Re: [Flightgear-devel]
On Saturday 09 Jul 2005 11:10, Martin Spott wrote: > Oh, sorry this was intended to be a private EMail, Well, if my comprehension of it was any indication, it pretty much was :-) AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Code Typo?
On Wednesday 06 Jul 2005 20:50, Patrick Quirk wrote: > In file Main/viewer.cxx, in function MakeVIEW_OFFSET(...), on line ~118 > where the third matrix is being made, there is the following line: > tmp = t * axis2[1]; It's still in there... You don't have to do a cvs checkout to view the current state of any file, by the way, there's an interactive browser at http://cvs.flightgear.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/viewcvs.cgi/FlightGear/?cvsroot=FlightGear-0.9 Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] clickable panel button release event
On Thursday 30 Jun 2005 23:20, Josh Babcock wrote: > Is there a way to get button-release events from the clickable panels, > or do they just sense a button-press and touch off the command then? I > want to make some instantaneous switches for the B-29. Like the fuel gauge in the Spitfire? AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Opengl rendering
On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:34, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > I was thinking of using some pixel shader for one or two effects. > But before starting anything like that I first want to know if : > 1) people have program shader capable cards (ie FX5200+ or ati9500+) Personally speaking, no, I don't; I've a lowly MX420 which has been perfectly adequate for my use so far. However > 2) you think it's a good idea to enhance a bit some visual aspect of > Flightgear or you think that only simulation count > and all the rest is useless eye candy ;) That's not to say that if the eye candy was available in FG I wouldn't upgrade to take advantage of it! I don't think there's any doubt that the "physics" and avionics simulation is the most important thing in this particular project. At the same time, the visual aspects are not unimportant, as they are also a big part of the overall "feel". So long as the eye candy is easily disabled by those with creaking hardware, it can only be an improvement in my view. AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2005 17:18, Josh Babcock wrote: > I have found that 3-views are good for laying out the basic shapes, but > to really get a model right you need lots of reference photos. The > quality of these photos makes a big difference too. I would recommend > starting the model, then once you know what parts are confusing go take > your own photos. I'm beginning to find that you're right; to get the lightning wings looking even reasonable, I've been using a plethora of photos, mostly from airliners.net. The 3-views are just completely muddled on an item like that. It's quite addictive this 3d stuff... I've done simple modelling for CFD work in the past, but producing something you're actually interested in and can fly at the end of it (if one ever reaches that stage) is much more fun! AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2005 08:47, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > Still not tempted by a Bucc? ;-) Oh well, one mustn't be greedy! > Yes - I went as far as to look at a cockpit section at the Manston Museum > last year. Daunting! Certainly... It didn't take me long to decide that I certainly wasn't going to manage a Bucc as a first attempt! They're not short of difficult-looking curves. > I was also put off by the arrangements of BLC, blown > flaps etc. I haven't abandoned the idea yet, but lack of technical data is > holding me back. There is a bit more stuff available on the web now than there was about a year ago when I last looked, but I don't know of the pilot's notes being around anywhere. I really struggled to find 3-views of any worth on the web too, but found pretty reasonable ones at http://www.airwar.ru/other/drawe.html - it seems like a pretty good resource (and has a couple of Sea Vixen drawings too). Apologies if everyone else already knows about it! > I'm researching the Sea Vixen right now. 14 (yes 14!) fuel > tanks, and a tail which is linked to the flaps (as was the Buccaneer's). > All very complex. So far I've only modelled aircraft for which I've had > access to the pilot's notes, and, in the case of the Seahawk and Hunter, a > pilot. It is a pretty interesting plane, I've a few clips from the British Pathe site which feature the Sea Vixen. I don't directly know any Buccaneer pilots, although I do slightly know the father of one. There must be plenty of them still about though, since it's only been out of service ten years! > I use AC3D - I dislike Blender with a passion - too complex and > non-intuitive. I gave up in frustration. The latest AC3D has some nice > features. Others can do great things with Blender - Melchior can make it > sit up and beg. Funnily enough, I surprised myself by what I was able to produce "by sight" in Blender, random household objects etc. Producing something reasonably exact from 3-views has proved a completely different story though... > Have you seen the recent Aeroplane magazine? It has comprehensive series of > articles on the Lightning: excellent source data. I haven't, no. Will look out for it though, thanks. > Keep at it - it just takes time - you can hijack most of the Hunter > instruments for the interior. If I ever reach that stage, I will! > > I must confess I didn't, but if I get a chance tomorrow, I'll give it a > > go. Well, I've tried it and the sky hasn't fallen on my head yet, seems to work as advertised. Will continue to test it, but no ill effects noticed yet... AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
On Tuesday 14 Jun 2005 22:57, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Is this in roll only? The ailerons are much more powerful, but also damped. > There shouldn't be any rapid movement in the ailerons, but the stick > reflects the input. Look at the ailerons in an external view - are they > jumping around too? Yes to both - it's in roll only (although once the plane is bucking around like that, pitch starts to become involved as well!) I was wondering if the wind moving ailerons, e.g. at rest on the ground (is that even modelled?) moved the stick but obviously if the stick represents what my joystick input is, then that's the problem. > There is the gyro effect of the prop, and the tail is offset to compensate, > but it shouldn't be too difficult. Try the rudder trim. Yes, I was assuming that those effects should be controllable fairly easily; although I've certainly not flown a Hurricane or Spit (or anything other than a Bocian, for that matter!) the amplitude of this effect feels entirely out of proportion with "reality" even as modelled in the rest of the sim. > What joystick are you using? I have to say that I suspect a hardware > problem by your description. So do I, which is why I was tentatively checking that I'm not just a completely useless pilot (although that's probably still true :-) It's a cheap (and fairly nasty) analogue stick made by InterAct. And it's almost nine years old. Looks like it's time to spend a few quid then! I normally fly the Hunter though and it doesn't show any misbehaviour unless I've forgotten to calibrate the stick first, which is why I've not investigated further before. > Sea Hurricane next, when I've done with this one. Then back to re-work the > Spitfire and Hunter. Probably a year's work! Still not tempted by a Bucc? ;-) Oh well, one mustn't be greedy! I'm currently attempting a Lightning, using AC3D rather than Blender this time, with tips from the (pretty good) series of tutorials posted here a short time ago. So far I've got a fuselage, tail and 80% of the wing done and looking almost reasonable, which is a whole lot more than I've managed before... whether or not it turns out to be remotely near releasable quality remains to be seen! Are most you (or most people here) using AC3D or something else? > Did you try the yasim.diff yet (posted to the list earlier) - if you > haven't I would be grateful for any feedback - it shouldn't break anything, > and enables several other features such as the boost gauge and the Boost > Control Cutout. The modified supercharger output should make landing much > easier too. I must confess I didn't, but if I get a chance tomorrow, I'll give it a go. Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
On Monday 13 Jun 2005 15:14, Vivian Meazza wrote: > There remains some more eye-candy to do: nav lights, beam approach marker > lamps, realistic rad and oil temperature readings etc. In the meantime I > would be grateful for any comments, not least that it all downloads and > installs correctly! Installed the version from today's CVS and it seems to run fine here (Linux-x86 & Nvidia). I have to say I had high expectations after the Hunter and Spit, and you haven't disappointed! There are so many nice touches that I've noticed already. One thing (not necessarily a bug) that I've sometimes found with the both Spit and the Hurricane is that they can be incredibly "over-twitchy"; this might well be directly related to my rather rubbish joystick. It seems that fairly often the stick is flicking about wildly in the cockpit, usually to one side in particular, and no amount of leaning on it is enough to resist that pull. Is this by design (crosswinds/prop wash, + nervous handling) or is it just that my stick is rubbish (it does give constantly "flickering" values, even when calibrated correctly) and that the sensitivity is set higher than usual for these planes? I haven't noticed any trouble with the hunter/seahawk etc, I can manage things like carrier landings with these OK. I'm Looking forward to the next plane already! Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Jsbsim-devel] crash]
On Saturday 11 Jun 2005 21:28, Gerard Robin wrote: > Sorry ,I probably, missed something but i have no access to CVS respective > changelog entry, You can subscribe to the flightgear-cvslogs mailing list or check the archive here; http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-cvslogs/ Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Airports Data + Zoom + SHIPs
On Tuesday 07 Jun 2005 23:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1) I am using FGFS Version 0.9.4, I noticed that the Airport Data file > extensions changed to tgz, does the data can be used on the version 0.9.4. Have you any reason not to upgrade? There's been a fair amount of improvement since 0.9.4 really. > 3) Is there others boats, or just the sail boat? There's a working aircraft carrier! (it's working in CVS at least, I'm not certain about the last release.) It's great, by the way, those of you who worked on it - really impressive. Yet another way to have fun with the excellent Hunter and Seahawk! The way it travels through land is a bit disconcerting, mind you ;-) AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Colditz Glider
On Sunday 05 Jun 2005 16:41, Josh Babcock wrote: > Smarter "instrument" > Shadow > .ac tweaks That's a really nice model - the textures are great, as is the animated yaw-string. Makes me wish I had the ability to produce these things - I do regularly try, but always give up in disgust quite quickly! I might manage a building or two one of these days though. Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [ANN] Blender 2.37
On Thursday 02 Jun 2005 23:30, Sam Heyman wrote: > Can one create a new texture > using Blender? I would like to paint my aircraft (RC UAV) white and have 2 > blue stripes on the wings, the trouble is I have no idea where to start... I am just the opposite of an expert on these matters, but I think the general idea is that you actually create the textures in something like the GIMP and you can apply them using Blender. Which I've just figured out how to do myself... A basic guide on how to produce textured ground objects (say a building) for flightgear preferably using Blender and Gimp since they're cross-platform and free would be very useful indeed. The general ideas can be learned from the wealth of blender tutorials out there, but something specific would be great. I'm just feeling my way around myself at the moment, and not qualified to write it! Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Anyone likes helping with italian scenery?
On Friday 27 May 2005 21:01, Oliver C. wrote: > First, installing CGAL systemwide is a nightmare, so i decided against it > to do that. Probably wisely. At least, I did the same... > After that i went back to compile fgsd. > But now i get the following compiler error: > The used gcc version is 3.3.4. If you'd read the README you'd have seen a note to that effect; apparently 3.2 and 3.4 are OK, but 3.3 produce this error. No, I didn't read the README either, until after I'd found this out the hard way! Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Anyone likes helping with italian scenery?
On Thursday 26 May 2005 19:56, Martin Spott wrote: > Aaah, don't bet on that. I managed to built all prerequisites but now I > get an "internal compiler error" when compiling FGSD sources - and I > don't have a different platform/compiler available :-/ This stopped me too. After fiddling with it for ages, I finally gave in and read the README. Quoted directly... "First, the bad news : g++ v3.3.x is unable to compile fgsd correctly. It produces internal Compiler Errors" Bah. Whoever reads these things first, anyway? :-) I also tried the win32 version under WINE which works without crashing, but is unusable due to some problem with the "ordering" of layers in the interface, the green background covers everything. AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
