Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
"Curtis L. Olson" said: > > Hey, you never know; someone might decide their instrument display > hardware fits better in their cockpit upside down and then says ... oh > that's not hard to switch in software is it? > > Curt. > Was that the one was used by "Wrong Way" Feldman on Gilligan's island? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos
Light shower: http://www.fsaviation.com/~airvideo/a340/1a/a340/sinldg01.zip http://www.fsaviation.com/~airvideo/a340/1a/a340/shanghai.zip Heavy rain: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/735373/L/ Rapid descent with bank during final: http://www.fsaviation.com/~airvideo/a340/1a/a340/hkapp.zip www.a340.net Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Getting the right View position and orientation
Luca Masera said: > Hi everyone, > > I've added a particle system to FlightGear that simulates the smoke via a PLIB object > (I adapted the class ssgaParticleSystem to meet some requirements). > However, I've in trouble with billboarding. Used alone, with a PLIB's example, the code > that rotates the particles following the user movement's works right. In FlightGear, > instead, that code doesn't works and the particles follows the user only within a small > range of rotations (they move like the lens flare...). > > I think that the bug is into the code of rotation: it uses the MODELVIEW matrix, that > maybe doesn't works with the lookAt and lookFrom. > > There's a way to get the position and the rotation of the view (I've tried about all the > methods into the class FGViewer, but even when the view is rotated the data doesn't > change). If I could get them maybe I'll able to correctly rotate the > particles. > Hi Luca, It may help for you to explain more about what you are trying to do. Is this exhaust smoke from a moving aircraft model? Probably I'm the one to help you since I rewrote most of the viewer a couple years ago, but I just don't understand what you are asking. This is may not help, since I am guessing about what you are trying to do, but take a look at the code in SimGear/scene/model to see how to place an ssg object (ssgBranch) in the scene. This can be used for both stationary and moving objects. Is there anyone on the list who can translate to and from italian? Maybe that would help. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Config defaults for Simgear
Nick Coleman said: > While we're talking about cleaning up for V1.0, would it be possible for > Simgear's config default to include --with-jpeg-factory as the default? > FG's make always barfs if I forget to include this when I build > Simgear. > > Lol, I don't know what jpeg-factory actually does; looks like it runs > some sort of server since it appears to tie in with an httpd library. > Hi Nick, This was an old issue. Just the same, I followed up and found that there was no problem building without jpeg-factory using the latest cvs (the 0.9.8 release should be the same). You might try clearing simgear and it's header files out of the installation directories, then reinstall simgear (sans the jpeg-factory) and then reconfiguring and rebuilding flightgear. The flightgear configure script checks for the presence of the header and library file for jpeg-factory and reinstalling SimGear without jpeg-factory will simply leave the old versions there. I don't recall, but there may be a make uninstall option in SimGear. If not, the files that need to be removed are: $PREFIX/lib/libsg* and $PREFIX/include/simgear/*. $PREFIX defaults to /usr/local. FYI the jpeg-factory support, as you might have guessed provides support for displaying screen shots remotely in a browser window. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
Jim Wilson wrote: David Luff said: On 21/01/2005 at 18:02 Jim Wilson wrote: David Luff said: Hi all, I've commited a fix for the program crash when the piper model is not present, and apologise for that. Would a v0.9.8a release be in order? Just the base package maybe? Weren't there some file permission issues too? If it's just the base package then you'll need to re-add the pa28-161 - I've patched the source to be tolerant to it's non-existance. Cheers - Dave Oh man... time for another cup of coffee. I think I was just focused on the thought that we should've done a final pre-release with the last base package changes. Removing most of the Aircraft is a pretty major change. Maybe adding it back in is the best way though, rather than making everyone rebuild the executables. I've added the pa28-161 to the windows distribution, and will add it to the shared base package. We probably need to think more about how to select aircraft, where they will come from, suitable fall backs, etc. when it comes to the AI system and multiplayer code. 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] fgrun improvements
Jim Wilson wrote : Norman Vine said: but I don't see where setting the lat less then the ground elevation has any bearing on this < this sounds more like a parsing error > Norman Well, yeah, fgrun still needs to be fixed. The fix is in CVS -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] round robin mirror listing
I implimented a randomized mirror linking system in some of our download pages using server side includes (which was the first mechanism I figured out so I went with it.) If anyone runs into any problems with the system, please 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] Re: Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Nick Coleman wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:45:09 +0800 From: "Innis Cunningham" Hi All Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night with the panel upside down and no scenery even if you have noon selected in FGRUN. There is a switch in data/Aircraft/c172/c172-610x-null-set.xml that reads: .. true I don't know what the switch is for, but if you change it to 'false' the panel is the right-way up. Hey, you never know; someone might decide their instrument display hardware fits better in their cockpit upside down and then says ... oh that's not hard to switch in software is it? 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] Re: Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:45:09 +0800 > From: "Innis Cunningham" > > Hi All > Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm > that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night > with the panel upside down and no scenery even > if you have noon selected in FGRUN. There is a switch in data/Aircraft/c172/c172-610x-null-set.xml that reads: .. true I don't know what the switch is for, but if you change it to 'false' the panel is the right-way up. Don't know about the other problems though. Nick ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
On Friday, 21 January 2005 14:59, Frederic Bouvier wrote: > I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-) > The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is > threaded and doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to > show all the content of apt.dat.gz and check the availability afterward. I > am now thinking to check only against the first level of directories to see > if they lie in an existing 10x10 chunk ( eventually with special case for > the 2 1x1 chunks of the base package ). And rely more on the refresh button > already present than a systematic scan. Why not store the results of the scan and allow the user to rebuild the DB manually at a later stage? New users will 99% of the time run FG without installing extra scenery so the initial DB build will be VERY quick. Then when users add more scenery at a later stage they can build a new DB manually. I wrote this functionality into an app I was busy coding before I got sidetracked with other projects. http://surgdom.hollosite.com/flightgear/fg_central/index.html Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
On Friday 21 January 2005 11:06, Erik Hofman wrote: From c172-610x-null-set.xml Aircraft/c172/Panels/c172-610x-panel.xml true true Note the true tag. -- Roy Vegard Ovesen ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
Jim Wilson wrote: Maybe adding it back in is the best way though, rather than making everyone rebuild the executables. I wouldn't mind too much about that. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
On 21/01/2005 at 20:04 Durk Talsma wrote: >So time permitting I wouldn't mind having a stab at porting (some of) your >code to interact with the AIModel system, it that is okay with you. As I >mentioned yesterday, the taxiway code comes to mind. This approach might >actually be mutually benificial, if this would free up some time for you >to >work on taxidraw. Eventually, we need data for the AI system, such as, >taxiways and parkings/gates and taxidraw would be an ideal tool for that. >Let >me know what you think. > Yes, in principle that's fine by me. I'd like to keep the ATC system itself in it's own directory, but I'm happy for a significant portion, or possibly all of, the AI code to move over, and for you to 'take ownership' of it. I'm not sure how far you want to go in moving it over - some of the stuff is very AI/ATC interaction specific, such as the logic to fly circuits, respond to ATC instructions, and alter the circuit pattern in response to the user position (in theory anyway - one of the little blighters on downwind the other day was instructed by ATC to follow me in whilst I was about 2 mile final on straight-in. At about 1 mile final he cut in front of me, and caused me to get told to go around after taking a shade too long to clear the runway!). I'll have a mull over it this w/e and have a think about where a good cut-off point might be, and what API the AIModel code will need to expose to allow the 'intelligent AI' to continue to do what it does if left in the AI/ATC branch. Certainly, taxiing and 3D model creation and management would be good candidates for moving over to AIModels initially, leaving the heuristic GA generator and the circuit-flying/tower control interaction portions in the AI/ATC for now. The AIModel code would need to expose an API for the heuristic generator to call to generate appropriate traffic, and another API for the 'intelligent-flying' code to have sufficient control of the plane. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
David Luff said: > > > On 21/01/2005 at 18:02 Jim Wilson wrote: > > >David Luff said: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I've commited a fix for the program crash when the piper model is not > >> present, and apologise for that. Would a v0.9.8a release be in order? > > > >Just the base package maybe? Weren't there some file permission issues > >too? > > > > If it's just the base package then you'll need to re-add the pa28-161 - > I've patched the source to be tolerant to it's non-existance. > > Cheers - Dave > Oh man... time for another cup of coffee. I think I was just focused on the thought that we should've done a final pre-release with the last base package changes. Removing most of the Aircraft is a pretty major change. Maybe adding it back in is the best way though, rather than making everyone rebuild the executables. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
On Friday 21 January 2005 18:44, David Luff wrote: > On 21/01/2005 at 18:38 Durk Talsma wrote: > > > >Any thoughts? > > Yes, I'm still inclined to go this way (integration), but haven't had the > chance to dig into the AIModel code yet. The comments above were intended > to be somewhat generic, to be implemented in whatever method/branch I wind > up using. I guess I can comment more inteligently on this without the risk > of suggesting stuff that already exists once I've had a good dig into the > AIModel code, so I'll go and take a look... > > Cheers - Dave > I understand, it usually takes quite a bit of time to understand somebody else's code. I'm actually fairly fluent in understanding the most relevant parts of Dave's code (i.e. FGAIAircraft and FGAIFlightPlan classes). So time permitting I wouldn't mind having a stab at porting (some of) your code to interact with the AIModel system, it that is okay with you. As I mentioned yesterday, the taxiway code comes to mind. This approach might actually be mutually benificial, if this would free up some time for you to work on taxidraw. Eventually, we need data for the AI system, such as, taxiways and parkings/gates and taxidraw would be an ideal tool for that. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
On 21/01/2005 at 18:02 Jim Wilson wrote: >David Luff said: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've commited a fix for the program crash when the piper model is not >> present, and apologise for that. Would a v0.9.8a release be in order? > >Just the base package maybe? Weren't there some file permission issues >too? > If it's just the base package then you'll need to re-add the pa28-161 - I've patched the source to be tolerant to it's non-existance. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
David Luff said: > Hi all, > > I've commited a fix for the program crash when the piper model is not > present, and apologise for that. Would a v0.9.8a release be in order? Just the base package maybe? Weren't there some file permission issues too? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I can explain the bug to you. If you specify a lon/lat that lies on the *exact* border between two tiles (i.e. --lat=90 --lon=45) then at startup the ground intersection code can fail. This means that the scenery subsystem never returns a valid groud elevation. Oh. I didn't think of that possibility. Need to add 0.01 to the lat|lon if mod()== .00 to fix it. Stewart ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Norman Vine said: > > but I don't see where setting the lat less then the ground elevation > has any bearing on this < this sounds more like a parsing error > > > Norman > Well, yeah, fgrun still needs to be fixed. Just the same, fgfs should not loop because of a command line entry if at all possible. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
On 21/01/2005 at 18:38 Durk Talsma wrote: >On Friday 21 January 2005 16:51, David Luff wrote: >> I'd like to overhaul my loading of GA aircraft models properly - instead >of >> pulling them out of the installed aircraft, I think some dedicated AI >> models should be available to help avoid this kind of problem. Dave >Martin >> - do I remember you saying that you had done / intended to do low-poly >> count versions of the pa28 and c172 at some point? If so, they would be >> very useful. >> >David, earlier, I seemed to remember that you were leaning toward >integrating >your AI/ATC code with Dave Culp's AIModel code. In the light of this, >wouldn't it be a more feasable approach to start thinking about ways to do >this and eventually phase out your model animation code? I'm not >suggesting >you should do this, but in the light of your earlier mail, it would seem a >logical step. Any thoughts? > Yes, I'm still inclined to go this way (integration), but haven't had the chance to dig into the AIModel code yet. The comments above were intended to be somewhat generic, to be implemented in whatever method/branch I wind up using. I guess I can comment more inteligently on this without the risk of suggesting stuff that already exists once I've had a good dig into the AIModel code, so I'll go and take a look... Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
On Friday 21 January 2005 16:51, David Luff wrote: > Hi all, > > I've commited a fix for the program crash when the piper model is not > present, and apologise for that. Would a v0.9.8a release be in order? The > current package almost certainly crashes for everyone who doesn't have an > existing base package or extra aircraft installed, and Frederic's fix of > the surplus radio towers in downtown SFO is pretty important too. I too would welcome a bug-fix release shortly: I just got a bug report from Innis Cunningham that the traffic manager still crashes on windows machines. I had hoped I'd fixed this, but being a Linux developer myself, I don't have a real good opportunity to test any changes I'm making for windows versions. > > I'd like to overhaul my loading of GA aircraft models properly - instead of > pulling them out of the installed aircraft, I think some dedicated AI > models should be available to help avoid this kind of problem. Dave Martin > - do I remember you saying that you had done / intended to do low-poly > count versions of the pa28 and c172 at some point? If so, they would be > very useful. > David, earlier, I seemed to remember that you were leaning toward integrating your AI/ATC code with Dave Culp's AIModel code. In the light of this, wouldn't it be a more feasable approach to start thinking about ways to do this and eventually phase out your model animation code? I'm not suggesting you should do this, but in the light of your earlier mail, it would seem a logical step. Any thoughts? Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> Stewart Andreason wrote:
>
> > Jim Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> There are a couple bugs or at least they were there a week or so
> >> ago. One is
> >> just a mapping typo where latitude goes into both latitude and
> >> altitude. The
> >> other is under linux the fg-root and fg-scenery parameters don't get
> >> saved and
> >> passed on to fgfs (no prefs.set done) unless you hit previous to display
> >> page[0] (the function that processes page[0] saves those strings).
> >
> >
> > Ah, is this why fgfs get stuck in a freezing loop, when I give
> > latitude and longitude parameters at the command line?
> >
> > (Tries a few more runs)
> > Ah! that's it. If I give a --lat that is less than the ground
> > elevation, it freezes in a loop. and ignores the --altitude parameter.
> >
> > I believe I reported this Jan.11, but had not figured out the exact
> > conditions that triggered it.
> > Thanks Jim.
> >
> > A serious bug.
>
>
> I can explain the bug to you. If you specify a lon/lat that lies on the
> *exact* border between two tiles (i.e. --lat=90 --lon=45) then at
> startup the ground intersection code can fail. This means that the
> scenery subsystem never returns a valid groud elevation. Now the
> problem is that the flight dynamics model *needs* to know the ground
> elevation before it can position the aircraft. Complicating the matter
> is that when the FDM is first initialized the tiled scenery loader may
> not have the current tile loaded yet. So the FDM doesn't know if it's
> in a dead lock state or if it just needs to wait a bit longer for the
> threaded tile loader to catch up.
>
> The solution would be to make the ground intersection code more robust
> to this boundary condition, but I believe that might be burried deep in
> plib.
This might help
hitlist.cxx
inline static bool IN_RANGE( sgdVec3 v, double radius ) {
-return ( sgdScalarProductVec3(v, v) < (radius*radius) );
+return ( sgdScalarProductVec3(v, v) <= ((radius*radius) +FLT_EPSILON) );
}
but I don't see where setting the lat less then the ground elevation
has any bearing on this < this sounds more like a parsing error >
Norman
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Vivian Meazza wrote: Innis Cunningham wrote Hi All Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night with the panel upside down and no scenery even if you have noon selected in FGRUN. Nope - it's fine apart the panel upside down, and the aircraft up to its wings in water when started at KSFO :-) I think we might need ver 0.9.8a in a hurry. I'd do a 0.9.8a if someone sorted out the default Cessna 172. 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] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Innis Cunningham wrote > Hi All > Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm > that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night > with the panel upside down and no scenery even > if you have noon selected in FGRUN. > Nope - it's fine apart the panel upside down, and the aircraft up to its wings in water when started at KSFO :-) I think we might need ver 0.9.8a in a hurry. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Stewart Andreason wrote: Jim Wilson wrote: There are a couple bugs or at least they were there a week or so ago. One is just a mapping typo where latitude goes into both latitude and altitude. The other is under linux the fg-root and fg-scenery parameters don't get saved and passed on to fgfs (no prefs.set done) unless you hit previous to display page[0] (the function that processes page[0] saves those strings). Ah, is this why fgfs get stuck in a freezing loop, when I give latitude and longitude parameters at the command line? (Tries a few more runs) Ah! that's it. If I give a --lat that is less than the ground elevation, it freezes in a loop. and ignores the --altitude parameter. I believe I reported this Jan.11, but had not figured out the exact conditions that triggered it. Thanks Jim. A serious bug. I can explain the bug to you. If you specify a lon/lat that lies on the *exact* border between two tiles (i.e. --lat=90 --lon=45) then at startup the ground intersection code can fail. This means that the scenery subsystem never returns a valid groud elevation. Now the problem is that the flight dynamics model *needs* to know the ground elevation before it can position the aircraft. Complicating the matter is that when the FDM is first initialized the tiled scenery loader may not have the current tile loaded yet. So the FDM doesn't know if it's in a dead lock state or if it just needs to wait a bit longer for the threaded tile loader to catch up. The solution would be to make the ground intersection code more robust to this boundary condition, but I believe that might be burried deep in plib. 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] fgrun improvements
Jim Wilson wrote: There are a couple bugs or at least they were there a week or so ago. One is just a mapping typo where latitude goes into both latitude and altitude. The other is under linux the fg-root and fg-scenery parameters don't get saved and passed on to fgfs (no prefs.set done) unless you hit previous to display page[0] (the function that processes page[0] saves those strings). Ah, is this why fgfs get stuck in a freezing loop, when I give latitude and longitude parameters at the command line? (Tries a few more runs) Ah! that's it. If I give a --lat that is less than the ground elevation, it freezes in a loop. and ignores the --altitude parameter. I believe I reported this Jan.11, but had not figured out the exact conditions that triggered it. Thanks Jim. A serious bug. Stewart ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:33:37 +, Dave Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But I think the main problem will be simulate drops on wind screen and > > windscreen wipers. > > My question here: When does pilots use them(whipers)? only on take-off and > > landing or on route too? > > Thanx in advance > Most light-aircraft are not fitted with wipers and instead rely on direct > airflow from the prop (SEP) or often on multi-engine they have a ducted > air-blower but this is mainly for keeping the screen clear of ice regardless > of the aircrafts known-icing clearance. Just as Dave said. I'd also like to add that there's no such thing as drops on the windscreen in flight -- you're going way to fast for that, even in a slow plane like the 172 or Warrior (even my Warrior cruises over 230 km/h. Extremely heavy rain can sheet over the windscreen, but normally, the drops just follow the boundary layer around the outside of the cabin and appear to fly past horizontally at high speed (snow can be very dramatic that way, with the sun reflecting off each flake as it flies by). On the ground, water drops on the window of a single engine plane often run upwards, from towards the top of the windshield, because of the prop blast. 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] fgrun improvements
Frederic Bouvier said: > To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from > Curt, > I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping them > hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the command > line textfield ( it could also be move to the Advanced section ). > > For the moment, my shortlist for basic options is : > > --geometry ( with a combo box of standard resolutions ) > --time-of-day > --(en/dis)able-game-mode > --(en/dis)able-random-objects > --(en/dis)able-ai-models > --(en/dis)able-auto-coordination > --(en/dis)able-real-weather-fetch > --(en/dis)able-horizon-effect > --(en/dis)able-enhanced-lighting > --(en/dis)able-specular-highlight > > and optionally > --atlas ( with default options ) > --3d-clouds ( perhaps. they are not finished but are sometimes gorgeous ) > --multiplayer > > I also want to have better resizing to have a more professional look. > > Also it would be nice to be able to fetch and install aircraft and scenery > directly from the master server ( a "add new" button that connect via http ). > Maybe it would require that the script that generate the aircraft download > page > also generate an XML file that could be remotely parsed to ease aircraft > selection. > > Comments welcome > This sounds great. A couple things I could add: 1. Make the label for the game mode check box say "Game Mode (Full screen)" as many non-developers don't understand what game mode means. 2. Include the geometry in an easy place and make it two textboxes so to look something like this: Length [ ] X Width [ ], then let the app concact the string. 3. It would be nice to specify default values at build time. On a system that has no fgrun.prefs, the c172p should come up selected and the KSFO airport should come up selected. We could change those if they were handled as build parameters. Basically fgrun should have something set there instead of nothing. I understand that flightgear will use its own defaults, this is just for user interface value. Alternatively (I'm not familiar with how fltk works) maybe we could install a static fgrun.prefs at a system wide level (/etc on linux, /windows/system32 on windows) and fall back to that if the local user copy does not exist. 4. The view target offsets (if they are available) might help with the model preview window. Right now the aircraft with origin at the nose are rotating about the nose which looks a little odd. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed but the b105 from 0.9.8 is a tiny little spec in the preview window. I haven't checked but I think that there might be a renegade vertex in the model hanging out several hundred units from the origin. Bugs: There are a couple bugs or at least they were there a week or so ago. One is just a mapping typo where latitude goes into both latitude and altitude. The other is under linux the fg-root and fg-scenery parameters don't get saved and passed on to fgfs (no prefs.set done) unless you hit previous to display page[0] (the function that processes page[0] saves those strings). It is great to see more work going into this excellent program. I'll download cvs and test what your doing and maybe help with a couple things. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] AI piper load fix - v0.9.8a needed?
Hi all, I've commited a fix for the program crash when the piper model is not present, and apologise for that. Would a v0.9.8a release be in order? The current package almost certainly crashes for everyone who doesn't have an existing base package or extra aircraft installed, and Frederic's fix of the surplus radio towers in downtown SFO is pretty important too. I'd like to overhaul my loading of GA aircraft models properly - instead of pulling them out of the installed aircraft, I think some dedicated AI models should be available to help avoid this kind of problem. Dave Martin - do I remember you saying that you had done / intended to do low-poly count versions of the pa28 and c172 at some point? If so, they would be very useful. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Innis Cunningham wrote: Erik Hofman writes Innis Cunningham wrote: Seeing this is probably the first aircraft a new user will try what a great advert.A panel that is upside down in the middle of the night with no engines running and no obvious way of getting them started. I mean if the idea is to discourage people from using FG I could not think of a better way. Reading all the other threads currently runing talking about making FG user friendly and the new version has this.At least the 737 works maybe it should be the default aircraft and then when people have mastered it they can move onto something more difficult like the 172. You seem to neglect the fact that there are certain special purpose models around that are not designed for use by the average user but that is very useful for what it's designed for. I guess this then begs the question what is a special purpose model doing in a release version. Just out of curiosity what purpose does a half submerged 172 serve. Are we working on an emergency rescue scenario. :-) We *really* need someone to go through and sort out the C172 tree(s) ... or start from scratch with a clean directory and pull in pieces as needed from the existing bramble bush, and when the new one is all working we can retire the older stuff. 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
[Flightgear-devel] Getting the right View position and orientation
Hi everyone, I've added a particle system to FlightGear that simulates the smoke via a PLIB object (I adapted the class ssgaParticleSystem to meet some requirements). However, I've in trouble with billboarding. Used alone, with a PLIB's example, the code that rotates the particles following the user movement's works right. In FlightGear, instead, that code doesn't works and the particles follows the user only within a small range of rotations (they move like the lens flare...). I think that the bug is into the code of rotation: it uses the MODELVIEW matrix, that maybe doesn't works with the lookAt and lookFrom. There's a way to get the position and the rotation of the view (I've tried about all the methods into the class FGViewer, but even when the view is rotated the data doesn't change). If I could get them maybe I'll able to correctly rotate the particles. Hi, Luca 6X velocizzare la tua navigazione a 56k? 6X Web Accelerator di Libero! Scaricalo su INTERNET GRATIS 6X http://www.libero.it ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos
On Saturday 22 Jan 2005 01:14, Roman Grigoriev wrote: > Thanx Martin for you reply! > I looked on pc7 - so good but you understand that it's simple texture > scrolled over cabin. > The main problem for fgfs - refuse to use shaders and over cool things and > we have not state-of-the-art rendering for uor super flight dynamics. I > don't want to offend you but it's true. > to my rain simulation: > thing i've done - blur OTW view based on distance (render to texture and > then gaussian blur on fragment shader ) looks good but haven't seen rain > drops. > to simulate it I deside to use particle system that will be connected to > aircraft. > Thanx Dave for your observations I try to implement it. > But I think the main problem will be simulate drops on wind screen and > windscreen wipers. > My question here: When does pilots use them(whipers)? only on take-off and > landing or on route too? > Thanx in advance > Bye Wipers are typically only used during takeoff / landing and taxying for large jets. IIRC, on the early 737s, the wipers don't have the 'guts' to counteract the airflow over a certain speed. Most light-aircraft are not fitted with wipers and instead rely on direct airflow from the prop (SEP) or often on multi-engine they have a ducted air-blower but this is mainly for keeping the screen clear of ice regardless of the aircrafts known-icing clearance. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos
Thanx Martin for you reply! I looked on pc7 - so good but you understand that it's simple texture scrolled over cabin. The main problem for fgfs - refuse to use shaders and over cool things and we have not state-of-the-art rendering for uor super flight dynamics. I don't want to offend you but it's true. to my rain simulation: thing i've done - blur OTW view based on distance (render to texture and then gaussian blur on fragment shader ) looks good but haven't seen rain drops. to simulate it I deside to use particle system that will be connected to aircraft. Thanx Dave for your observations I try to implement it. But I think the main problem will be simulate drops on wind screen and windscreen wipers. My question here: When does pilots use them(whipers)? only on take-off and landing or on route too? Thanx in advance Bye - Original Message - From: "Dave Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "FlightGear developers discussions" Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:48, Roman Grigoriev wrote: > > Hi guys! > > I try to model rain and snow in flightgear but have some difficutlies > > because I haven't seen it in real flight from cabin of aircraft. Maybe > > someone can explain me some features when you have take-off or landing in > > rain and snow. Is it similar to car? Or maybe someone have videos or > > photos? Thanx in advance > > Bye > > > > > > ___ > > Flightgear-devel mailing list > > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > > I think it was Erik had a model working with the PC-7 for rain. > > Essentially, rain or snow almost immediately appears to be coming straight at > you in 'tunnel' effect the moment that the aircraft begins moving into it. > > If you slip the aircraft, the centre of the tunnel effect moves toward the > direction of slip. > > Rain specifically also has the effect of an 'upward waterfall' on windscreens > which are not actively cleared - spreading towards the outside edges at the > top. > > > Another thing is scenery textures for snowfall - I had a go at looking for > ways to make the default scenery appear to be covered in snow but I haven't > found anything all that convincing yet. > > Dave Martin. > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] EU Software Patents *Fisheries* A-List Monday (Again)
Sorry to be spammy again but I'm still firmly of the belief that this is something that could affect FlightGear or any other FOSS in future. The EU Council is once again pushing the patent bill back onto the A-List of the *Fisheries and Agriculture* meeting on Monday. This is *extremely* underhand and I am personally furious at such erosion of the democratic system in Europe. The Council has obviously realised that they could push this for a Monday meeting without having it discovered until the preceeding Friday making counteraction hard. From the FFII: >On Monday, software patents are likely to be passed by the >Fisheries and Agriculture Ministries. > >Dear FFII supporter [1], > >at the Agricultural Council's meeting next Monday, the >Software Patent Directive is likely to be inserted into the >list of agenda items in the last minute. The aim seems >to be to preempt ongoing efforts in the European >Parliament for a restart of the procedure. [2] > >Please write today to your minister of Agriculture, >Fisheries and other political representatives, >and ask to have the software patent directive taken off >the agenda. > >Usable argumentation can be found on the webdemo >page at > > http://www.ffii.org/index.en.html > >Kind regards, Felix Klee, Holger Blasum Please note, this method is being used (abused) to get an entirely unmoderated bill passed. If you are an EU Citizen and feel you want/need to help then please, at least sign the FFIIs protest letter: http://demo.ffii.org/cons0501/support_ltr.php Text of the letter: http://demo.ffii.org/cons0501/letter.html Many Thanks Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
Quoting Innis Cunningham: > "Curtis L. Olson" writes > > > >Innis, > > > >I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did > >notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, > >capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, > >perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? > > Thanks Curt and yes I am runing windows. > But if there was a line ending problem would this have not showed up > in 9.6 and 9.5.In these versions it runs without trouble. The ac loader has been overhauled and many features were added, and regressions or stricter checked could have sneak in. Send me privately this model if you want me to test on the windows platform with adequate debugging tools. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
> > > ..hell no! Point these assholes to any good Islamic site to show'em > > > how these Religious Righteous Spammers Errs as humanoids. > > > > You should not generalize, > > ..hell yeah, you're right, what I meant was any good Islamic shows how > most people are "primitive muslims who are nearly there", and advocates > ... This thread reached its useful end-of-life around 30 posts ago. Can we let it die? Please? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
"Curtis L. Olson" writes Innis, I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? Thanks Curt and yes I am runing windows. But if there was a line ending problem would this have not showed up in 9.6 and 9.5.In these versions it runs without trouble. Curt. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:44:50 +, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thursday 20 January 2005 17:03, Jon Stockill wrote: > > Dave Martin wrote: > > > And anyway, everyone knows how to get to heaven; just keep > > > pulling up! :-P > > > > Downloading Lee's Canberra model first may help :-) > > I don't think it quite reaches it's altitude performance yet ..who sez that isn't correct? ;o) http://www.rowanatkinson.org/devil_sketch.htm -- ..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] menu problems (was v1.0 musings)
On 20/01/2005 at 19:42 Stewart Andreason wrote: >I've had my attitude indicator on the panel get stuck 30 degrees off >level, and Debug.Reload Panel doesn't reset it. Something else perhaps >is... broken as a feature? Once again, Reset doesn't fix it. > This is a feature - apparently uncaged gyros really do this in real-life at, erm, attitudes and accelerations outside of the 'normal' flight envelope - aerobatic aircraft have special gyros to avoid this. It gradually comes back after 5 minutes or so. I don't think that debug.reload panel should reset it - that's designed to reload the textures and instrument models to aid panel development I think - not to override the instrument physics and output. It ought to be re-set to it's initial, working, condition during a reset though. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Quoting Erik Hofman: > Frederic Bouvier wrote: > > > I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-) > > The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is > threaded and > > doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to show all the > content > > of apt.dat.gz and check the availability afterward. I am now thinking to > check > > only against the first level of directories to see if they lie in an > existing > > 10x10 chunk ( eventually with special case for the 2 1x1 chunks of the base > > package ). And rely more on the refresh button already present than a > > systematic scan. > > Now that we use apt.dat (X-Plane format) it would be possible to walk > the list and get the lat/lon of the aircraft (first two parameters of > the runway definition if I'm not mistaken). This allows you to search in > for the proper directory right away instead of checking every airport in > every directory. As scenery are packed by chunked of 10x10 degrees, it seems useless to check deeper inside the scenery tree. And at least we could start at heliport locations that are in apt.dat but not in the scenery. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Erik Hofman writes Innis Cunningham wrote: Seeing this is probably the first aircraft a new user will try what a great advert.A panel that is upside down in the middle of the night with no engines running and no obvious way of getting them started. I mean if the idea is to discourage people from using FG I could not think of a better way. Reading all the other threads currently runing talking about making FG user friendly and the new version has this.At least the 737 works maybe it should be the default aircraft and then when people have mastered it they can move onto something more difficult like the 172. You seem to neglect the fact that there are certain special purpose models around that are not designed for use by the average user but that is very useful for what it's designed for. I guess this then begs the question what is a special purpose model doing in a release version. Just out of curiosity what purpose does a half submerged 172 serve. Are we working on an emergency rescue scenario. :-) Erik Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:08:16 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > ..hell no! Point these assholes to any good Islamic site to show'em > > how these Religious Righteous Spammers Errs as humanoids. > > You should not generalize, ..hell yeah, you're right, what I meant was any good Islamic shows how most people are "primitive muslims who are nearly there", and advocates science and education rather than Osama's and George's return to the Dark Ages. ;-) -- ..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] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:35:37 -0600, Curtis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If people aren't satisfied with the ultimate resolution, then you are > by all means free to create an alternative mac package to which I > will freely link from the downloads page. ..I get the impression this is as simple as taking Athurs package, rip out the Jesusing, thank Arthur for preliminary packaging as per the GPL and just re-zip his package, does it even need to be done on a Mac box? -- ..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] fgrun improvements
Erik Hofman wrote: Now that we use apt.dat (X-Plane format) it would be possible to walk the list and get the lat/lon of the aircraft (first two parameters of Make that airport Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Frederic Bouvier wrote: I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-) The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is threaded and doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to show all the content of apt.dat.gz and check the availability afterward. I am now thinking to check only against the first level of directories to see if they lie in an existing 10x10 chunk ( eventually with special case for the 2 1x1 chunks of the base package ). And rely more on the refresh button already present than a systematic scan. Now that we use apt.dat (X-Plane format) it would be possible to walk the list and get the lat/lon of the aircraft (first two parameters of the runway definition if I'm not mistaken). This allows you to search in for the proper directory right away instead of checking every airport in every directory. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
On 21/01/2005 at 13:16 Frederic Bouvier wrote: >To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from >Curt, >I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping >them >hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the >command >line textfield ( it could also be move to the Advanced section ). > >For the moment, my shortlist for basic options is : > >--geometry ( with a combo box of standard resolutions ) >--time-of-day >--(en/dis)able-game-mode >--(en/dis)able-random-objects >--(en/dis)able-ai-models >--(en/dis)able-auto-coordination >--(en/dis)able-real-weather-fetch >--(en/dis)able-horizon-effect >--(en/dis)able-enhanced-lighting >--(en/dis)able-specular-highlight > >and optionally >--atlas ( with default options ) >--3d-clouds ( perhaps. they are not finished but are sometimes gorgeous ) >--multiplayer > >I also want to have better resizing to have a more professional look. > >Also it would be nice to be able to fetch and install aircraft and scenery >directly from the master server ( a "add new" button that connect via http >). >Maybe it would require that the script that generate the aircraft download >page >also generate an XML file that could be remotely parsed to ease aircraft >selection. > >Comments welcome > It would be nice if fgrun could detect when Map/Atlas were installed, and have an option to create the maps of the installed scenery using Map (with a warning that this might take a while!). Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
Quoting Martin Spott : > Frederic Bouvier wrote: > > > Comments welcome > > Great ideas, just one little concern: What measures are applied to > identify which airports should show up in the selection list ? Consider > a user has installed most of the world scenery, is FGrun then going to > parse the whole scenery to see which airports are present ? I don't > think so, because it will take too much time. > To my impression FGrun looks at the base scenery directories and > decides which airports lie in the present scenery areas (according to > the airport database). Now what about those airports that are present > in the airport database but not part of the senery - as all those > helipads that, as you told, are now excluded from the scenery ? > When I tried the 0.9.8 Win32 package I chose Alcatraz from the list in > FGrun and noticed, that the field is actually not present in the > scenery - this could be fixed, I forgot this one. It is not an improvement though, rather a fix ;-) The scenery scan is done every time and is very long although it is threaded and doesn't prevent you to launch flightgear. Curt suggested to show all the content of apt.dat.gz and check the availability afterward. I am now thinking to check only against the first level of directories to see if they lie in an existing 10x10 chunk ( eventually with special case for the 2 1x1 chunks of the base package ). And rely more on the refresh button already present than a systematic scan. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
Innis, I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? Curt. Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All As you may or maynot be aware Ampere Hardraade and I are building the A380 for FG but when I went to put the A380 folder into the Aircraft folder in 9.8 and run the sim I get this fault "failed to load aircraft from Aircraft/A380/XML /A380.xml". fallig back to glider.ac. Now you may notice that the aircraft file is not in the models folder as I think was a requirement a couple of versions back. But this has worked fine in both 9.5 and 9.6.In fact I uninstalled 9.8 and reinstalled 9.6 and moved the A380 folder into it.It worked fine I then uninstalled 9.6 and reinstalled 9.8 moved the A380 into the Aircraft folder and ran the sim but it came up with the same error message. This is probably a slightly unusual model in that the total model is made up of both .ac and .3ds files(fuselage,gear & fin .ac wing,engines and horizontal stabilizer 3ds)but this works fine in 9.6. Another thing is the model shows up fine in the FGRUN selection window but not in the sim. So has something been inadvertently changed that FG will not accept this path to the model in 9.8?. I also wonder if anybody has had anyhting like this with installing downloaded aircraft in 9.8. Besides the small problem above this is a great sim, getting almost 70 fps sitting on 28R at KSFO on a 2gig atholon with 512 memory and nvidia FX5200 graphics card. So a big thank you to all those involved. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- 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] fgrun improvements
Frederic Bouvier wrote: > Comments welcome Great ideas, just one little concern: What measures are applied to identify which airports should show up in the selection list ? Consider a user has installed most of the world scenery, is FGrun then going to parse the whole scenery to see which airports are present ? I don't think so, because it will take too much time. To my impression FGrun looks at the base scenery directories and decides which airports lie in the present scenery areas (according to the airport database). Now what about those airports that are present in the airport database but not part of the senery - as all those helipads that, as you told, are now excluded from the scenery ? When I tried the 0.9.8 Win32 package I chose Alcatraz from the list in FGrun and noticed, that the field is actually not present in the scenery - this could be fixed, 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] Aircraft downloads
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:27:42 +, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ..this looong post with unsnipped quotes is a FG licensing FAQ candidate, so I don't snip this time. > On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to > > > > > non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS > > > > > have been done by people who want to ensure that their > > > > > work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to > > > > > make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial > > > > > organisations. Some people also like to include > > > > > non-violence conditions. > > > > > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free > > > > source code license gives the author more control over his > > > > code, also for commercial or military use. > > > > > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free > > > > to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or > > > > Trolltech with Qt. > > > > > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not > > > always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit > > > for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it > > > (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten > > > on the bum). > > > > .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression > > It's not just FUD. If you fail to foresee all the possible ways > that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, > can specifically permit something that you don't want. ..such as? > It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have > accepted conditions in a licence. ..ah, a feature. ;o) > I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the > abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these > issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific > licence. .. > > > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need > > > for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work > > > (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). > > > I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to > > > fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me > > > to give it to you. > > > > ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) > > I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:) > > But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at > all. It's just a permission to use. ..precisely that permission, is a license. Licenses does not have to be unlimited, and may even be conditional. They cease being licenses and become contracts as you require your contractual "licensee" to say or do a certain act, such as click "ok" to enter into said contract. ..all Microsofts End User License Agreement's are contracts. > > > > > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set > > > fire to it, I won't give it to you. > > > > ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your > > license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, > > have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper > > plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can > > circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your > > ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording > > your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) > > :) > > One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with > your automobile. If a friend offers to let you use their > automobile do you demand a licence before accepting? ..that offer of a permission is an offer of a license. > Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you > manage to interpret the licence you demanded? ..you confuse licenses with contracts. Very common, and what FUDmeisters want happening. > > > > > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even > > > though I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the > > > > > GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the > > > > > lack of control over the work once released under the > > > > > license, I can't > > > > > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under > > > > the GPL. > > > > > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no > > > control over what anyone else does with what I've released > > > under the GPL. > > > > ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ > > work. > > Yep. > > > > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that > > > > > control. > >
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Quoting Erik Hofman : > Innis Cunningham wrote: > > > Seeing this is probably the first aircraft a new user will try what a > > great advert.A panel that is upside down in the middle of the night > > with no engines running and no obvious way of getting them started. > > I mean if the idea is to discourage people from using FG I could not > > think of a better way. > > Reading all the other threads currently runing talking about making FG > > user friendly and the new version has this.At least the 737 works maybe > > it should be the default aircraft and then when people have mastered it > > they can move onto something more difficult like the 172. > > You seem to neglect the fact that there are certain special purpose > models around that are not designed for use by the average user but that > is very useful for what it's designed for. But this is an advanced feature that is proposed to average users, and near the top of the list in fgrun. So dependencies really needs to be sorted out to be able to remove that option from the default package. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Innis Cunningham wrote: Seeing this is probably the first aircraft a new user will try what a great advert.A panel that is upside down in the middle of the night with no engines running and no obvious way of getting them started. I mean if the idea is to discourage people from using FG I could not think of a better way. Reading all the other threads currently runing talking about making FG user friendly and the new version has this.At least the 737 works maybe it should be the default aircraft and then when people have mastered it they can move onto something more difficult like the 172. You seem to neglect the fact that there are certain special purpose models around that are not designed for use by the average user but that is very useful for what it's designed for. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] fgrun improvements
To bring fgrun to 1.0 quality grade, and after receiving suggestions from Curt, I am now planning to add basic options to the wizard instead of keeping them hidden behind the Advanced button. Maybe by reducing the size of the command line textfield ( it could also be move to the Advanced section ). For the moment, my shortlist for basic options is : --geometry ( with a combo box of standard resolutions ) --time-of-day --(en/dis)able-game-mode --(en/dis)able-random-objects --(en/dis)able-ai-models --(en/dis)able-auto-coordination --(en/dis)able-real-weather-fetch --(en/dis)able-horizon-effect --(en/dis)able-enhanced-lighting --(en/dis)able-specular-highlight and optionally --atlas ( with default options ) --3d-clouds ( perhaps. they are not finished but are sometimes gorgeous ) --multiplayer I also want to have better resizing to have a more professional look. Also it would be nice to be able to fetch and install aircraft and scenery directly from the master server ( a "add new" button that connect via http ). Maybe it would require that the script that generate the aircraft download page also generate an XML file that could be remotely parsed to ease aircraft selection. Comments welcome Regards, -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Erik Hofman writes Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night with the panel upside down and no scenery even if you have noon selected in FGRUN. The fullscreen Cessna is supposed to start without the scenery. I don't know why the panel i upside down though. Seeing this is probably the first aircraft a new user will try what a great advert.A panel that is upside down in the middle of the night with no engines running and no obvious way of getting them started. I mean if the idea is to discourage people from using FG I could not think of a better way. Reading all the other threads currently runing talking about making FG user friendly and the new version has this.At least the 737 works maybe it should be the default aircraft and then when people have mastered it they can move onto something more difficult like the 172. Cheers Innis Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Paul Surgeon wrote: > A simple list of direct links will suffice in my opinion and be a lot easier > to autogenerate from a script. I created my FTP mirror to comply with the directory structure of the primary FTP site, so I'm fine with such a list, 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] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in
"Giles Robertson" wrote: > 1) Fgrun/fgfs. > For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so > far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design > philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the > program doesn't make sense to them; they expect to be able to run > flightgear, and for it to present a menu that reads something like "New > flight"/"Saved Flight"/"Options"/"Exit". [...] > 3) ATC/AI > This may just be my group of friends :P, but many of them find it much > more fun and interesting if there are other aircraft in the world, and > if they can communicate with ATC. Well, I've recently seen people using M$FS with the VATSIM network to fly in a multiplayer environment - indeed a very nice thing once you have it up and running. After you've watched such a procedure you come to the conclusion that lots of M$FS users must be _really_ tough because it's a PITA to get the correct versions of the required utilities running in the right order. After participating in this event I'm not so convinced if you really need a coherent UI in order to score in the Windows world > * [Bug] FGFS seems to revert to KSFO if it can't find the selected > runway at the selected airport. To my impression there are lots of small nits that _could_ be ironed out if people would care. I know, I am a bit ill-reputed for my 'nit-picking' but most of what has brought me this reputation is not driven by the desire to annoy developers but instead the intention to reduce the number of pitfalls in FlightGear. Unfortunately posting a comment on what I think would be some sort of 'inconsistency' in FlightGear typically results in general silence regarding the respective topic. In most cases I am not able to fix bugs myself, I don't even have the understanding on how certain details work in FlightGear, so the utmost I can do is to explain my concern as precise as my knowledge of the English language allows. Hunting for bugs was an accidentally result of my aim to get to know the 'habits' of FlightGear in order to adjust The Manual to reality. As I don't have much time to spend for FlightGear this resulted mostly in trying out FlightGear functions and lack of time to tweak the manual. This process would have been much easier if I didn't have to repeat a bug report several times until I get any sort of feedback. -> If FlightGear wants to release a 1.0 version that really deserves this release number then someone would have to install a better handling of bug-reports. I don't intend to offend anyone, I know that ressources are very limited. This is just my opinion (and explanation) on what is missing for a 1.0 release. Cheers, 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] aircraft required to start
On 21/01/2005 at 10:05 Jim Wilson wrote: >Frederic Bouvier said: > >> Stewart Andreason a écrit : >> >> > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. >> > >> > > fgfs >> > >> > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open >> > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' >> > for reading >> > Abort >> > >> This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from >> the standard distribution. It is available on the website though. >> > >Any chance the AI could be intelligent enough to silently load a different >model or skip it altogether if the ac file isn't there? > That would make sense. I've never worked with exceptions before - only failure indicated by function return value. What's the general gist - if I wrap my call to the load aircraft function in try.. catch blocks and then handle the exception will it stop the "Failed to load aircraft" and "Abort" messages currently getting to teh screen? Oh, and BTW, the reason the AI system initialises even when turned off is so that the user can turn on the traffic from the AI/ATC menu whilst running the sim. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
Am Freitag 21 Januar 2005 08:59 schrieb Frederic Bouvier: > Stewart Andreason a écrit : > > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. > > > > > fgfs > > > > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open > > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' > > for reading > > Abort > > This plane is required by the AI/ATC module Which in turn has implications for the standard aircraft selection *hint* Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] curve direction.
Am Donnerstag 20 Januar 2005 21:56 schrieb Curtis L. Olson: > This is kind of off today's topic, but I have an unrelated question. > > Working in 2d space, given 3 points, I know how to compute a circle > (center/radius) that passes through those three points. Now I need to > compute the direction of curvature of the 3 points. In other words, > moving from the 1st point through the second point to the 3rd point, is > the direction of the circle clockwise (curving right) or counter > clockwise (curving left.) Just take the cross product of the vectors 1->2 and 1->3 (any 2 vectors will work, if you ensure a consistent selection). This should give a vector of the form (0 0 z). The sign of z gives the rotation direction. Since this is a special case this simplifies to: dx1 = x2 - x1 dx2 = x3 - x1 dy1 = y2 - y1 dy2 = y3 - y1 z = dx1*dy2 - dx2*dy1 Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erik Hofman schrieb: > Christian Mayer wrote: > >> The first point is argueable. But that we need a restart just to change >> planes is a big show stopper! > > > It depends on the goals for 1.0. If you want a version that is easy to > use for the end user then you might be right. If v1.0 is aimed for a > completely working standalone simulator program (maybe even certified) > then it's not such a big deal. > > I guess the 1.0 release is aimed at the first though. To get it certified the version number itself doesn't matter. But an end user sees the version number as an indicator if the software is ready or not. And that's what will be used to measure us. A version 1.0 *must* have an ergonomic UI. CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB8NlslhWtxOxWNFcRAu2RAJ0SEqv1eMvtnsDANJllLqBGGwJ/XgCeLC+O T5DjbmK+pBaTGfSgTCMvqmo= =TJNa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night with the panel upside down and no scenery even if you have noon selected in FGRUN. The fullscreen Cessna is supposed to start without the scenery. I don't know why the panel i upside down though. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
Christian Mayer wrote: The first point is argueable. But that we need a restart just to change planes is a big show stopper! It depends on the goals for 1.0. If you want a version that is easy to use for the end user then you might be right. If v1.0 is aimed for a completely working standalone simulator program (maybe even certified) then it's not such a big deal. I guess the 1.0 release is aimed at the first though. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Giles Robertson schrieb: > 1) Fgrun/fgfs. > For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so > far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design > philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the > program doesn't make sense to them; they expect to be able to run > flightgear, and for it to present a menu that reads something like "New > flight"/"Saved Flight"/"Options"/"Exit". I'm not saying this is the way > we should go, but I'd like to note that many users, when presented with > the current method, get *very* confused, especially by the absence of a > flight planner. Many also find restarting FlightGear in order to change > aircraft counterintuitive The first point is argueable. But that we need a restart just to change planes is a big show stopper! Your other points are valid. But none are thus counterintuitive than the need to restart FGFS. CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB8NRUlhWtxOxWNFcRAphiAKCV0GNXaKkeU5qVRex8FDJtvntPNwCgsg5Q /oeR83fj089dFTSe1B2eIGQ= =bsh8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
Frederic Bouvier said: > Stewart Andreason a écrit : > > > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. > > > > > fgfs > > > > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open > > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' > > for reading > > Abort > > > This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from > the standard distribution. It is available on the website though. > Any chance the AI could be intelligent enough to silently load a different model or skip it altogether if the ac file isn't there? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172 problem in 9.8
Hi All Could someone who uses FGRUN to start FG confirm that the 172 fullscreen hi res Cessna starts at night with the panel upside down and no scenery even if you have noon selected in FGRUN. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erik Hofman schrieb: > Christian Mayer wrote: > >> As religions differ greatly around the globe (even in the countries >> themselfes) there'll people who helped with their work that have their >> belive at least not represented (and probably even are offended by the >> content) > > > It almost makes me want to some citations from James Bond (as described > by his godfather Ian Fleming) and the holy spirit (shaken not stirred) > which undoubtedly will be the next religious trend due to the > spectacular ways he hes been saving the world. LOL!!! CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB8MtxlhWtxOxWNFcRArlDAJ9aAQjKvTp94uFff69iCYteC/zNdACfWLD+ WPGBEjB9oLtBs5yHuFfDkR4= =8PGn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
--- Andrew Midosn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I notice that no-one is assuming that this could > have > been an innocent mistake. I accept that it is > unlikely, but it wouldn't be the first time that a > file has been included in a software release in > error. > I would agree that it is entirely inappropriate for > this file to be distributed with FlightGear, but has > anyone asked the package maintainer if they intended > the file to be included? Sorry - I really must finish reading ALL of my mail before replying. I see that this has already been covered, so I'll shut up again now. :-) Regards Andrew ___ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
Stewart Andreason a écrit : It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. > fgfs WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' for reading Abort This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from the standard distribution. It is available on the website though. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
