that P3D is NOT to be used for "entertainment purposes". (I'll say that this may have changed - I haven't messed around with P3D for a couple of years). That's why until recently a copy would cost you $499. Within the past year or so they've come out with an "Academic" license for $49. The only difference is that it watermarks the video with the P3D logo. If you want to experiement with P3D, you can buy a developer license for $10 a month. Wow. I just checked the website and they've totally redone it. It's no longer $499 for a "normal" copy, they've dropped it to $199. Myself and the people I hang out with are VERY serious sim geeks. We do crazy crap like scratch build 737 flight decks and rebuild wrecked jets for giggles. Anything that can affect how we do what we do is of EXTREME interest. That's why I've got a pretty good handle on what went on with Lockheed and ESP. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Checklists
Stuart Thanks, that looks as if it will do my job. I will give it a go ASAP, probably at the weekend. BTW, I found a Flight article about our glass cockpit project http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1977/1977%20-%201182.html. The checklist display can be seen on the extreme right hand CRT in the picture. It is described on page 3 of the article. Alan -Original Message- From: Stuart Buchanan Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:33 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Checklists On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Alan Teeder wrote: >> The reason for my query was that I have found making a representative set >> of >> checklists is becoming very unwieldy. >> >> With just my "entering the cockpit checks", I have already made 9 >> separate >> checklist. Each one has about 10 checks. I have made one checklist per >> check list card on the real aircraft. These checklist items disappear >> off >> the top of the menu list screen, and there is no indications as to which >> checklists/cards have been completed, or which is the next to do. >> >> Having got this far it is obvious that the current system will not cope >> for >> the rest of the aircraft checklists that I intend to replicate. > > OK, sounds like you've got much longer checklists than I have encountered > myself. > > I'll see what I can do to support multi-page checklists. I can probably > add > Next and Previous buttons to page through the checklist. This is now available. nodes can now be grouped under a , which the checklist display handles as you would expect. I've also added support for tags which leverage the existing tutorial markers. I've updated Docs/README.checklist and the wiki to reflect both these changes. As always, the c172p has an example (Aircraft/c172p/c172-checklists.xml). I've still to update the checklist->tutorial converter to support the tags - that's next on my TODO list. -Stuart -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 20
Geneb wrote: As far as I know, they're still distributing it. Games typically don't get an official "EOL" like other products do. They do still support it through their website although further development ceased when they closed the ACES studio and sold the ESP assets to Lockheed-Martin. No ! ESP is just an SDK by M$ And the work of Lockheed Martin is absolutly separate of FS X. FS X and Prepar3D are totaly different. Lockheed Martin also promises no compatibility with various X Addons FS. And ESP is free. Lockheed Martin did not buy anything. http://msdn.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/ff798293.aspx Yes, by Microsoft. No by Lockheed Martin. FS X is still available magazin because there are still boxes. This is normal, many user are left on FS FS 9 and refused FS X. It should be noted also that Prepar3D fixes many problems of FS X. Like what it was possible :) regards Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr http://embaranger.free.fr * Anglais - détecté * Anglais * Français * Anglais * Français <#> -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YouTube
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:13 PM, gabe van wrote: > Dear Flightgear developers, > > I am starting a youtube channel and was hoping that you would kindly grant > me permission to post videos of Flightgear on my channel. I don't > discourage people from getting it, but encourage them to find opensource > alternatives, such as Flightgear. Thank you for your help, and I hope you > have a great day! > > Thanks for the great game, > Hi Gabe, there are a quite a few people these days posting FlightGear videos on youtube, so I think you can just go ahead and start posting videos without needing to ask permission from us. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YouTube
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:13:16 -0800, gabe wrote in message : > Dear Flightgear developers, > > I am starting a youtube channel and was hoping that you would kindly > grant me permission to post videos of Flightgear on my channel. ..url? > I don't discourage people from getting it, but encourage them to find > opensource alternatives, such as Flightgear. Thank you for your help, > and I hope you have a great day! > > Thanks for the great game, > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] YouTube
Dear Flightgear developers, I am starting a youtube channel and was hoping that you would kindly grant me permission to post videos of Flightgear on my channel. I don't discourage people from getting it, but encourage them to find opensource alternatives, such as Flightgear. Thank you for your help, and I hope you have a great day! Thanks for the great game, -- Gabe, 2013 -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
Thorsten aka Renk wrote: > -Original Message- > From: [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] > Sent: 28 February 2013 07:57 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo > > > Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's > > mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with > > respect to the cockpit model. > > (I'd really appreciate if you guys would call me on first-name basis > 'Thorsten'...) We had at one point several Thorstens/Torstens - I suppose Renk was just easier. And if you start your postings Renk Thorsten people will assume Renk is your first name. > > That's a question of what a fair comparison is. > > I'm going to assume that whoever put a demo version from FSX together has > specifically chosen scenery and airplanes in the demo to impress users. So > my standard of comparison is not 'How does the same airplane or the same > scenery in FG look like' because I regard that as unfair - they got to chose, we > didn't. My standard of comparison would be - if I were to put together a FG > demo to impress users, how would that compare? > > You are certainly right with the c172, but the fair comparison is e.g. our DR- > 400 against the FSX C-172, and FG is going to win that one. > > It doesn't matter so much that many aircraft in FG can not measure up to that > standard - I don't usually fly them. We have 20-30 really high quality aircraft, > and I doubt FSX has that many out of the box. If you count addons, we can > field all the non-GPL hangars in return, where I believe T4T is doing some > really impressive warbirds... > > If you're going into comparing 'the same' (scenery, aircraft,...) than my next > question would be - FG has beautiful scenery in central Iran with the Middle- > East texturing definitions. I doubt FSX out of the box has any scenery there at > all. So we're winning flat out in many cases by virtue of having scenery > everywhere. It doesn't make too much sense to me to go into that direction. > > > One thing I'd really like to see put together is a "The Hidden Secrets > > of FlightGear" page that illustrates all the little bits that people > > aren't necessarily aware of. Things like the hard science behind a > > lot of the things FG tries to get right that "other" simulation > > software completely ignores or fakes poorly. > > We've sort of started this here > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Unique_Features > > My problem is that I often know very well how X is implemented in FG, I may > suspect that it's not in FSX or X-Plane, but since I'm not running X-Plane or > FSX with all addons I don't really know for a fact if it is a genuinely unique > feature or if there is a 3rd party addon to FSX/X-Plane which provides the > same thing. And we would want to be factually correct here. > > > While we wait for the FSX screenshot, I'd like to see the FSX > > equivalents of these as well: > > Honestly, I have no clue how to make a screenshot in FSX... and I don't want > to fiddle around with it much longer, suffice to say it gave me some ideas > how the GUI could be, but it doesn't draw me in in any way. And you'll not > going to find me argue that the Vinson doesn't measure up. It's a spectacular > model, and I do love doing carrier ops in FG. That's really good to hear - but if we are falling behind in some respect then we will make an effort to improve. I am reminded that the flag and wake shaders are inoperative when Atmospheric Light Scattering is activated. With the departure of Emilian, I see no prospect of this being fixed unless someone else steps up to the plate. I recently saw a short video of FSX with moving cars and trucks populating the roads. We can do that up to a point, and trains as well, and I forgot to mention that we can also texture tracks and roads properly: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/javelin-hst.png We can only have a few - around 50 if we are to keep framerate within bounds. If we ever get the Kent scenery fixed up well enough for release I'll include this around Manston/EGMH. Vivian -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Regional texturing project - Cntrl. Alt. Click
Thorsten, I normally would know this, but for some reason its not... On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > Thorsten, work is halted as my co-ordinates must be wrong, can you tell > > me the dimensions I need to use? > > Bruce, I'm not sure I understand your question - the coordinates in the > conditional used to define a region are latitude and longitude in degrees > (but I guess you know that, so probably you refer to something different?) > > * Thorsten > > -- > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
