Re: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
Chris Metzler wrote: > OK, I'm very ignorant about this. Is that a major limitation in that > it'd be very hard/time consuming for someone competent to adapt > PostGIS to include elevation data? Quoting Norman Vine from the thread "When can we have roads like this": > Martin Spott writes: > > > If you'd agree to call PostGIS as sort of an implementation of > > "shapefile in a database", the analogue "geotiff in a database" would > > be nice, too. To other "spatially enabled" database servers cover > > raster data as well ? > > This is a popular topic of discussion that is often answerd by > > (1) BLOB storage is inherently different then Table Storage > > (2) Reprojection of Raster Data is usually *much* more expensive > then Vector data and isn't handled by any GIS enabled DB that > I am currently aware of. Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
Paul Surgeon wrote: > Probably to first step is to write the code/scripts to load the vector data > into a PostgreSQL/PostGIS DB and write an exporter for terragear so that Curt > can carry on generating scenery without having to modify terragear. The tools to not only import VMAP0 data but GSHHS shorelines as well into a PostGIS database are already present. I think you also can use these tools to export back into VMAP0 or any other format. A 'native' OpenGIS/PostGIS interface in TerraGear would be 'smarter', though ;-) > I played with some of the terrgear tools yesterday but unfortunately they > just > spit out raw shape data without the associated names, descriptions, etc. > which are required in maps. I assume the raw data that is available for most of the world simply doesn't contain the details you are looking for. In order to get stret names and other gimmicks you want to have a look at the TIGER data that's available for the US, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
Martin Spott wrote: > The tools to not only import VMAP0 data but GSHHS shorelines as well > into a PostGIS database are already present. I think you also can use > these tools to export back into VMAP0 or any other format. BTW, does anyone know which sort of agreement you have to sign when you intend to purchase the VMAP1 CD's ? http://www.mapability.com/info/vmap1_intro.html Myaybe you are free to use them as long as you dont' redistribute the data itself but only a derivated work instead (like FlightGear scnenery), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
Martin Spott writes: > > Martin Spott wrote: > > > The tools to not only import VMAP0 data but GSHHS shorelines as well > > into a PostGIS database are already present. I think you also can use > > these tools to export back into VMAP0 or any other format. > > BTW, does anyone know which sort of agreement you have to sign when you > intend to purchase the VMAP1 CD's ? > > http://www.mapability.com/info/vmap1_intro.html > > Myaybe you are free to use them as long as you dont' redistribute the > data itself but only a derivated work instead (like FlightGear > scnenery), AFAIK all VMAP data is in the public domain unless classified The "purchase price" is to cover distribution cost and the data is freely redistributable. Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines? > Why not? It makes sense. > > As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip for matrix > manipulations. ..aye. I'm just wondering how much work we can yank off the Control Process Unit and dump onto these General Purpose processing Unit_s_. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines? > > > > Why not? It makes sense. > > > > As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip for matrix > > manipulations. > > ..aye. I'm just wondering how much work we can yank off the > Control Process Unit and dump onto these General Purpose > processing Unit_s_. ;-) I was referring to Graphics processing units. Am I missing something here? :-\ Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On January 13, 2005 08:37 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > I was referring to Graphics processing units. > > Am I missing something here? :-\ > > Ampere Nevermind. I got confused again. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Real weather fetch
* David Megginson -- Wednesday 12 January 2005 17:02: > There's one gotcha -- the file for the current cycle is usually > incomplete (the file grows as reports are collected), so you always > want the previous one as a backup. I noticed already. That's no problem, though. You just dump as much METAR data into the cache as you like (downloaded cycle files, or particular station data) and the proxy picks up the most appropriate set. If you are out of data, then you get invalid data (and fgfs will stop querying) or everything jumps back one day, or ... Works quite nicely already, btw. The only change to fgfs was that the GET request sends now an "X-Time" header containing the simulated GMT as UNIX epoch. noaa ignores this header, but the proxy considers this information. (The whole proxy is programmed in a few lines of Perl. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines? > > > > > > Why not? It makes sense. > > > > > > As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip for > matrix > > > manipulations. > > > > ..aye. I'm just wondering how much work we can yank off the > > Control Process Unit and dump onto these General Purpose > > processing Unit_s_. ;-) > I was referring to Graphics processing units. > > Am I missing something here? :-\ > A joke ;-) (see the ";-)" smiley of Arnt) Are there any decent books about those Navier-Stokes equations and how to implement them in C or java? Greets, Steven ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On January 13, 2005 08:37 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > > I was referring to Graphics processing units. > > > > Am I missing something here? :-\ > > > > Ampere > Nevermind. I got confused again. > And I responded before I read this mail :/, so sorry for the first line of my previous reply ;-). Steven ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb: > On January 12, 2005 06:07 pm, Christian Mayer wrote: > >>I see more problems with the correct shape of the wings. The models >>won't get it right and using just some NACA profiles won't work with the >>higly optimized profiles of modern aircrafts (like those from Airbus). > > I am pretty confident that my models can make it through the program, since > wing geometry is the first thing I look for. I don't know about others > though. The general wing geometry (i.e. the stuff you get from an 3-view) is one thing. The the real profile of the wing is crucial here - and it's AFAIK kept as an trade secret. On modern aircraft (like all Airbus modells and the newer Boeing ones) these are extremely optimized to be able to fly at high speeds efficently. Your models also won't have enough detail (= polygons) to reflect that geometry in the needed detail (or they would be bad models for visualisation...) CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB5oVTlhWtxOxWNFcRArHTAKCqyCcfujqd3y0auAvd4SLaqi4DpQCgvP3H JtvJHKHwhJ2qLJh2rpq2GDk= =gzG2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
"Norman Vine" wrote: > Martin Spott writes: >> BTW, does anyone know which sort of agreement you have to sign when you >> intend to purchase the VMAP1 CD's ? >> >> http://www.mapability.com/info/vmap1_intro.html > AFAIK all VMAP data is in the public domain unless classified Yes, it's written on the mentioned page that de data is already declassified. The only reason that they don't allow for FTP download is not to get in trouble with other providers of map data that sell their data for real money. So I though someone could purchase the CD's and create a bunch of shapefiles Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
Wolfram Kuss wrote: > However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would > guess that far in excess of 90% of models are not. For example, > each edge needs to have two neighbour faces. It's even worse than that. Real world aircraft performance is sensitive to all sorts of details that are simply unattainable for an amateur 3D model. Things like exact wing section shapes aren't available unless you have the original design plans and/or an actual aircraft to digitize. And I don't even want to think about the polygon counts involved in an accurate model. :) And remember that the aero modelling is still only part of the problem. You still need to get the mass distribution from somewhere, because it doesn't appear in the photographs. I'm not saying this stuff is impossible; people have been designing aircraft using CFD models for almost 20 years, and CPU cycles have never been cheaper. But it's a lot more work than just feeding c172.ac into a program and getting a working FDM configuration out the other side. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steven Beeckman schrieb: > Are there any decent books about those Navier-Stokes equations and how > to implement them in C or java? One description of Navier Stokes are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations there are also many many other webpages out there that tell you the equations. To solve them you need a good understanding of solving partial differential equations (PDE). If you can solve them analytical you'll be awarded with a big amount of money and extreme amounts of fame... So you can only solve them (generally) by numeric methods. So just grab any book about solving PDEs numerically and you can solve the Navier Stokes (at least in theory...) CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB5pbWlhWtxOxWNFcRAqE1AJ9vU38NF4wLNQOZyTdnXozft0kregCguY4m M+nyYQeJDusZjajHuTRiV2Y= =ugBg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
Andy Ross writes I'm not saying this stuff is impossible; people have been designing aircraft using CFD models for almost 20 years, and CPU cycles have never been cheaper. But it's a lot more work than just feeding c172.ac into a program and getting a working FDM configuration out the other side. Heaven help us if my 3D models are going to be depended on to produce the FDM.Then you will realy have the uncontrolable aircraft. :-) Andy Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:05:26 +0100, Steven wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines? > > > > > > > > Why not? It makes sense. > > > > > > > > As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip for > > > > matrix manipulations. > > > > > > ..aye. I'm just wondering how much work we can yank off the > > > Control Process Unit and dump onto these General Purpose > > > processing Unit_s_. ;-) > > I was referring to Graphics processing units. ..me 2. ;-) > > Am I missing something here? :-\ > > > > A joke ;-) (see the ";-)" smiley of Arnt) ..well, all good jokes can't come up with a potential like the http://gpgpu.org; your average recent GPU chews code 6 times faster than your average CPU. So, we can use part of the GPU to show pretty pictures, and the remainder, say "half", to say, triple FG framerates? ;-) > Are there any decent books about those Navier-Stokes equations and how ..chk these: http://download.nvidia.com/developer/SDK/Individual_Samples/DEMOS\OpenGL\src\gpgpu_fluid\docs\GPU_Gems_Fluids_Chapter.pdf (Yeah, those back-slashes worked in Konqueror!!! 8o)) http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/Miscellaneous/Books/ http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/Miscellaneous/Courses/ http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/Miscellaneous/ http://download.nvidia.com/developer/SDK/Individual_Samples/samples.html#gpgpu_fluid http://www.strangebunny.com/techdemo_stokes.php (arrrgh bummer, should have been done in OpenGL) http://www.eet.com/in_focus/silicon_engineering/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55300900 http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=55300904 ..and you might wanna compare Microsofts take with the other guys: http://www.cs.unc.edu/Events/Conferences/GP2/program.shtml ;-) > to implement them in C or java? ..nonono, FG is C++ and will likely remain so for all sortsa good reasons I was buried under when I asked "Why not C like in the kernel?", an extensive discussion of the wisdom of writing Java code can be found over at http://Groklaw.net/, hints on "follow the money", also points towards Redmond and Lindon, Utah. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Rendering AI Waypoints
I’m looking into rendering the flight plan waypoints
and I’m having some trouble getting the geometry to display in Flightgear.
Just to test things out I’m catching the waypoints as they’re loaded
in by FGAIFlightPlan, creating geometry and positioning it using the waypoint’s
lat/lon/altitude and the SGModelPlacement class. Looking at other
examples from FG, this seems reasonable but it looks like I’m missing
something because the teapot is never visible. That’s not totally
true, if I don’t call update(…) the teapot is visible but always
appears in the wrong spot with incorrect orientation. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks! Here’s some code:
ssgBranch* point_branch = new ssgBranch();
ssgaTeapot* cube = new ssgaTeapot();
sgVec4 colour = {0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0};
cube->setColour(colour);
point_branch->addKid(cube);
point_branch->ref();
SGModelPlacement* mp_waypoint = new SGModelPlacement();
mp_waypoint->init(point_branch);
mp_waypoint->setElevationFt(waypoint->altitude);
mp_waypoint->setLatitudeDeg(waypoint->latitude);
mp_waypoint->setLongitudeDeg(waypoint->longitude);
mp_waypoint->setOrientation(0.0,0.0,0.0);
Point3D scenery_center = globals->get_scenery()->get_center();
mp_waypoint->update(globals->get_scenery()->get_center() );
mp_waypoint->setVisible(true);
globals->get_scenery()->get_scene_graph()->addKid(mp_waypoint->getSceneGraph());
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] fgfs core dump
looks like the latest commits to SimGear/simgear/screen/texture.cxx are buggy. running fgfs i get: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread -1213693280 (LWP 17239)] 0xb7aef427 in fclose () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (gdb) where #0 0xb7aef427 in fclose () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 #1 0x08437c6b in SGTexture::ImageClose (this=0x85d0c5c, image=0xa4eba40) at texture.cxx:583 #2 0x084370ba in SGTexture::read_rgb_texture (this=0x85d0c5c, name=0xa4eba40 "Ú\001\001\001\003") at texture.cxx:277 #3 0x0807e26d in fgSplashInit ( splash_texture=0x30 ) at sg_path.hxx:127 #4 0x08053acb in fgIdleFunction () at main.cxx:589 #5 0x080841a5 in GLUTidle () at fg_os.cxx:114 #6 0xb7f8f82a in glutMainLoop () from /usr/local/lib/libglut.so.3 #7 0x08054c47 in fgMainInit (argc=1, argv=0xb9d0) at main.cxx:958 #8 0x0805166d in main (argc=-369098753, argv=0xe9ff) at bootstrap.cxx:192 i'll look into this later if nobody beats me to it. --alex-- -- | I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active | | advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with | | automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion | | and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. | ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgfs core dump
Alex Romosan wrote: looks like the latest commits to SimGear/simgear/screen/texture.cxx are buggy. running fgfs i get: It turned out to be a check for a pointer that was never set to 0 and should be fixed now (sorry). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
Does GMax have any object exporters? That is, what formats can it save models in? GMax save as .gmax and export as .p3d None of them is directly usable :-( Personally, I use Realsoft3D for making my models and export them in .obj format. I then import the .obj format models into AC3D (V3.6) to apply the textures and convert it into .ac format for FG. Well, it seems that Realsoft3D costs 600,00 Eur which I don't plan paying for something I will give out for free :-) Thx for the hint anyway. Roberto p.s. may you know there's some old version which is free to purchase? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On Thursday 13 January 2005 02:22, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > On January 12, 2005 04:10 pm, Wolfram Kuss wrote: > > However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would > > guess that far in excess of 90% of models are not. For > > example, each edge needs to have two neighbour faces. > > The models can be made to be "watertight". People just need > to get off their lazy behind and start creating/merging parts > poly by poly, vertex by vertex. > > > > Ampere I'm afraid that all model objects cannot be made 'water -tight', i.e turned into closed surfaces, at least not without adding lots of redundant faces, which would then need to be set to 100% transparency. This would increase both the surface culling overhead and probably cause further problems with transparency ordering. Examples would include canopies and virtual cockpits. How would you make a closed surface cockpit canopy without adding redundant surfaces to close it? I guess you could actually give it some thickness, and close it that way, but it would increase the face count x 3 (outside faces, edge faces & inside faces). It's similar with virtual cockpits i.e. the window frames and panel. After you've made the basic interior surfaces you'd then have add additional surfaces to close them at the back, but you would never want to see them. Any particular reason you think the problem is just due to laziness? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On Thursday 13 January 2005 12:28, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines? > > > > Why not? It makes sense. > > > > As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip > > for matrix manipulations. > > ..aye. I'm just wondering how much work we can yank off the > Control Process Unit and dump onto these General Purpose > processing Unit_s_. ;-) This reminds me of some stuff I read about dsp processors, about ten years ago. Nothing in depth but iirc the effective processing speeds were of the order of several GHz then, with corresponding flop rates. It certainly caused a raised an eyebrow when I read it:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On Thursday 13 January 2005 14:27, Christian Mayer wrote: > Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb: > > On January 12, 2005 06:07 pm, Christian Mayer wrote: > >>I see more problems with the correct shape of the wings. The > >> models won't get it right and using just some NACA profiles > >> won't work with the higly optimized profiles of modern > >> aircrafts (like those from Airbus). > > > > I am pretty confident that my models can make it through the > > program, since wing geometry is the first thing I look for. > > I don't know about others though. > > The general wing geometry (i.e. the stuff you get from an > 3-view) is one thing. The the real profile of the wing is > crucial here - and it's AFAIK kept as an trade secret. > > On modern aircraft (like all Airbus modells and the newer > Boeing ones) these are extremely optimized to be able to fly > at high speeds efficently. > > Your models also won't have enough detail (= polygons) to > reflect that geometry in the needed detail (or they would be > bad models for visualisation...) > > CU, > Christian I've thought about this for a few years now and although I had similar concerns about the accuracy of the aerofoil at first I don't think it's important now. If you supply a highly accurate (read high resolution) aerofoil definition to an FDM solver/engine it's going to result in a correspondly high processing requirement. As the aerofoil would only be required to establish the characteristics, or properties, of the flight surface, it might be better to just skip the aerofoil stuff and either supply those co-efficients directly, or generate them from other known characteristics instead. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] May I help with scenery?
On Thursday 13 January 2005 18:52, Robicd wrote: > > Does GMax have any object exporters? That is, what formats > > can it save models in? > > GMax save as .gmax and export as .p3d > None of them is directly usable :-( > > > Personally, I use Realsoft3D for making my models and export > > them in .obj format. I then import the .obj format models > > into AC3D (V3.6) to apply the textures and convert it into > > .ac format for FG. > > Well, it seems that Realsoft3D costs 600,00 Eur which I don't > plan paying for something I will give out for free :-) > Thx for the hint anyway. > > Roberto > > p.s. may you know there's some old version which is free to > purchase? I'm currently using V4.5 (Linux - V5 isn't available for Linux yet) and the demo version for V4.5 were only limited in the size of textures that could be used and the size of the renders produced. As you wouldn't be using these features for modelling they wouldn't be an issue. However, there isn't a demo version of V5 yet and I don't know how it will be limited. Be warned that many people think that it has a very steep learning curve but personally, find it very logical and it has the best modelling tools I've ever used (not that I've tried many other 3d packages - I haven't ever really felt the need since I started using V4) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Dumb question: do we want to investigate the possibility of adding google adds to the FlightGear site? Is this out of bounds, or within bounds for an open-source project. It's a potential revenue generator, but it's unclear if it will generate $0.39 per month or $39.00 per month or $390.00 per month. As I understand it, we create a space on our page, and google puts whatever they want there, but they try to be as relevant to our page as their algorithms will let them. Supposedly we have ways to block "competitor's" adds in case (for instance) we don't want MSFS adds to show up on our page. Is this worth looking into, or would it be crossing some sort of open-source ethical line? Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Dumb question: do we want to investigate the possibility of adding > google adds to the FlightGear site? FWIW, it's fine with me. If the worst thing FlightGear does in this world is make Curt rich, I suspect I'll still be able to sleep at night. :) Seriously, having some extra cash available for FlightGear-specific stuff (hardware purchases, maybe, or conference travel/demo stuff) can't be a bad thing. I don't see any ethical problems here. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
"Curtis L. Olson" said: > Dumb question: do we want to investigate the possibility of adding > google adds to the FlightGear site? Is this out of bounds, or within > bounds for an open-source project. It's a potential revenue generator, > but it's unclear if it will generate $0.39 per month or $39.00 per month > or $390.00 per month. > > As I understand it, we create a space on our page, and google puts > whatever they want there, but they try to be as relevant to our page as > their algorithms will let them. Supposedly we have ways to block > "competitor's" adds in case (for instance) we don't want MSFS adds to > show up on our page. > > Is this worth looking into, or would it be crossing some sort of > open-source ethical line? > It probably is, because high ethical standards are fundamental to the open-source concept. A few general ethical issues along those lines: - more commercial appearance to site. - ads are not particularly effective for advertisers (compared to adwords on the google search engine pages), but they make a lot of money for Google. - the content being linked to is not necessarily on the up and up. Google does not screen new advertisers like aol and overture do. So ads for snake oil and free software with spy/adware can show up. Just do a google search on "viagra" or "baldness" and you'll see what I mean. You could add a couple more items to the cdrom page and call it a "Store" like Mozilla does. PostGres runs their own ads, but not on the home page and only one per page. It seems prudent to look at other high profile projects (Flightgear is getting there!) and try not to stand out to much in the area of commercialization. Google might be easy, but if there is an option that might be a little more work (and better) I'd be glad to help out (rather than just being a nay sayer ;-)). One good thing might be just a "Donations" link like a lot of oss web sites show. Make sure that it is clear that even small donations are appreciated (so that folks don't think they can't afford it). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Bug setting DME in v0.9.6 Win32
Hi, I've found a little bug playing around with the runner whih does not permit fgfs.exe to run. After setting Advanced-Avionics-DME=Nav1 I get a wrong fgfs.exe command line: C:\Programmi\FlightGear\bin\Win32\fgfs.exe --fg-root=C:\Program\FG\data --fg-scenery=C:\Program\FG\data\Scenery;C:\Programmi\FG\scenery --airport-id=LICJ --runway=07 --aircraft=c182-2dpanel --control=keyboard --enable-random-objects --enable-hud --disable-anti-alias-hud --enable-horizon-effect --enable-enhanced-lighting --enable-distance-attenuation --enable-ai-models --enable-fullscreen --nav1=109.50 --nav2=113.00 -dme=nav1 -dme=nav1 is wrong, it should be --dme=nav with double '-' instead of the single one, am I right? have a nice flight :-) Roberto ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Bug setting DME in v0.9.6 Win32
* Robicd -- Thursday 13 January 2005 18:40: > I've found a little bug [in fgrun] [...] > -dme=nav1 is wrong, it should be --dme=nav with double '-' instead of > the single one, am I right? You are right. That's known and fixed in cvs. Thanks for reporting! One more reason to upgrade to 0.9.8. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
One thing that you might want to consider is that the clickthough rate is really low. And is it really worth it. I've been using AdSense for awhile now and the clickthough rate, at least for me is very low on average. An average of 0.5%. That's with about 4000 impressions. On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:28:02 -, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Curtis L. Olson" said: > > > Dumb question: do we want to investigate the possibility of adding > > google adds to the FlightGear site? Is this out of bounds, or within > > bounds for an open-source project. It's a potential revenue generator, > > but it's unclear if it will generate $0.39 per month or $39.00 per month > > or $390.00 per month. > > > > As I understand it, we create a space on our page, and google puts > > whatever they want there, but they try to be as relevant to our page as > > their algorithms will let them. Supposedly we have ways to block > > "competitor's" adds in case (for instance) we don't want MSFS adds to > > show up on our page. > > > > Is this worth looking into, or would it be crossing some sort of > > open-source ethical line? > > > > It probably is, because high ethical standards are fundamental to the > open-source concept. A few general ethical issues along those lines: > > - more commercial appearance to site. > - ads are not particularly effective for advertisers (compared to adwords on > the google search engine pages), but they make a lot of money for Google. > - the content being linked to is not necessarily on the up and up. Google > does not screen new advertisers like aol and overture do. So ads for snake > oil and free software with spy/adware can show up. Just do a google search on > "viagra" or "baldness" and you'll see what I mean. > > You could add a couple more items to the cdrom page and call it a "Store" like > Mozilla does. PostGres runs their own ads, but not on the home page and only > one per page. It seems prudent to look at other high profile projects > (Flightgear is getting there!) and try not to stand out to much in the area of > commercialization. Google might be easy, but if there is an option that > might be a little more work (and better) I'd be glad to help out (rather than > just being a nay sayer ;-)). > > One good thing might be just a "Donations" link like a lot of oss web sites > show. Make sure that it is clear that even small donations are appreciated > (so that folks don't think they can't afford it). > > Best, > > Jim > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > -- - http://artooro.blogspot.com (Weblog) - http://machcms.sourceforge.net (MachCMS Project) - http://acalproj.sourceforge.net (Calendar Project) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Jim Wilson wrote: It probably is, because high ethical standards are fundamental to the open-source concept. A few general ethical issues along those lines: - more commercial appearance to site. - ads are not particularly effective for advertisers (compared to adwords on the google search engine pages), but they make a lot of money for Google. - the content being linked to is not necessarily on the up and up. Google does not screen new advertisers like aol and overture do. So ads for snake oil and free software with spy/adware can show up. Just do a google search on "viagra" or "baldness" and you'll see what I mean. Hi Jim, I don't want to get caught up parsing nuances here. Commercial vs. non-commercial is a continuum, but I'm not sure there is any "ethics" attached to that. I might be more concerned with "tacky" vs. "non-tacky". I don't know if having a more commercial appearance is an ethical issue ... it maybe an issue relating to what appearance we want to convey, but to me it's not an ethical issue in and of itself. From our perspective, we don't care about the effectiveness of adds, that's not our problem. ;-) We don't have complete control over the content that get's advertised, but we do have some control. We can filter out specific sites we don't want, and we can filter out some broadbased categories, such as "adult" adds or "death/chaos/war" adds. The idea of google adds is not to display any random viagra or low-rate-mortage advertisement, but target the adds based on the specific content of the page using advance google search technology (probably TM.) That makes the service more attractive to vendors and [hopefully] makes the adds a little more appropriate/relevant to people that visit our page. That said, google is ultimately in control of what goes in the space we give them. It may very well be that google already know everything about everyone, and rather than placing page-relevant adds, places user-relevant adds. (Could be why you only see those snake-oil adds.) :-) You could add a couple more items to the cdrom page and call it a "Store" like Mozilla does. PostGres runs their own ads, but not on the home page and only one per page. It seems prudent to look at other high profile projects (Flightgear is getting there!) and try not to stand out to much in the area of commercialization. Google might be easy, but if there is an option that might be a little more work (and better) I'd be glad to help out (rather than just being a nay sayer ;-)). I'm told there are several choices for how much space we give google, supposedly we can do graphics or text only adds, even single vs. multiple adds. I imagine that the rate of return is proportional to how much space we give them, but they don't really say. Clearly we can make this more or less obnoxious depending on what size / qty. adds we enable. Can we make it suitably non-obnoxious is the big question for me. One good thing might be just a "Donations" link like a lot of oss web sites show. Make sure that it is clear that even small donations are appreciated (so that folks don't think they can't afford it). Do these sorts of "donation" links actually work? I'd be tempted to point the donations link to tsunami relief or other charities, but then I'd risk being political in my choice of organizations. With google, they get to take the heat. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Having experience of google adwords myself, I'd just like to make an observation: If you have a well designed website (such as flightgear.org) where all information is clearly laid out and you didn't employ any 'tricks' to make someone arrive at your site. ...chances are the 'visitor' has already found all the information they want and will not follow an ad link. As far as I can see, to actually produce revenue from adwords, you must need an annoying site that spams keywords to get page-views and hope that people will click the ads in self-defence just to get away from your site ;-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:39:07 -0600 Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > Is this worth looking into, or would it be crossing some sort of > open-source ethical line? I don't think it's crossing an ethical line. That doesn't mean we wanna do it, though; just that I don't think *that's* the reason not to. I remember this thread on banner ads from July; there may be some insightful points there: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2004-July/029398.html One question I have is how binding the agreement would be. Suppose after a couple of weeks of GoogleAds, everyone says "this sucks" and wants to get rid of them. Could we? Or would we be stuck with having them on the website for 3 months/6 months/a year because those were the terms of the agreement? I'd feel less favorable to them if I thought there was no way out if they turned out to be more trouble than they were worth. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpc4AjgQcXx1.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thursday 13 Jan 2005 22:33, Chris Metzler wrote: > One question I have is how binding the agreement would be. Suppose > after a couple of weeks of GoogleAds, everyone says "this sucks" and > wants to get rid of them. Could we? Or would we be stuck with having > them on the website for 3 months/6 months/a year because those were > the terms of the agreement? I'd feel less favorable to them if I > thought there was no way out if they turned out to be more trouble > than they were worth. > > -c There is no binding agreement to continue to run the ads for any pre-determined time. There is a binding agreement not to discuss the adwords system / payments (whoops) and all adwords accounts are subject to acceptance based on the content of the site. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Dave Martin wrote: Having experience of google adwords myself, I'd just like to make an observation: If you have a well designed website (such as flightgear.org) where all information is clearly laid out and you didn't employ any 'tricks' to make someone arrive at your site. ...chances are the 'visitor' has already found all the information they want and will not follow an ad link. As far as I can see, to actually produce revenue from adwords, you must need an annoying site that spams keywords to get page-views and hope that people will click the ads in self-defence just to get away from your site ;-) Here is a screen shot of about as unobstrusive of an add as I can configure: http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/tmp/fgfs-ads.jpg I did a quick test and I see that we would mostly be advertising MSFS related stuff, I'm not sure I like that or not. :-) I may fiddle with a few other things in the short term ... Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Dave Martin wrote: There is no binding agreement to continue to run the ads for any pre-determined time. There is a binding agreement not to discuss the adwords system / payments (whoops) and all adwords accounts are subject to acceptance based on the content of the site. Yes, we could bail at any time if: - We think it's too tacky. - Too many people get sick of it. - We get tired of peddling MSFS stuff - The return does not make any of the above points more tolerable. - Any other reason. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:52:36 -0500, Arthur wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ..the _how_ it is done, is vital. For example, if I check out a site, I like the text rendered _as_it_arrives_, not after all the "adz has sniffed out my non-Wintendo", and "if there are ads, they better be good", or, "if there are ads, there better be good reasons" etc. ..one ad that rotates by loading new ad content without ripping down the page as I read it, and that can be defeated by hitting [escape], is acceptable, as long as it doesn't disturb me reading whatever I happen to read. > I've been using AdSense for awhile now and the clickthough rate, at > least for me is very low on average. An average of 0.5%. That's with > about 4000 impressions. ..ok, 20 of 4000 people chks the link, how much is that worth? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Dave Martin wrote: There is no binding agreement to continue to run the ads for any pre-determined time. There is a binding agreement not to discuss the adwords system / payments (whoops) and all adwords accounts are subject to acceptance based on the content of the site. Ok, I'm done playing around with this for the day and have removed the test adds from our page. The adds we get from google aren't all that exciting or relevent ... it's not like the subject of our site is something interesting like farm tractors. If anyone else has thoughts let me know. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thursday 13 Jan 2005 22:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Dave Martin wrote: > >Having experience of google adwords myself, I'd just like to make an > >observation: > > > >If you have a well designed website (such as flightgear.org) where all > >information is clearly laid out and you didn't employ any 'tricks' to make > >someone arrive at your site. > > > >...chances are the 'visitor' has already found all the information they > > want and will not follow an ad link. > > > >As far as I can see, to actually produce revenue from adwords, you must > > need an annoying site that spams keywords to get page-views and hope that > > people will click the ads in self-defence just to get away from your site > > ;-) > > Here is a screen shot of about as unobstrusive of an add as I can > configure: > > http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/tmp/fgfs-ads.jpg > > I did a quick test and I see that we would mostly be advertising MSFS > related stuff, I'm not sure I like that or not. :-) > > I may fiddle with a few other things in the short term ... > > Regards, > > Curt. I'd avoid giving them 1st place on a side bar (breaks the site's 'feel') Second or third on the sidebar so they're almost half way down on a 1024x768 browser window usually looks best. The issue is that most people expect to find a menu of some sorts at the start of the left-blocks. Par example: A site that I designed and helped set up (looks a little dormant just now): http://www.bounce-gaming.net Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thursday 13 Jan 2005 22:50, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Dave Martin wrote: > >There is no binding agreement to continue to run the ads for any > >pre-determined time. > > > >There is a binding agreement not to discuss the adwords system / payments > >(whoops) and all adwords accounts are subject to acceptance based on the > >content of the site. > > Yes, we could bail at any time if: > > - We think it's too tacky. > - Too many people get sick of it. > - We get tired of peddling MSFS stuff > - The return does not make any of the above points more tolerable. > - Any other reason. > > Curt. I know that FlightGear is not big-business etc but I do believe that pedalling MSFS ads would be quite self-defeating. While every click thru might generate a few cents/pence every clickthru might also be a potential lost FGFS user who had yet to experience flightgear and may have been invaluable to the community. I think 'blacklisting' MSFS adverts would be prudent rather petulent ;-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On January 13, 2005 02:12 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: > Any particular reason you think the problem is just due to > laziness? No no, I was just trying to say that individual model can be made to be "watertight" if anyone decide to put one through those aerodynamic programs, and he/she will have to close the model manually instead of relying on some automated functions. No offense was intended. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:45:17 -0600, Curtis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Here is a screen shot of about as unobstrusive of an add as I can > configure: > > http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/tmp/fgfs-ads.jpg ..this looks like an ok ad size. > I did a quick test and I see that we would mostly be advertising MSFS > related stuff, I'm not sure I like that or not. :-) > > I may fiddle with a few other things in the short term ... ..keep fiddling. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:39:07 -0600, Curtis L. Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dumb question: do we want to investigate the possibility of adding > google adds to the FlightGear site? Is this out of bounds, or within > bounds for an open-source project. It's a potential revenue generator, > but it's unclear if it will generate $0.39 per month or $39.00 per month > or $390.00 per month. Maybe $39/month. I have a redirect page on my Web site to saxproject.org (many people use an old URL at megginson.com for SAX from books, stale pages, etc.). This page gets an enormous number of hits, so I decided to put Google adwords on it to let the page pay its own hosting costs. After 3-4 months, I got a cheque from Google for a bit over USD 200.00. In this case, I have a lot of people visiting who are just getting started with XML, so they're very likely to click on ads to get more information about XML-related things (and nearly all of the ads were highly relevant, the last time I checked). To get an idea of what kinds of ads would appear on the FlightGear home page, I went to Google and typed the search string "flight simulator". The ads on the right did not look too promising (they included a couple of warez sites for MSFS, among other things). I wonder if there are any better advertising options. I have no problem with the principle of running ads, and Google adwords certainly is easy to set up. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Friday 14 January 2005 00:14, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thursday 13 Jan 2005 22:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > Here is a screen shot of about as unobstrusive of an add as I can > > configure: > > > > http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/tmp/fgfs-ads.jpg > I'd avoid giving them 1st place on a side bar (breaks the site's 'feel') > > Second or third on the sidebar so they're almost half way down on a > 1024x768 browser window usually looks best. Or maybe on the right side, like Slashdot does? --Ivo ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Thursday 13 January 2005 23:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Here is a screen shot of about as unobstrusive of an add as I can > configure: > > http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/tmp/fgfs-ads.jpg > I don't like the place where this advertisement is set. The size is ok, but it should not be at the sidebar. I prefer it this way like in this example: http://tinypic.com/18ydn6 Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is this usefull for flightgear/jsbsim?
On January 13, 2005 09:27 am, Christian Mayer wrote: > The general wing geometry (i.e. the stuff you get from an 3-view) is one > thing. I don't use 3-view. > The the real profile of the wing is crucial here - and it's > AFAIK kept as an trade secret. That depends on how old the plane is: http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html Alternately, if you managed to get your hands on some technical documents on the aircraft, you may be able to get the information you need regarding the wing ribs' geometry. > Your models also won't have enough detail (= polygons) to reflect that > geometry in the needed detail (or they would be bad models for > visualisation...) Those models put into FlightGear definately don't have the detail required. But If the author keeps the original spline cage of the aircraft, it won't be difficult for he/she to come up with another model that does have enough polygons. However, it will be time consuming to make sure the model is completely one piece. Anyway, this may be useful for an engineering project of mine this term -- create a model glider. Will it be appropiate for me to ask for advice here? Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
"Curtis L. Olson" said: > I don't want to get caught up parsing nuances here. Commercial vs. > non-commercial is a continuum, but I'm not sure there is any "ethics" > attached to that. To some, nuances matter and to some commerial vs. non-commercial is in fact an ethic issue. Especially when it comes to advertising. That said I should add the disclaimer that I make a living in commerce. > I might be more concerned with "tacky" vs. > "non-tacky". I don't know if having a more commercial appearance is an > ethical issue ... it maybe an issue relating to what appearance we want > to convey, but to me it's not an ethical issue in and of itself. Now _that_ is a nuance of meaning. It seems that ethics are mostly about trust (relationships) and self esteem (doing the right thing) **, but appearances are meaningful (note that I will not be posting photos of my office). Just for giggles I typed "Ethical Appearance" into Google and this was the first link: http://www.character-ethics.org/articles/ethicalappearance.htm ** ok so I'm an athiest. > From our perspective, we don't care about the effectiveness of adds, > that's not our problem. ;-) There's an ethical perspective for ya. :-) > We don't have complete control over the content that get's advertised, > but we do have some control. We can filter out specific sites we don't > want, and we can filter out some broadbased categories, such as "adult" > adds or "death/chaos/war" adds. It's pretty much automatic and changes minute by minute. Ads that we are not proud of will show up from time to time. > The idea of google adds is not to display any random viagra or > low-rate-mortage advertisement, but target the adds based on the > specific content of the page using advance google search technology > (probably TM.) I understand the content placement methods. It isn't unique to Google either. Those snake oil examples were just illustrations of the fact that Google doesn't control the ads completely. They will remove ads from people doing bad things, but that happens after the ads start to run, not before. > I'm told there are several choices for how much space we give google, > supposedly we can do graphics or text only adds, even single vs. > multiple adds. I imagine that the rate of return is proportional to how > much space we give them, but they don't really say. > > Clearly we can make this more or less obnoxious depending on what size / > qty. adds we enable. Can we make it suitably non-obnoxious is the big > question for me. > You won't do anything tacky or obnoxious, no doubt of that from here :-) > Do these sorts of "donation" links actually work? I'd be tempted to > point the donations link to tsunami relief or other charities, but then > I'd risk being political in my choice of organizations. With google, > they get to take the heat. :-) Hehe...maybe we should do a donate to Google, Inc link? ;-) There are so many people doing these paypal donation links that it can't be too difficult. It might end up being nothing but maybe it'll help some. I'm willing to bet that folks on the lists would step up and send a paypal donation if a specific requirement came up. Some time ago I saw one site that actually kept a running total of donations, expenses, and anticipated needs. Maybe that wouldn't help, but it looked pretty cool. Sort of a little off topic: Something that would be really cool (at least in the US) is to have a registered non-profit that just collected donations (like United Way) and then uses those funds to make grants to individual projects like flightgear. I'm not sure of the legalities, but perhaps such an organization could accept tax deductable gifts from individuals that are directed to specific projects by the donor. Maybe there is already something like this? FSF supports official "gnu" projects, and allows a limited number of directed donations, but only at their discretion. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:14:50 - Jim Wilson wrote: > > Sort of a little off topic: Something that would be really cool (at > least in the US) is to have a registered non-profit that just collected > donations (like United Way) and then uses those funds to make grants to > individual projects like flightgear. I'm not sure of the legalities, > but perhaps such an organization could accept tax deductable gifts from > individuals that are directed to specific projects by the donor. Maybe > there is already something like this? FSF supports official "gnu" > projects, and allows a limited number of directed donations, but only at > their discretion. The one thing I'm aware of that's similar to this is Software in the Public Interest ( http://www.spi-inc.org/ ). Donations to SPI are passed on to free software projects that they've chosen to support (primarily Debian, the LSB, and the OSI). People can also make earmarked donations to SPI that are then passed on to the relevant organizations. SPI is a 501(c)(3) organization. I don't know how you get to be one of the projects they support. The Board of Directors is mainly made up of current or former Debianistas (Ian Jackson, Bruce Perens, and so on), and SPI is normally spoken-of in terms of being the donation route for Debian. I don't think it'd be a bad thing to contact them and see if FlightGear can get added to their list of supported projects -- it'd be a comparatively painless way to effectively have 501(c)(3) status. I expect the worst that can happen is for them to say "no, sorry, can't add you on." -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpyS0cnxZR2N.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Google adwords?
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Ok, I'm done playing around with this for the day and have removed the test adds from our page. The adds we get from google aren't all that exciting or relevent ... it's not like the subject of our site is something interesting like farm tractors. If anyone else has thoughts let me know. The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with the google adds for FlightGear. 99.9% of the adds are MSFS specific which doesn't send the message I want to send. I did make $0.67 this afternoon for the 30 minutes I had these turned on. It's enough to be tempting if you extrapolate that out over 24 hours or a whole month, but it's so dang annoying to see endless FS2002 and FS2004 adds ... all the links point to stuff that is not compatible with FlightGear. I'm kind of thinking I'll just leave this turned off for now. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] About scenery LODs in Flightgear
Hi Guys! I found here http://cg.cs.uni-bonn.de/docs/publications/2004/wahl-2004-scalable.pdf a lot of information about LOD Here is a citation: Repairing Cracks In case the LOD of two neighboring tiles differ, it is not sufficient to simply render the geometry. Even though the geometric errors between the tiles would fall below the pixel projection threshold, small cracks may become visible due to discretization in the rasterizer stage. But since the cracks are under screen space error control, there is no need to avoid them, they only need to be filled with the correct color. This is achieved by attaching a triangle strip along the border that reaches down the equivalent of one pixel. In this way, the holes are shaded consistently with the borders. What do you think about this? When I created aerial perspective scattering for flightgear I found that you have to visualize huge amount of data and 16 km range ( defalut for flightgear) give me huge errors in lightning computations if we have clean air ( no haze) we have to get 65 km or more visual range. in this situation LODs helps us a lot. And I propose to use normal maps (like in clouds) to give details for flat distant terrain. What do you think about it? Thanx in advance Roman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
