[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] 737/Instruments/pfd2.xml: s/fpm/fps/ ??
/velocities/vertical-speed-fpm doesn't exist. Should this be fps? BTW: GS seems to be buggy; I found it stuck at some time at 541, no matter what I did. It worked again when I started fgfs new. m. RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/737/Instruments/pfd2.xml,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -p -r1.2 pfd2.xml --- pfd2.xml12 Mar 2004 10:25:06 - 1.2 +++ pfd2.xml6 Nov 2004 21:50:08 - @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ number-value - /velocities/vertical-speed-fpm + /velocities/vertical-speed-fps %6.0f @@ -447,4 +447,4 @@ 256 - \ No newline at end of file + ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Oliver C. wrote: The fact that FlightGear doesn't have aircraft lightning support doesn't matter. Any idea if.someone is working on this? Landing at night without lights is quite frustrating. Almost as frustrating as the lack of aircraft shadows (no, there is no need for a cannon like OpenRT to produce shadows, is there?). ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
On Saturday 06 November 2004 13:53, Innis Cunningham wrote: > Hi All > Just had a look on the seedwiki at the aircraft todo list. > Who wrote that rubbish. Please do me a favour and don't call my work rubbish. > How many 747's,737's,DC10 and the like have you seen with > HUD's.So why is it considered to be a must on these aircraft.If > we are going for realism then nearly all commercial aircraft do not have > HUD's along with 99% of all other non military aircraft.So if we are > more a non military sim lets put this HUD rubbish to bed. The aircraft todo list was created somewhere between Dec. 2003 and Jan. 2004 (later it was put on the seedwiki page) at that time those mentioned planes had nearly no cockpit instruments, so a virtual HUD was a must when you need to know your heading, speed and altitude. The HUD is also very practical when you are in an outside view. There's nothing wrong with removing the HUD from those aircrafts, but before that, please complete the 3d cockpits. > Aircraft don't have lighting of one kind or another.Since as far as I > am aware this is because FG currently has no such lighting and that > night lighting can only be achived by using emissive material on objects > we want to see at night.Is this not the way the 3D instruments are made > to show at night.Please correct me if I am wrong. The fact that FlightGear doesn't have aircraft lightning support doesn't matter. When FlightGear is ready for aircraft lightning support this list can be usefull to complete the aircraft lightning of each aircraft step by step. So the rule is: First write everything down, that is a bug or missing and then remove it later when it is fixed. > Jet blast not visible.Untill FG can model heat haze then on commercial > aircraft > this cant be modeled. Same rule mentioned above applies to here. > Nozele doesn't change shape with thrust.Never saw one that did(other than > the > Concord(notice a pattern here)). Nearly all military jets do this. An example aircraft is the F16. The F16 in FlightGear can't do that at the moment. If you never saw a F16 in real life, you can also look at the F16 in the flight simulator Falcon 4.0, there this nozzle effect is visualized. > Flaps move with reverse thrust.Maybe you can tell me what aircraft that > happens > on other than military. The thing what i meant with this are the speed brakes at the engines of the big airliners (747, 737 etc.) that are used when thrust is on reverse. The bad description is because of the fact, that my english is not the best, so if you can do better please fix this in the aircraft todo list. > The textures are not quite right.If that is the case fix them if you think > they can > be improved and I will be the first to conratule you.But don't say that is > a problem > with the model or the way it flies. There was a texture problem on the 737 in some of the earlier FlightGear versions. This has been fixed in one of the later version but the aircraft-todo list wasn't upgraded. Please, if you fix some bug in FlightGear mentioned in the aircraft-todo list, then upgrade the aircraft-todo list too. > And as everbody knows texture quality > is governed > by the size. And everybody knows that more eye candy can attract more volunteers for this open source project. There's nothing wrong with adding a couple of more textures to the aircrafts. Modern videocards have plenty of video memory (64 MB and upwards) and only a little amount is used by flightgear today. The only rule to abide is the correct balance between eye candy and performance. > No pilot models in the cockpit.Since these models consume about 1000 vertex > each which > is about 3 3d instruments.Would it not be better to have the instruments > than the eye > candy. I think both are important and 1000 vertex more is not a lot for a modern computer with a modern graphic card. > So if the todo list is to be realisitic should it not contain only the > things that are missing on the real > aircraft not a list of things that are neither available yet in FG (eg > lighting) or never part of the real aircraft in the first place. An aircraft without a pilot can't fly. (No, you need more than an autopilot and where not talking about drones :) ) Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] DME groundspeed
The DME groundspeed display is working again -- there was a small typo in a property name in the C++ code. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Magnetic Compass
I'm pretty happy with the magnetic compass now. I won't claim that it's a perfect simulation, but it's close enough for practice, and should be especially fun (??) for IFR students practicing partial-panel work. I was sorry to throw out Alex's much more elegant code for my crude hacks. Thanks to everyone who helped, especially with the trig problems. I'd be very grateful if everyone could check out the latest code from CVS and try out the magnetic compass with different aircraft. The effects will be most noticeable at higher latitudes, especially in North America. Now, if you enjoy that, try FlightGear with --failure=vacuum (which will disable the gyro compass in the 172 or Warrior) and try navigating using only the magnetic compass (hint: timed turns are your friend). All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Hi All Just had a look on the seedwiki at the aircraft todo list. Who wrote that rubbish. How many 747's,737's,DC10 and the like have you seen with HUD's.So why is it considered to be a must on these aircraft.If we are going for realism then nearly all commercial aircraft do not have HUD's along with 99% of all other non military aircraft.So if we are more a non military sim lets put this HUD rubbish to bed. Aircraft don't have lighting of one kind or another.Since as far as I am aware this is because FG currently has no such lighting and that night lighting can only be achived by using emissive material on objects we want to see at night.Is this not the way the 3D instruments are made to show at night.Please correct me if I am wrong. Jet blast not visible.Untill FG can model heat haze then on commercial aircraft this cant be modeled.As for seeing jet blast if some one can show me a photo of any commercial aircraft(other than the Concord) with a flame out the back I will apoligise. Nozele doesn't change shape with thrust.Never saw one that did(other than the Concord(notice a pattern here)). Flaps move with reverse thrust.Maybe you can tell me what aircraft that happens on other than military. The textures are not quite right.If that is the case fix them if you think they can be improved and I will be the first to conratule you.But don't say that is a problem with the model or the way it flies.And as everbody knows texture quality is governed by the size. No pilot models in the cockpit.Since these models consume about 1000 vertex each which is about 3 3d instruments.Would it not be better to have the instruments than the eye candy. So if the todo list is to be realisitic should it not contain only the things that are missing on the real aircraft not a list of things that are neither available yet in FG (eg lighting) or never part of the real aircraft in the first place. End of Rant. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATI 9200 Direct Rendering problem on Linux
"Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote: > Any idea what the first few lines are saying? > Ampere > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose glxinfo > name of display: :0.0 > libGL: XF86DRIGetClientDriverName: 4.0.1 r200 (screen 0) > libGL: OpenDriver: trying /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so > libGL error: dlopen /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so failed > (/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so: undefined symbol: > _glapi_noop_enable_warnings) > libGL error: unable to find driver: r200_dri.so This looks like you forgot to install the X server modules package or the package is not complete, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATI 9200 Direct Rendering problem on Linux
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > Any idea what the first few lines are saying? > > Ampere > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose glxinfo > name of display: :0.0 > libGL: XF86DRIGetClientDriverName: 4.0.1 r200 (screen 0) > libGL: OpenDriver: trying /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so > libGL error: dlopen /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so failed > (/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so: undefined symbol: > _glapi_noop_enable_warnings) > libGL error: unable to find driver: r200_dri.so > libGL: XF86DRIGetClientDriverName: 4.0.1 r200 (screen 0) > libGL: OpenDriver: trying /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so > libGL error: dlopen /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so failed > (/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/r200_dri.so: undefined symbol: > _glapi_noop_enable_warnings) > libGL error: unable to find driver: r200_dri.so > display: :0 screen: 0 > direct rendering: No [...] > OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4 [...] I would say that your dri driver doesn't match you libGL It seems that r200_dri.so is a driver for XFree 4.0.1, and you have Mesa 4.0.4 -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
