Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
David Megginson wrote: > Erik Hofman writes: > > > Well, I know that (for instance) mustang pilots had to land > > side-slipping, and taxi zig-zagging to get an eye on the runway. > > Forward slipping, probably (since that would have the plane's axis at > an angle to the runway, while a side slip would have it lined up). Ah, I didn't know that. I'm still working my way through the (english) terminology. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Erik Hofman writes: > Well, I know that (for instance) mustang pilots had to land > side-slipping, and taxi zig-zagging to get an eye on the runway. Forward slipping, probably (since that would have the plane's axis at an angle to the runway, while a side slip would have it lined up). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
* Jim Wilson -- Sunday 30 June 2002 17:03: > This is way beyond the trouble I'm seeeing with my Voodoo3. What cpu are you > running? i686 (266MHz) Fast enough for most of what I'm doing (and even fast enough for some commercial FlightSims from the dark side), but it's hardly fast enough for fgfs. But this isn't a new problem, anyway, it has nothing to do with the new 3D panel. The 2D panels aren't any better. The only difference is/was, that I could turn these off. > Go into Aircraft/A4/Models/a4-blue.xml and remove the > reference and that will get rid of it for now. Ooops, yes. I didn't even look there. Of course, I don't want to turn the panel permanently off. After all I'll have to set all the navigation stuff and such. But usually I turn it off before I start, and on again when I've left the airport and there is less terrain detail. The missing fog is a more serious problem, and it isn't a4 specific. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > So that is why fgfs doesn't work right any more on my Voodoo3. :-( > > I don't see any fog/haze now. Instead I can see very far and watch the > tiles being dropped in. I can still reduce the visibility, and after hitting > Shift-Z a couple of times the fog comes back, but it doesn't match the > internal visibility. The tile loader does now think that the visibility > is next to zero and refuses to load new tiles before I'm crossing > the tile border and entering the tile. That makes flying quite unpleasant. > I don't see the airports soon enough. Additionally it slows down my > frame rate. > > Another less optimal thing is, that I cannot turn the intruments off in > the a4. My computer is too slow for scenery =and= instruments, and I > mostly fly with HUD only. As it is now, the a4 is dead for me. What a > pity, I really liked it. :-( This is way beyond the trouble I'm seeeing with my Voodoo3. What cpu are you running? Go into Aircraft/A4/Models/a4-blue.xml and remove the reference and that will get rid of it for now. But like I said, I'm having no problems at all with framerate, scenery, etc. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Jim Wilson wrote: > Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>But I also goofed and checked in some of my private changes. The >>eyepoint is slightly higher, allowing the pilot to look straight down >>the nose as I believe is true for the real aircraft (it radically >>improves visibility at high AoA's). > > You probably haven't noticed but I've been inching it up just for that reason > :-) However, studying quite a few photos, it's amazing that pilots can see > anything other than straight ahead through that target window, even at low > AoAs. I keep thinking there has to be an error there...but the photos all > show the pilot's helmut is at about the right height and the panel in about > the right place. Been using the helmut as a guid for placing the eye. Well, I know that (for instance) mustang pilots had to land side-slipping, and taxi zig-zagging to get an eye on the runway. I can't possibly imaging that an A4 needs the same, but who knows. On the other hand, in real live a pilot is able to move his/her body and head to the side to gain a better look. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
* Andy Ross -- Friday 28 June 2002 21:47: > But the Voodoo cards have thinner depth buffers, and > I'm using a pretty large offset value to begin with. Let me tune a > little and see how much smaller I can make it. So that is why fgfs doesn't work right any more on my Voodoo3. :-( I don't see any fog/haze now. Instead I can see very far and watch the tiles being dropped in. I can still reduce the visibility, and after hitting Shift-Z a couple of times the fog comes back, but it doesn't match the internal visibility. The tile loader does now think that the visibility is next to zero and refuses to load new tiles before I'm crossing the tile border and entering the tile. That makes flying quite unpleasant. I don't see the airports soon enough. Additionally it slows down my frame rate. Another less optimal thing is, that I cannot turn the intruments off in the a4. My computer is too slow for scenery =and= instruments, and I mostly fly with HUD only. As it is now, the a4 is dead for me. What a pity, I really liked it. :-( m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Of course, a real pilot would be able to physically move his head by a > few inches. Yes and actually they can move their head left a right a bit to see better too. I'm not opposed to fudging things a bit to allow for the limitations of flying on a PC. For example, if real dimmensions were used on the intrument layout it'd be really tough to fly (you'd have to constantly be moving the mouse around to change the view offset). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Jim Wilson wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > But I also goofed and checked in some of my private changes. The > > eyepoint is slightly higher, allowing the pilot to look straight > > down the nose as I believe is true for the real aircraft (it > > radically improves visibility at high AoA's). > > You probably haven't noticed but I've been inching it up just for that > reason :-) However, studying quite a few photos, it's amazing that > pilots can see anything other than straight ahead through that target > window, even at low AoAs. I keep thinking there has to be an error > there...but the photos all show the pilot's helmut is at about the > right height and the panel in about the right place. Been using the > helmut as a guid for placing the eye. Maybe we're interpreting the photos differently? From the ones I've seen, the location of the pilots eye traces a straight line over the panel cover and straight down the nose at about 16° or so. The top of the oval windscreen is almost directly in front of the eyepoint. This allows for an approach at 13.5° AoA with some room to spare looking over the nose. I'm pretty sure that's about right. It certainly "feels" correct. Of course, a real pilot would be able to physically move his head by a few inches. If he sits with his helmet against the rest, he will obviously have less visibility. I'm assuming his neck is in "approach configuration", tilted slightly forward for best over-the-nose viewing. Andy -- Andrew J. RossNextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Also, by way of the A-4 cockpit: I checked in an AoA indexer "mini > panel" last night that sits up by the windscreen edge as an example of > having more than one 3D panel. There's not geometry to go with it > yet, just a texture floating in the air. Cool! I'll check it out. > But I also goofed and checked in some of my private changes. The > eyepoint is slightly higher, allowing the pilot to look straight down > the nose as I believe is true for the real aircraft (it radically > improves visibility at high AoA's). You probably haven't noticed but I've been inching it up just for that reason :-) However, studying quite a few photos, it's amazing that pilots can see anything other than straight ahead through that target window, even at low AoAs. I keep thinking there has to be an error there...but the photos all show the pilot's helmut is at about the right height and the panel in about the right place. Been using the helmut as a guid for placing the eye. > Also, I deleted the mag compass, > as the real aircraft must have one, but not in that location. Actually in the few fuzzy photos of it, I've seen the compass about there and sometimes a little to the right. I think it gets moved around quite a bit so, not sure where it was in the a-4f or the blue angel. In any case its gotta be somewhere in that area as there really is no other place for it in that tiny cockpit. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Jim Wilson wrote: > We could probably have a bool property for that. I tried disabling it > in the code and found that it didn't fix the problem I'm seeing with > the AI globe. > > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/a43d-panel.png > > Note that one of the polys for the AI backplate has picked up a > texture from one of the instruments (upper right of AI). That's very odd, and I don't see it. You could try crawling through the .ac file and making sure that the weird texture isn't referenced by a stray polygon, but off hand I'd say this is a driver bug. Also, by way of the A-4 cockpit: I checked in an AoA indexer "mini panel" last night that sits up by the windscreen edge as an example of having more than one 3D panel. There's not geometry to go with it yet, just a texture floating in the air. But I also goofed and checked in some of my private changes. The eyepoint is slightly higher, allowing the pilot to look straight down the nose as I believe is true for the real aircraft (it radically improves visibility at high AoA's). Also, I deleted the mag compass, as the real aircraft must have one, but not in that location. Apologies if this gets in the way of something you're doing; feel free to back it out. Andy -- Andrew J. RossNextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jim Wilson wrote: > > One thing I'm wondering is if we can do away with the background > > texture in the 3-D panel. Do we need it or can the "backplane" always > > be part of the model? Not sure if this would fix the problem with the > > 3-D model/instrument or not. > > There's no real need for the "panel" to have a background in a 3D > environment. It makes more sense, IMHO, for the background texture to > be part of the model geometry. I think that right now the background > (multi-)texture is required, but that'll be easy to fix. > We could probably have a bool property for that. I tried disabling it in the code and found that it didn't fix the problem I'm seeing with the AI globe. http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/a43d-panel.png Note that one of the polys for the AI backplate has picked up a texture from one of the instruments (upper right of AI). And the face of the backplate is otherwise transparent.Also the various indicator arrows are all but invisible. There is a line evident under the AI and above to the left (these are from the side of the instruments mounting backplate. It doesn't appear to be a depth precision issue. Moving the panel out so it is hovering over the runway doesn't change a thing on the AI instrument. Moving the AI instrument has no effect either. And removing some of the 3-D AI's layers doesn't help. But, if I remove the panel entirely from the model config the 3-D AI instrument renders normally again: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/a43d-nopanel.png Any idea what we're looking at? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 15:54, Andy Ross wrote: > Jim Wilson wrote: > > One thing I'm wondering is if we can do away with the background > > texture in the 3-D panel. Do we need it or can the "backplane" always > > be part of the model? Not sure if this would fix the problem with the > > 3-D model/instrument or not. > > There's no real need for the "panel" to have a background in a 3D > environment. It makes more sense, IMHO, for the background texture to > be part of the model geometry. I think that right now the background > (multi-)texture is required, but that'll be easy to fix. That will definately require LOD then, because if it's used for panel background it would have to be detailed, but you won't want all that detail outside the aircraft. Thanks, David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9HZjiZOfFgbBAbXARAtNPAKCbF4d46zABJDt5wgRFax91AArroACfaNcY EZgQpfEmZD247SXFqMP8UJI= =Dfd8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Jim Wilson writes: > This is in the c172: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c1723d-panel-1.png > Looks like the 3D panel is raised up off the panel's "plane" a bit (you can > see the yoke sort of in the middle of the RPM guage in this shot). Yes, that's my fault. I raised it a bit so that the mag compass face would show up. The right solution will be to make the mag compass its own panel with a different x offset, or (even better) a 3D object. Feel free to play around. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: 3d Panel problem
Jim Wilson wrote: > One thing I'm wondering is if we can do away with the background > texture in the 3-D panel. Do we need it or can the "backplane" always > be part of the model? Not sure if this would fix the problem with the > 3-D model/instrument or not. There's no real need for the "panel" to have a background in a 3D environment. It makes more sense, IMHO, for the background texture to be part of the model geometry. I think that right now the background (multi-)texture is required, but that'll be easy to fix. Andy -- Andrew J. RossNextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
