Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
On Tuesday 12 February 2002 09:31 pm, you wrote: > Can we try to make a decision of what aircraft are going to be in the 0.7.9 > release, and then get them ready with panels, sounds and models? This way > everything it ships with will be good. Thanks, > > David > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel David, As always, licensing is an issue for 3d models. As a compromise I've been including all the markup in the set files so that users only need download models from Wolframs site, unzip them and drop 'em in. TTYL John ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
> As always, licensing is an issue for 3d models. As a compromise > I've been including all the markup in the set files so that users > only need download models from Wolframs site, unzip them and drop > 'em in. That's why we need to create models for each of the aircraft before we ship 0.8. David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
David Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I believe it may be time for us to make a decision on what aircraft are going > to be in FGFS stable 1.0. At the moment there is lot's of work on lots of > different aircraft, but it will take a long time to get them perfect. Maybe > it would be a good idea to make a decision on what's going in 1.0, and > getting them perfect in terms of panels, models, and dynamics in plenty of > time for 1.0. For some aircraft this would require new features in view of > getting them ready. This is a good point, but one of the attractions of open development is having the opportunity to decided exactly on what you want to work on, without the usual concerns that go with work for income. That said I think that four or five excellent models would be a great showing for a 1.0 release. > My choice would be two heavy airliners, four light aircraft training > planes(cessnas, pipers, small twins). A few nostalga aircraft(like spitfires > or whatever), a couple of transport aircraft, and a couple of > experimentals(X-15 and shuttle maybe). Excellent suggestions. Tackling such a range is good for improving the FDM's, laying the ground work for more contributions. A small jet would be good as well, like an embrier business class jet (a very cool looking plane imo) or even something smaller like a citation. Having a modler (based on ppe or something else) desinged for doing buildings and aircraft well would be a good thing to include and would probably generate a strong user/development base. BTW I have the X15 with all the parts labeled. If someone is interested in doing the xml for animations I'll put it in cvs (it's based on the gear down version). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
"Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Excellent suggestions. Tackling such a range is good for improving the > FDM's, laying the ground work for more contributions. A small jet would be > good as well... > > BTW I have the X15 with all the parts labeled... Due to the upcoming anniversary, it'd be REALLY nice to release the stable Version 1.0 with the Wright Flyer as well, if that can be done (and get it out before Micro$oft. :-) Derrell ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 13:32, you wrote: > David Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I believe it may be time for us to make a decision on what aircraft are > > going to be in FGFS stable 1.0. At the moment there is lot's of work on > > lots of different aircraft, but it will take a long time to get them > > perfect. Maybe it would be a good idea to make a decision on what's going > > in 1.0, and getting them perfect in terms of panels, models, and dynamics > > in plenty of time for 1.0. For some aircraft this would require new > > features in view of getting them ready. > > This is a good point, but one of the attractions of open development is > having the opportunity to decided exactly on what you want to work on, > without the usual concerns that go with work for income. That said I think > that four or five excellent models would be a great showing for a 1.0 > release. You can. But it just won't be part of the official distrobution, unless decided by the rest of the team. You look at MSFS. They release a dozen good quality aircraft that demonstrate the capabilities, then anyone else can release whatever they want as addons. There's no reason we can't catelogue addon aircraft of flightgear.org, but there would be no "guarantee" that they are good. The official aircraft would have to be good, and validated. Thanks, David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8+Zjux58m2d272NoRAp8uAKCewcHCNFQ/wJqORhM8eJu7EWZiewCgvuoY biMdp18ZBHyeFlhbDbDl4MY= =h+Vz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:36:52 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Excellent suggestions. Tackling such a range is good for improving > > the FDM's, laying the ground work for more contributions. A small > > jet would be good as well... > > > > BTW I have the X15 with all the parts labeled... > ..hear, hear! ;-) > Due to the upcoming anniversary, it'd be REALLY nice to release the > stable Version 1.0 with the Wright Flyer as well, if that can be done > (and get it out before Micro$oft. :-) .. ;-) ..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of these fly in _formations_ into Oshkosh, Wi, every EAA Convention, I proposed a few years to these guys, that WWII style 'combat box' formations would be more fun to watch and to fly, as it packs more planes into the air, than one hundred 3-plane vee's. Adding to the show, could be having some chuck out "flak" firecrackers, and some other people trail smoke "after taking flak hits". ..crowds loves such shows, however wise aviators needs to learn this can be done safely, and I believe a few hundred networked FG flying generic Bonanza's with detailed performance data "read off FAA N-number records", might help decide whether or not to do it in RL. ;-) ..but _after_ the Wright Flyer, please. ;-) -- ..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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
> ..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of Mooney didn't build the Bonanza, Beechcraft did. I have to admit though, a huge formation of forked-tail doctor killers would be a cool thing to see. :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
On Saturday 01 June 2002 11:32 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: > BTW I have the X15 with all the parts labeled. If someone is interested in > doing the xml for animations I'll put it in cvs (it's based on the gear > down version). > I beleive I committed that model. I could be wrong J ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
On Sunday 02 June 2002 5:16 pm, Gene Buckle wrote: > > ..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of > > Mooney didn't build the Bonanza, Beechcraft did. I have to admit though, > a huge formation of forked-tail doctor killers would be a cool thing to > see. :) > > g. > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 19:15:32 -0400, John Check <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sunday 02 June 2002 5:16 pm, Gene Buckle wrote: > > > ..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of > > > > Mooney didn't build the Bonanza, Beechcraft did. I have to admit > > though, a huge formation of forked-tail doctor killers would be a > > cool thing to see. :) > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. .. ;-) ..I'm abit confused; these Bonanza's? range in size from 1 seat upwards, Mooney Mite? Could it be Beechcraft took over Mooney? These planes are singles, nosewheel, dates back from the late 50 - early 60 thru I believe mid 80, sports both V-tails and conventional tails, was used for initial training in both the USAF (and USN? and/or US Marines), T-34? Also seen V-35 as type ID's for some these planes. Sleep first then check. -- ..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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 19:15:32 -0400, > John Check <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sunday 02 June 2002 5:16 pm, Gene Buckle wrote: > > > > ..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of > > > > > > Mooney didn't build the Bonanza, Beechcraft did. I have to admit > > > though, a huge formation of forked-tail doctor killers would be a > > > cool thing to see. :) > > > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. > > .. ;-) > > ..I'm abit confused; these Bonanza's? range in size from 1 seat > upwards, Mooney Mite? Could it be Beechcraft took over Mooney? Don't think so. No mention in news reports that I have seen mention Beechcraft. They have had a very interesting history that doesn't appear on their web site: 1929: (Albert & Arthur) Mooney Aircraft Corp, Bridgeport Machine Co, 600 E 35 St, Wichita KS. 1946: Mooney Aircraft Inc, Kerrville TX. 1947: Mooney Aircraft Corp. 1955: Mooney Bros quit their interest to go with Lockheed design dept, but name continued with acquired rights. 1965: Mooney-Mitsubishi Aircraft Inc. 1967: Acquired production rights to Ercoupe from Alon Aircraft Co. Early 1969: Bankruptcy and sale to American Electronics Labs, with no production. Late 1969: Acquired by Butler Aviation, who ended operations in June 1971 with no aircraft production. 1970: Renamed Aerostar Aircraft Corp. 1974: Mooney Aircraft Div, Republic Steel Corp, acquisition of rights and tooling. Resumed production Jan 1, 1975. 1978: Mooney Mite Aircraft Corp (kits and plans only), Charlottesville VA. 1984: Merged with French distribution firm (Alexander Couvelaire). July 2001: Bankrupcy filed. Mar 2002: Acquired by AASI as Mooney Aircraft Co Inc div of Mooney Aerospace Group Ltd. No mention of Beech anywhere. Regards, Charlie H. -- "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
> No mention of Beech anywhere. Beech is now a division of Raytheon. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
All this talk of some *past* combination of Bonanza / Mooney is interesting in light of *today's* news (from the current issue of AvWeb -- www.avweb.com): OUR INCESTUOUS INDUSTRY: MOONEY EYES BARON, BONANZA... Mooney Aerospace Group (MAG), of Kerrville, Texas, has confirmed it's looking at buying Raytheon's piston-engine division, which builds Bonanzas and Barons at a plant in Wichita, Kan. MAG was recently acquired (and so named) by Advanced Aerodynamics and Structures Inc., which secured its initial investor capital from the yet-to-be-produced JetCruzer. The MAG / Raytheon discussions are preliminary in nature but Mooney spokesman Nelson Happy told the Wichita Eagle the Beech products would be a "natural fit" with Mooney's. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
> On Sunday 02 June 2002 5:16 pm, Gene Buckle wrote: > > > ..also, how about a _generic_ Mooney Bonanza? About 300 of > > > > Mooney didn't build the Bonanza, Beechcraft did. I have to admit though, > > a huge formation of forked-tail doctor killers would be a cool thing to > > see. :) > > > > g. > > > > > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. That's the name given to the V tail Bonanza. Another fun one is the Piper "Traumahawk" which is officially the "Tomahawk". Its nightmarish spin characteristics earned that moniker. (from the pilots that survived to name it anyway) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
> ..I'm abit confused; these Bonanza's? range in size from 1 seat > upwards, Mooney Mite? Could it be Beechcraft took over Mooney? > These planes are singles, nosewheel, dates back from the late > 50 - early 60 thru I believe mid 80, sports both V-tails and > conventional tails, was used for initial training in both the > USAF (and USN? and/or US Marines), T-34? Also seen V-35 as > type ID's for some these planes. Sleep first then check. > Mooney and Beechcraft are totally different companies. V35 is the "V" tail Bonanza (AFAIK) and the A35/36 is the "standard" Bonanza. As far as I know, all versions of the Bonanza are retractable trike-gear airplanes. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
Gene Buckle writes: > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. > > That's the name given to the V tail Bonanza. That's funny -- I remembered reading a piece on a Bonanza crash, with reference to doctor/pilots. I found it again with Google: http://stoenworks.com/Flight%20of%20the%20V-Tail.html 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] Aircraft
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:05:01 -0400 David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Gene Buckle writes: > > > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. > > > > That's the name given to the V tail Bonanza. > My boss (at the time) and I flew into Oshkosh one year in the early 80's in a V-tail, flying from Flying Cloud in Minnesota. When we got in close to Oshkosh (there is a holding patter around some lake nearby, IIRC) my boss told me to keep an eye open for other aircraft. I looked out the right window and there was a Mooney about 200-300 feet off. I looked around more. It was crowded. A very memorable time. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
Jon S Berndt writes: > On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:05:01 -0400 > David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Gene Buckle writes: > > > > > > "forked-tail doctor killers" That's a good one. > > > > > > That's the name given to the V tail Bonanza. > > > > > My boss (at the time) and I flew into Oshkosh one year in > the early 80's in a V-tail, flying from Flying Cloud in > Minnesota. When we got in close to Oshkosh (there is a > holding patter around some lake nearby, IIRC) my boss told > me to keep an eye open for other aircraft. I looked out > the right window and there was a Mooney about 200-300 > feet off. I looked around more. It was crowded. A very > memorable time. Hal has quite a few of his more interesting flying stories posted to his web page (including the one about the bonanza crash.) http://stoenworks.com/Aviation%20home%20page.html Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:56:42 -0500 (CDT) "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hal has quite a few of his more interesting flying >stories posted to >his web page (including the one about the bonanza crash.) > > http://stoenworks.com/Aviation%20home%20page.html Stoenworks aviation is in St. Louis Park. That's where I used to lie. Interesting. As was the Bonanza crash story. "I learned about flying from that ..." :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
> Stoenworks aviation is in St. Louis Park. That's where I > used to lie. > > Jon Not that it matters, but I meant "that's where I used to *live* ". Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Stoenworks aviation is in St. Louis Park. That's where I >>used to lie. >> >>Jon > > > Not that it matters, but I meant "that's where I used to *live* ". I hope there is a difference? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AIRCRAFT DESIGN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curts, I am trying to undestand the aircraft development. I started reading the UFO design, I read ufo.cxx and I would like to know if there is a tool to change the UFO model. To be honest, the UFO is the worst model to look at when you want to add an aircraft because it has it's own (very simple) FDM written in C++. You would be better of looking at YASim (FlightGear/data/Aircraft-yasim/README.yasim) or JSBSim (http://www.jsbsim.org) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AIRCRAFT DESIGN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curts, I am trying to undestand the aircraft development. I started reading the UFO design, I read ufo.cxx and I would like to know if there is a tool to change the UFO model. Hi Carlos, If you are you trying to create a new aircraft, then for most normal cases you shouldn't need to do anything with the code. I've never personally created an aircraft, but in general you need to: 1. Configure the flight dynamics model. Typically you would pick JSBSim if you have a lot of detailed flight information and need/want to match the original plane very closely. Otherwise, if you have sketchy flight information or want something that flies reasonably well, and want to get going quickly, YASim is a good choice. Both involve creating an ascii config file with the proper parameters. 2. Make a 3d model. If you want a pretty picture from an outside view you can create a 3d model and texture it. You can set up gear and control surfaces and do a variety of complex and cool animations. Check out the gear on the yf23 or seahawk which includes animated suspention. 3. Create an instrument panel. You can build a fully interactive 3d cockpit if you like. People have put in pilots with animated arms and legs and done other crazy stuff. 3d cockpits can be fully "clickable" and interactive if you set them up that way. 4. Take care of some of the details like creating a custom sound configuration if you want, creating a detailed electrical model if you like, and setting up the various autopilot modes and tweaking the gains for your aircraft. None of these require any programming or compiling. You can do all of it, including building custom instruments by editing text files and creating objects in your favorite 3d modeling package. The J3 Cub might be a reasonably simple example to look at for just starting out. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AIRCRAFT DESIGN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curts, I am trying to undestand the aircraft development. I started reading the UFO design, I read ufo.cxx and I would like to know if there is a tool to change the UFO model. Regards, Carlos Renato I always wondered why LOD is generally calculated based on distance in sims, and not on the number of polys rendered. Distance is pretty meaningless when you have a a variable FOV, which lots of 3d sims and games do. Is there some reason I don't know about other than habit? Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AIRCRAFT DESIGN
Josh Babcock wrote: I always wondered why LOD is generally calculated based on distance in sims, and not on the number of polys rendered. Distance is pretty meaningless when you have a a variable FOV, which lots of 3d sims and games do. Is there some reason I don't know about other than habit? Distance is something that is easy and simple and inexpensive to calculate which is important if you are drawing hundreds of models. Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft modelling
John Check writes: > Kind of OT: On the matter of blender I was going to take a > shot at painting the DC3 model (which was AFAIK done in blender and > exported as VRML). Something gets lost in the translation, parts > are rotated, sized wrong, etc. Anyway blender does work as a > modeling tool, just make sure you save in native format and export > VRML for fgfs. I'm making some progress on texturing the DC-3 now that I understand Blender's UV editor, but unfortunately, PLIB does not import textured VRML 1 models, so I'm going to have to figure out a different conversion. AC3D seems to be best supported, but I'm having trouble getting the AC3D export script working from Blender. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft carrier
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote: > ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Misc_maf/carrier > > (Many thanks to Martin Spott for the webspace!) This is not _my_ webspace, I'm simply the guy who is being left alone with the job to maintain the university FTP-Server ;-) Finally this leaves the decision up to me what to put there Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote: > Hi, > > the web page is comming along nicely! > > There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a > normal sized picture should open. > > It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that > plane as well. > > CU, > Christian And some information data and text about the aircraft itself. This could be also usefull later for a in game menu. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
Christian Mayer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, the web page is comming along nicely! There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a normal sized picture should open. It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that plane as well. Maybe for the *next* release! 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] Aircraft downloads
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote: > Hi, > > the web page is comming along nicely! > > There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a > normal sized picture should open. > > It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that > plane as well. > > CU, > Christian > One thing more, that i have forgotten in my last message. A way to filter the aircrafts on the webpage by their status, fdm and aircraft type. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote: > Hi, > > the web page is comming along nicely! > > There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a > normal sized picture should open. > > It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that > plane as well. > Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page? Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities... Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
"Curtis L. Olson" said: > Christian Mayer wrote: > > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >Hi, > > > >the web page is comming along nicely! > > > >There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a > >normal sized picture should open. > > > >It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that > >plane as well. > > > > > > Maybe for the *next* release! > Oh yeah... but maybe make clicking on the picture do nothing for now. Instead add a hyperlink below with the word "download" in it. The intuitive thing on the web is to click thumbs for a bigger view, so the current setup would be tripping up most visitors. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
Durk Talsma wrote: Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page? Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities... Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those pages are currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft download page. 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] Aircraft downloads
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Durk Talsma wrote: > >Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones > >made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to > >these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page? > > > >Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities... > > Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those pages are > currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft > download page. > > Curt. Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for FlightGear that are not free. Here's the reason why: Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear website could lead to a common behaviour that people tend to not release their aircrafts or addons under the GPL license when other more restrictive ways like simple Freeware licenses are possible and accepted. This has also many other disadvantages like: - you can't modify or correct the aircrafts, scenery addons etc. - aircrafts and scenery addons might get outdated or incompatible to newer versions of FlightGear - users are forced to collect their aircrafts and scenery addons from different places, which is a bad thing, because it is extremly cumbersomely and annoying. MS Flight Simulator people know what i am talking about. FlightGear should make use of the fact that it is open source, it allows users to get everything in one piece without the hassle to visit hundreds of different websites. - the amount of GPL'd flightgear data like aircrafts and scenery would grow slower when simple freeware addons are okay and linked to on the flightgear website. That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website. BTW: I saw that there is a GPL'd Boeing 707 and Raytheon T-6A Texan II on Dave's hangar website, could these two aircrafts be added to the main flightgear website and ftp servers? http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/hangar/hangar.html Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100, Oliver wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts > and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website. ..amen! -- ..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] Aircraft downloads
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:21, Oliver C. wrote: > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > Durk Talsma wrote: > > >Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out > > > there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. > > > Would it be an idea to add a link to these pages at the > > > bottom of the aircraft download page? > > > > > >Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence > > > incompatibilities... > > > > Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those > > pages are currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them > > from the aircraft download page. > > > > Curt. > > Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise > aircrafts for FlightGear that are not free. > > Here's the reason why: > Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the > flightgear website could lead to a common behaviour that > people tend to not release their aircrafts or addons under > the GPL license when other more restrictive ways like simple > Freeware licenses are possible and accepted. > > This has also many other disadvantages like: > > - you can't modify or correct the aircrafts, scenery addons > etc. - aircrafts and scenery addons might get outdated or > incompatible to newer versions of FlightGear > - users are forced to collect their aircrafts and scenery > addons from different places, which is a bad thing, because it > is extremly cumbersomely and annoying. MS Flight Simulator > people know what i am talking about. FlightGear should make > use of the fact that it is open source, it allows users to get > everything in one piece without the hassle to visit hundreds > of different websites. > - the amount of GPL'd flightgear data like aircrafts and > scenery would grow slower when simple freeware addons are okay > and linked to on the flightgear website. > > > That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd > aircrafts and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear > website. > > > BTW: > I saw that there is a GPL'd Boeing 707 and Raytheon T-6A Texan > II on Dave's hangar website, could these two aircrafts be > added to the main flightgear website and ftp servers? > http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/hangar/hangar.html > > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people also like to include non-violence conditions. Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of control over the work once released under the license, I can't criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people can no longer do what they want. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd > aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$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. > 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. > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about linking > to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, > so it's take it or leave it. ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware licenses, this depends on the license's "small print" language. > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people can > no longer do what they want. ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given by the original authors, "before you jumped in." Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people will tell you "Riiight, I'll consider it if you can convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3." ;-) -- ..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] Aircraft downloads
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100 Oliver C. wrote: > > Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for > FlightGear that are not free. > > Here's the reason why: > Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear > website could lead to a common behaviour that people tend to not > release their aircrafts or addons under the GPL license when other more > restrictive ways like simple Freeware licenses are possible and > accepted. I think this is true. I differ with you in how awful I think this would be. I would absolutely *prefer* that people use the GPL. Everything I do is licensed that way. But if someone who has put a lot of effort into creating something decides they want to make it available to the community, but do not want other people to be able to make money off of it without the original author getting any credit, I'm not going to tell them that they're bad people for wanting that. The more people creating add-ons for FlightGear, the more attractive it will look. The more attractive it looks, the more users it will have. The more users it has, the more people will create add-ons for it, *some* of which will doubtless be licensed under the GPL. Those are GPL'd add-ons that those new contributors would not have created otherwise, because they never would have tried FlightGear in the first place. > This has also many other disadvantages like: > > - you can't modify or correct the aircrafts, scenery addons etc. This depends on what non-GPL license is used; it's not universally true. > - aircrafts and scenery addons might get outdated or incompatible to > newer versions of FlightGear This is true anyway, even with GPL'd stuff. You might be saying that license restrictions might make it difficult for third parties to fix such future incompatibilities, in which case my answer is as above: it depends on the license. It's not universally true. > - users are forced to collect their aircrafts and scenery addons from > different places, which is a bad thing, because it is extremly > cumbersomely and annoying. MS Flight Simulator people know what i am > talking about. FlightGear should make use of the fact that it is open > source, it allows users to get everything in one piece without the > hassle to visit hundreds of different websites. This is going to be true no matter what. People are always free to create add-ons for FlightGear, and they're always free to put whatever licenses they want on it and/or make them available in other places. The only way to prevent the scenario you describe would be to somehow make it impossible for anyone creating add-ons to license them under anything other than the GPL. I don't know how you'd do that, but I definitely wouldn't support it. > - the amount of GPL'd flightgear data like aircrafts and scenery would > grow slower when simple freeware addons are okay and linked to on the > flightgear website. I'm not sure this is true. Your thinking is presumably that an add-on licensed under a typical "freeware" license is an add-on that could have been licensed under the GPL, but wasn't. However, it's not a zero-sum exercise. One of the reasons there are so many add-ons for MSFS is because there are so many people using it, and one of the reasons there are so many people using it is because there are so many add-ons for it. If the availability of "freeware" -licensed add-ons causes the FlightGear community to increase in size, and thus the number of people creating scenery and aircraft increases, then it's quite possible that the amount of GPL'd add-ons would increase also. I think we should always *encourage* people making stuff for FlightGear to license stuff under the GPL. But I don't think we should ostracize enthusiastic users who opt for other licenses for the things they create for the community to use. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpKE5bQaJXZK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
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). 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. But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire to it, I won't give it to you. 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. > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy > > anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware > licenses, this depends on the license's "small print" > language. > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to > > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people > > can no longer do what they want. > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given > by the original authors, "before you jumped in." Your own > code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned > well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally > too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people > will tell you "Riiight, I'll consider it if you can > convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3." ;-) The problem I see with it is when people say that something _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the realm of compulsion. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
I have a few suggestions to improve the current aircraft download page: It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc. It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho. The other suggestion is that to make it easier for people to grab every aircraft available for download, an additional tarball could be created, which would include all the aircrafts for the current release. That would allow the base package to be clear of all aircrafts but the 172, while speeding things up for those who still want every a/c. Last suggestion would be to figure out a way to download aircrafts on demand from inside fg, kind of like the script that does the same for the scenery files. cheers, -E Curtis L. Olson wrote: Durk Talsma wrote: Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page? Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities... Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those pages are currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft download page. Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On January 19, 2005 06:00 pm, Enrique Vaamonde wrote: > It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c > download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc. > It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho. May be we should just use their layout and options when displaying downloads: http://www.airliners.net Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
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 > 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) > 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) > 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. > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy > > > anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware > > licenses, this depends on the license's "small print" > > language. > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to > > > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people > > > can no longer do what they want. > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given > > by the original authors, "before you jumped in." Your own > > code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned > > well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally > > too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people > > will tell you "Riiight, I'll consider it if you can > > convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3." ;-) > > The problem I see with it is when people say that something > _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one > fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or > 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but > if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the > person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the > realm of compulsion. ..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad people to skim off the good stuff _and_ change author credits _and_ hide it as closed source _and_ charge for it. ..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say "should GPL" and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it happen. ;-) -- ..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@flightge
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
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. It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have accepted conditions in a licence. 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. > > > 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? Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you manage to interpret the licence you demanded? > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to > > > > buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other > > > payware licenses, this depends on the license's "small > > > print" language. > > > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied > > > > to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and > > > > people can no longer do what they want. > > > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been > > > given by the original authors, "before you jumped in." > > > Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it > > > as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be > > > thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do > > >
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] Aircraft models
Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 07:33 -0500, Jon Berndt a écrit : > I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd > be > interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email) > which aircraft > you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that are > not really > known about (albeit in various states of fidelity) - and perhaps not for > release, but I'd > still like to know about them. > > Jon > jsb*at*hal-pc*dot*org > > OK: on my side, i will look at, if in my "Zoo Aircrafts" i have some which are standard usable (without garantie) > -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft models
On June 3, 2005 12:33 pm, Jon Berndt wrote: > I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. > I'd be interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal > email) which aircraft you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models > floating around that are not really known about (albeit in various states > of fidelity) - and perhaps not for release, but I'd still like to know > about them. Both the MD11 and the A380 use JSBSim. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft models
Hi Jon "Jon Berndt" writes I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd be interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email) which aircraft you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that are not really known about (albeit in various states of fidelity) - and perhaps not for release, but I'd still like to know about them. Boeing 707-300 & 737-300 Jon Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The result is this aircraft TODO list, i suggest adding this file to cvs in the data/Aircraft directory, so that new entrys or old entrys can easily be removed in this file when an aircraft gets upgraded. Thank you, but instead of adding this to the CVS (so that you always need another person to check in your changes), why not just add it to the FlightGear Wiki? http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?wikiid=2418&doc=FlightGear Like most Wikis, this is absolutely open -- anyone can add or change anything they want at any time. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
Oliver C. wrote: > today i tested all 45 aircrafts that are available in flightgear and > wrote down all things i noticed that were missing, wrong or not > functional for each aircraft. Wow, good work. I honestly had no idea we had so many; it's been a while since I counted. :) > harrier > - how can i detract the jet stream to lift off vertically? This is bound to the mixture axis. Full mixture (the default) equates to full forward jets. Actually hovering without having a real joystick axis for it, though, is very hard. If someone with modelling skills wanted to work on this one, I'd be willing to help out with some saner aircraft-specific keyboard bindings. Right now, the Harrier is basically a flight model only. I still think it's more fun than most of the other planes we have. Helicopters, bah. Land *this* one on a water tower; I dare you. :) I've gotten to the point where I can put it down on the carrier semi-reliably. It's a pity that the screenshots will only show the glider. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
On Friday 12 December 2003 21:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > today i tested all 45 aircrafts that are available in flightgear > and wrote down all things i noticed that were missing, wrong or not functional > for each aircraft. > > The result is this aircraft TODO list, i suggest adding this file to cvs > in the data/Aircraft directory, so that new entrys or old entrys can easily > be removed in this file when an aircraft gets upgraded. > > I also want to mention that i didn't added entrys for the FDM of the aircrafts > because i don't know how they behave in reality so if you flew such an > aircraft and know that the flight behaviour of that aircraft in flightgear is > wrong then just add an entry to this aircraft todo list or solve the problem > by tweaking the aircraft's xml files. > > I hope you can need this TODO list. > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. About the two cockpits in the TSR-2 - there were two cockpits in the TSR-2. When in the second one, try looking sideways. ;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
On Friday 12 December 2003 22:52, David Megginson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The result is this aircraft TODO list, i suggest adding this file to cvs > > in the data/Aircraft directory, so that new entrys or old entrys can > > easily be removed in this file when an aircraft gets upgraded. > > Thank you, but instead of adding this to the CVS (so that you always need > another person to check in your changes), why not just add it to the > FlightGear Wiki? > >http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?wikiid=2418&doc=FlightGear > > Like most Wikis, this is absolutely open -- anyone can add or change > anything they want at any time. > I didn't thought about Wikis, but feel free to use the aircraft todo list on the Wiki. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
On Friday 12 December 2003 23:14, Andy Ross wrote: > > harrier > > - how can i detract the jet stream to lift off vertically? > > This is bound to the mixture axis. Full mixture (the default) equates > to full forward jets. Actually hovering without having a real > joystick axis for it, though, is very hard. If someone with modelling > skills wanted to work on this one, I'd be willing to help out with > some saner aircraft-specific keyboard bindings. Thanks you, i didn't knew that. But could you tell me what key bindings i have to use to change the mixture, i didn't found it on the keyboard control reference table? > > Right now, the Harrier is basically a flight model only. I still > think it's more fun than most of the other planes we have. > Helicopters, bah. Land *this* one on a water tower; I dare you. :) > I've gotten to the point where I can put it down on the carrier > semi-reliably. I will try that. ;) Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
On Saturday 13 December 2003 01:45, Lee Elliott wrote: > About the two cockpits in the TSR-2 - there were two cockpits in the > TSR-2. When in the second one, try looking sideways. ;) > > LeeE You mean some sort of CoPilot? I didn't knew that, thanks. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
On Sunday 14 December 2003 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Saturday 13 December 2003 01:45, Lee Elliott wrote: > > > About the two cockpits in the TSR-2 - there were two cockpits in the > > TSR-2. When in the second one, try looking sideways. ;) > > > > LeeE > > You mean some sort of CoPilot? > > I didn't knew that, thanks. > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. Navigation/weapons officer position. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft TODO list
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Saturday 13 December 2003 01:45, Lee Elliott wrote: > > > About the two cockpits in the TSR-2 - there were two cockpits in the > > TSR-2. When in the second one, try looking sideways. ;) > > > > LeeE > > You mean some sort of CoPilot? It's the guy in the back seat with all the toys :-) -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Lighting Idea
Ilja Moderau wrote: Hi, I painted the windows of 747 and a320 transparent, then I put a simple rectangle behind the windows. This object got an emissive white color. http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/747.jpg http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/a320.jpg Just imagine, when you add the "select" animation depending on time or sun, you´ll see lights in the cabin when it is dark. Normally you´ll see the windows that are animated by "select" too. We can even add such lights to buildings etc. Nice idea! It adds a bit of overhead due to transparency, but the results look quite nice. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Lighting Idea
On Monday 26 January 2004 13:00, Ilja Moderau wrote: > Hi, > I painted the windows of 747 and a320 transparent, then I put a simple > rectangle behind the windows. This object got an emissive white color. > http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/747.jpg > http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/a320.jpg > > Just imagine, when you add the "select" animation depending on time or sun, > you´ll see lights in the cabin when it is dark. Normally you´ll see the > windows that are animated by "select" too. We can even add such lights to > buildings etc. > > All the best > Ilja Sounds like a neat trick, with quite a bit of potential. Nice one:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft README files
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:19:36 -0500 Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I want to know is: where is the NCC-1701D !? :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft README files
Jon Berndt wrote: For JSBSim some of us are thinking of release notes for each aircraft flight model we have available. This would describe notes on the flight model, sources, mention the 3D model (or lack of one), and flight hints, etc. (P-Factor, what's modeled, what's not). I think that generally release notes for a specific aircraft are an attractive concept, thought I don't know where they would be stored. I think it is potentially another reason why the hangar concept is starting to look appealing. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel Perhaps we should invent a new tag for this information. That way you could put a lot more info in the definition file and organize it. In fact, you could cram a whole POH in there if you wanted to. Then it would be available for a neat little nasal pop-up in flight, as well as any browsers, loaders and wrappers. I'd love to have my V speeds and checklists at a keystroke. It wouldn't be super human readable, but a short perl script or something like that would extract it nicely, and xml is human readable to someone who's never seen it before, especially if you did this: The Enterprise and then put all the good stuff in ncc1701d-poh.xml. If this sounds like a good idea, we can easily settle on what useful information to put in there, as much as we want. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft README files
Jon S Berndt wrote: On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:19:36 -0500 Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I want to know is: where is the NCC-1701D !? :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel Oh, they're out seeking new life forms. They'll be back in about five years. Now JSBSim *does* support warp core engines, right? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft README files
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:43:28 -0500 Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, they're out seeking new life forms. They'll be back in about five years. Now JSBSim *does* support warp core engines, right? I'm workin' on it! ;-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft README files
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 13:35, Jon Berndt wrote: > For JSBSim some of us are thinking of release notes for each aircraft > flight model we have available. This would describe notes on the flight > model, sources, mention the 3D model (or lack of one), and flight hints, > etc. (P-Factor, what's modeled, what's not). > > I think that generally release notes for a specific aircraft are an > attractive concept, thought I don't know where they would be stored. I > think it is potentially another reason why the hangar concept is starting > to look appealing. > > Jon Funnily enough, I've been thinking about readmes recently, with a view to identifying what should be addressed in it and how it should be organised i.e. suitable headings. As well as notes (disclaimers;) about the fdm, other categories I've thought of are: History of the a/c, 3D Model, Panels, Instruments & Flying notes. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Erik Hofman wrote > Hi, > > I just noticed the just updated Aircraft Todo List at: > http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Aircraft%20Todo%20List&wi > kiid=2418&wpid=142747 > > There are a couple of issues for the F-16 which I want to > address here: > > > > ++ > +++ > > f16 General Dynamics F-16 > > f16-3d General Dynamics F-16 w. 3d cockpit > > > ++ > +++ > > Outside: > > - flaps are in wrong position by default after starting flightgear > > - flaps can't be triggered > > This is because flaps are flight computer controlled for the F-16. I > suspect that about every (military) aircraft designed after the F-16 > does have the same behavior. > > > - strobe and landing lights are not available > > They are and they are bound to the right properties, but the > properties > are not triggered by any key stroke. > > > - there are no flaps when using reverse thrust > > There is no reverse thrust available. > > > 3d Cockpit: > > - no cockpit light at night available > > - rudder/stick control is available but not animated > > The stick in the F-16 really doesn't move at all (well it does move > about 1 mm because pilots couldn't adjust to a non moving > stick), but it > is driven by the pressure pushed on the stick, not the > movement itself. > > > - switches and levers available but can't be triggered with > the mouse > > Don't expect that I will add the functions for all switches any time > soon, there are just too many, and many of them have no use for a > civilian flight simulator anyhow. > > > - no cockpit instruments available > > - cockpit is only barely textured > > I'm not sure there will be much texturing since using > different colors > is often enough for cockpits and it saves on texture usage. > > > - no pilot present in 3d cockpit > > I'm still in doubt I like the idea of having a pilot in the > cockpit. If > there is one you want it animated (rudder, throttle and > stick) like the > Hunter (which is btw a very nice job), but when it's animated > it isn't > realistic anymore because then you would see the gear handle move > without the pilot getting his hands from the throttle. > > In general I don't like there to be a pilot in the seat, except maybe > (just maybe) when viewed from outside. > > > General: > > - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound > > - engines can't be turned off > > - hud can't be turned off > > Yes it can. Did you test using the new SDL code, that might > cause this > problem. > > > - aircraft is not set on the correct elevation when starting > > flightsgear, lowest part of the aircraft is approximately > 0.20 m below > > the ground > > Note, this is not to complain about this list, just to clarify some > things and show that it's often not as simple as you would expect. > Thanks for drawing our attention to this todo list. I've added a few comments to the entries for the Hunter and Seahawk. Regards Vivian Meazza ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Sunday 11 April 2004 08:33, Erik Hofman wrote: > Hi, > > I just noticed the just updated Aircraft Todo List at: > http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Aircraft%20Todo%20List&wikiid=2418&wpi >d=142747 > Thanks, for having a look on the todo-list. I also sent this todo-list to the flightgear-mailinglist when i put it on the wiki page, but the mail was too big so i needed to wait for mailinglist moderator approval. Because keeping this todo-list up to date is a lot of work and because i can't know every thing about every aircraft everyone is welcome to correct or add entries to this aircraft-todo-list. > There are a couple of issues for the F-16 which I want to address here: > > + > > f16 General Dynamics F-16 > > f16-3d General Dynamics F-16 w. 3d cockpit > > + > > Outside: > > - flaps are in wrong position by default after starting flightgear > > - flaps can't be triggered > > This is because flaps are flight computer controlled for the F-16. I > suspect that about every (military) aircraft designed after the F-16 > does have the same behavior. Thanks, i will correct that entry. > > > - strobe and landing lights are not available > > They are and they are bound to the right properties, but the properties > are not triggered by any key stroke. > Ok. > > - there are no flaps when using reverse thrust > > There is no reverse thrust available. Thanks for the info, i allready thought about that issue but i wasn't sure if fighters do have such a thing. (The big airliners do have that) But what is with braking parachutes? Does a f16 have braking parachutes? > > > 3d Cockpit: > > - no cockpit light at night available > > - rudder/stick control is available but not animated > > The stick in the F-16 really doesn't move at all (well it does move > about 1 mm because pilots couldn't adjust to a non moving stick), but it > is driven by the pressure pushed on the stick, not the movement itself. Thanks, i didn't knew that, i will correct this entry in the todo-list. > > > - switches and levers available but can't be triggered with the mouse > > Don't expect that I will add the functions for all switches any time > soon, there are just too many, and many of them have no use for a > civilian flight simulator anyhow. Don't worry, some entries (like missing windscreen wipers etc.) are added to make sure that this issue is known for later fix in the near future. I think it is better to write every down, even if it is a very small problem or error. That will make sure that we don't froget it later. > > > - no cockpit instruments available > > - cockpit is only barely textured > > I'm not sure there will be much texturing since using different colors > is often enough for cockpits and it saves on texture usage. I don't think so, video Ram gets larger every year and someday flightgear users will want also have some eye candy and photo realistic cockpits and aircrafts. > > > - no pilot present in 3d cockpit > > I'm still in doubt I like the idea of having a pilot in the cockpit. If > there is one you want it animated (rudder, throttle and stick) like the > Hunter (which is btw a very nice job), but when it's animated it isn't > realistic anymore because then you would see the gear handle move > without the pilot getting his hands from the throttle. Perhaps we will have someday some kind of skeletal animation system in flightgear for the pilot that makes such things, even triggering the gear handle easier to do. > > > > General: > > - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound > > - engines can't be turned off > > - hud can't be turned off > > Yes it can. Did you test using the new SDL code, that might cause this > problem. For the source code, i used the cvs version before 1. April because i needed a working version and there were so many issues with the source code in the last view days so i abandoned using the newer source code. So this was not a version with SDL code. But the data directory with the aircrafts was up to date, i updated it on 9. April. > > - aircraft is not set on the correct elevation when starting flightsgear, > > lowest part of the aircraft is approximately 0.20 m below the ground > > Note, this is not to complain about this list, just to clarify some > things and show that it's often not as simple as you would expect. Yes, i know, the same applies for the todo-list it should NOT be seen as a list of complains. It is just to make things easier like discovering things that wasn't thought about before when the aircraft was created or just to write down errors that where discovered by the users etc. I hope that list will help improving fligthgear and its aircrafts. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] htt
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Sunday 11 April 2004 09:52, Vivian Meazza wrote: > I've added a few > comments to the entries for the Hunter and Seahawk. Thanks a lot. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> > +++ > > > Outside: > > > - flaps are in wrong position by default after starting flightgear > > > - flaps can't be triggered > > > > This is because flaps are flight computer controlled for the F-16. I > > suspect that about every (military) aircraft designed after the F-16 > > does have the same behavior. > > I have a hard time with the computer controlled flap thing. :) I know that with every jet I've studied, you can manually select the trailing edge flap position. This does not hold true for the leading edge flap though (on those jets that have them). g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Gene Buckle wrote: I have a hard time with the computer controlled flap thing. :) I know that with every jet I've studied, you can manually select the trailing edge flap position. This does not hold true for the leading edge flap though (on those jets that have them). The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for the F-16. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> Gene Buckle wrote: > > > I have a hard time with the computer controlled flap thing. :) I know > > that with every jet I've studied, you can manually select the trailing > > edge flap position. This does not hold true for the leading edge flap > > though (on those jets that have them). > > > The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ > circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for > the F-16. > Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> > The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ > > circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for > > the F-16. > > > > Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :) You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying to fulfill the pilot's wish here: http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't enough. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Jon Berndt wrote: The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for the F-16. Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :) You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying to fulfill the pilot's wish here: http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't enough. Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here was the g-limiter ... Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> > You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying > to fulfill > > the pilot's wish here: > > > > http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg > > > > You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the > > highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't > > enough. > > Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here > was the g-limiter ... > > Erik No, it was the pilot. :-( Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Jon Berndt wrote: Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here was the g-limiter ... No, it was the pilot. :-( Eh, yes, you're right. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> > > The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ > > > circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for > > > the F-16. > > > > > > > Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :) > > You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying to fulfill > the pilot's wish here: > > http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg > > You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the > highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't > enough. > I know that the leading edge slats were automatic, but not the flaps. There's just something wrong with not being able to manual command a flap extension or retraction. :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Ilja Moderau wrote: > - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound > - no cockpit light at night visible These two are relatively easy. The "outside" sound handling will probably require some code, but nothing difficult. > - no jetstream visible I assume this means contrails? (The "jet stream" normally refers to the strong west winds above the tropopause in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere). Rendering contrails would require that someone write a module that builds and caches an appropriate ssg node, updating it as necessary to reflect the engines' paths. Probably not trivial, but it would be cool. There was an otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game released about a year ago that did contrails really well. You could finish a dogfight and look up to see bright, looping contrail traces of the fight in the sky. > - engines can't be turned off This is a limitation of the YASim jet model. It wouldn't be hard to throw something together so you could shut it off. The problem is that stopping and starting a *real* turbine engine is a complicated process, which differs widely between specific engine models. So I guess I don't really see the point: the only purpose to shutting an engine down is to practice starting it, which isn't going to be realistic without a *lot* of work. But I'm not firm on this. If enough people shout about it, I can hack up an engine start for YASim. :) Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Andy Ross wrote: - no jetstream visible I assume this means contrails? (The "jet stream" normally refers to the strong west winds above the tropopause in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere). ... which is often, roughly, the boundary between cold air from the pole and warm air from the equator. SSG already has support for smoke, etc., with drift, though I don't remember the name of the class. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> There was an otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game > released about a year ago that did contrails really well. You > could finish a dogfight and look up to see bright, looping > contrail traces of the fight in the sky. > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge following that's been making new aircraft and other things for it. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Gene Buckle wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...] > > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for > it. It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits, nice sounds. Awful terrain, laughable flight model. I distinctly remember being very impressed by their 6DOF attitude gyro in the A-4 (something I worked hard at for our version), until I noticed it was turning the WRONG WAY. Ugh. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> Gene Buckle wrote: > > Andy Ross wrote: > > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...] > > > > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge > > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for > > it. > > It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits, > nice sounds. Awful terrain, laughable flight model. I > distinctly remember being very impressed by their 6DOF attitude > gyro in the A-4 (something I worked hard at for our version), > until I noticed it was turning the WRONG WAY. Ugh. > A lot of work has gone into fixing it and people are even making new terrain for it. Since it's classed as a "survey" sim, it's not going to have high quality flight models like FlightGear does. :) An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
BTW, I had a look for a X15 3D model a short while ago. There is a new MSFS/CFS model, but it is not much better than the old one, so I don't think it is worth it. Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:06:27 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfram Kuss) wrote: BTW, I had a look for a X15 3D model a short while ago. There is a new MSFS/CFS model, but it is not much better than the old one, so I don't think it is worth it. The one we have now doesn't seem too bad, but the skins need some detail work, I think. If I had a little more time I'd almost think of giving that a try, but FDM (and tax preparations) are sucking up all my time. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Andy Ross said: > Gene Buckle wrote: > > Andy Ross wrote: > > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...] > > > > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge > > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for > > it. > > It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits, > nice sounds. Awful terrain, laughable flight model. I > distinctly remember being very impressed by their 6DOF attitude > gyro in the A-4 (something I worked hard at for our version), > until I noticed it was turning the WRONG WAY. Ugh. The animation on our A-4 ai is very simplistic, only mapping to uncooked FDM outputs, but it does go the right direction. I don't know much about how they really work. Maybe the super-accurate readout and instantanious response is correct. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote: > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet engines > along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat blur. However, it terminates suddenly a couple of aircraft lengths from the tailpipe. I also get a strange artifact if clouds are behind the exhaust plume; the clouds are absent immediately behind the exhaust plume. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Richard Keech > > On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote: > > > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet > > engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. > > The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat > blur. However, it terminates suddenly a couple of aircraft > lengths from the tailpipe. I also get a strange artifact if > clouds are behind the > exhaust plume; the clouds are absent immediately behind the > exhaust plume. > That was a first try on the heat plumes within the existing capabilities of FGFS. I intend to do a little more work on it in due course. I'm not giving it a high priority, since it is really only eye candy. Fred Bouvier has been doing some work on the interaction with clouds. BTW, transparent cockpit canopies also make clouds disappear. Regards Vivian Meazza ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:19:13 +0100, Vivian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Richard Keech > > > > On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote: > > > > > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet > > > engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. > > > > The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat > > blur. However, it terminates suddenly a couple of aircraft > > lengths from the tailpipe. I also get a strange artifact if > > clouds are behind the > > exhaust plume; the clouds are absent immediately behind the > > exhaust plume. > > > > That was a first try on the heat plumes within the existing > capabilities of FGFS. I intend to do a little more work on it in due > course. I'm not giving it a high priority, since it is really only eye > candy. ..I would be more hesitant in dismissing this as "only eye candy", as exhaust heat has a considerable effect on the downwash, as like in how far it drops, that should be felt on entering etc such flow fields in at least formation flight and air-to-air tanking. I agree making contrails is making eye candy, though. ;-) > Fred Bouvier has been doing some work on the interaction with > clouds. BTW, transparent cockpit canopies also make clouds disappear. -- ..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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Arnt Karlsen said > > > > > > Richard Keech > > > > > > On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote: > > > > > > > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet > > > > engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. > > > > > > The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat > > > blur. However, it terminates suddenly a couple of aircraft > > > lengths from the tailpipe. I also get a strange artifact if > > > clouds are behind the > > > exhaust plume; the clouds are absent immediately behind the > > > exhaust plume. > > > > > > > That was a first try on the heat plumes within the existing > > capabilities of FGFS. I intend to do a little more work on > it in due > > course. I'm not giving it a high priority, since it is > really only eye > > candy. > > ..I would be more hesitant in dismissing this as "only eye > candy", as exhaust heat has a considerable effect on the > downwash, as like > in how far it drops, that should be felt on entering etc such > flow fields in at least formation flight and air-to-air > tanking. I agree making contrails is making eye candy, though. ;-) > > > Fred Bouvier has been doing some work on the interaction > with clouds. > > BTW, transparent cockpit canopies also make clouds disappear. > Let me re-phrase that. At the moment the jet heat plumes are only eye candy. There is no underlying physics. If or when we get around to the thermodynamics etc., we can model heat plumes properly. It would be nice: we could take into account exhaust re-ingestion for the Harrier and for helos. Regards Vivian Meazza ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:32:37 +0100, Vivian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Let me re-phrase that. At the moment the jet heat plumes are only eye > candy. There is no underlying physics. If or when we get around to the ..I like the when. ;-) > thermodynamics etc., we can model heat plumes properly. It would be > nice: we could take into account exhaust re-ingestion for the Harrier > and for helos. ..again, I thank you all for FlightGear. :-) -- ..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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Walk Arounds
On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote: > Hi, > > For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various > aircraft, please take a look at: > http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm > > For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10. > > Erik > Excellent source of data - just means I have to start all over again;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Walk Arounds
Lee, Just curious: what program do you use to model the aircrafts. Regards, Ampere On April 19, 2004 08:02 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: > On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various > > aircraft, please take a look at: > > http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm > > > > For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10. > > > > Erik > > Excellent source of data - just means I have to start all over again;) > > LeeE > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Walk Arounds
Realsoft3D V4.5 (Linux beta) A lot of people think that it has a steep learning curve but personally I find it both logical and consistent. http://www.realsoft.com I then export the geometry in .OBJ format (using a free plug-in) for import into AC3D for texturing (textures are done in the Gimp). RS have, in the recent past, released a number of render resolution limited versions of RS3D V4.n for magazine cover discs/DVDs but that's not an issue just as far as modelling for FG is concerned. LeeE On Tuesday 20 April 2004 01:53, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > Lee, > > Just curious: what program do you use to model the aircrafts. > > Regards, > Ampere > > On April 19, 2004 08:02 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: > > On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various > > > aircraft, please take a look at: > > > http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm > > > > > > For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10. > > > > > > Erik > > > > Excellent source of data - just means I have to start all over again;) > > > > LeeE > > > > ___ > > Flightgear-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Walk Arounds
Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote: Hi, For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various aircraft, please take a look at: http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10. Excellent source of data - just means I have to start all over again;) Hehe, you're welcome :) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft modelling questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm wondering how to produce a 3D cockpit. Does this need to be a > seperate model to be placed in the aircraft's directory or should > it be one large model? (I'm assuming it should be seperate...). In the end, things will be set up so that you can model it either way. For now, I've been keeping the 3D cockpit in the same model as the external. Note that you'll also need to make an aero model for the Caravan. If you have good data, you can do it with JSBSim; otherwise, you can fake a fairly reasonable aero model in YASim using only geometry and published performance numbers. > I appreciate that this might upset the purists! You won't be able to do that with the aero model, but you should be able to manage with the 3D model. I doubt many purists will be upset; after all, FlightGear itself runs under Microsoft Windows, and initially, we used 3D models that were created by third-parties for MSFS. The idea of Open Source is that it can be used anywhere, modified, and even sold for large amounts of money, as long as it stays free-as-in-speech. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft modelling questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > In an ideal world I'd like to make one model that would , with a minimum of kludging, work in FGFS and FS2002 since I regularly use both. I appreciate that this might upset the purists! > To the contrary, it's kind of iteresting having a fgfs model converted for use in msfs. After so long the other way :-) Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:02:09 -0600 "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How hard would it be to allow aircraft to live in an arbitrary structure underneath data/Aircraft? From a JSBSim FDM point of view, I've been giving this some thought with respect to standalone JSBSim, as well. There ought to be more flexibility in this system. We have aircraft, engines, control systems, etc. files. Some of them we might tend to want to be interchangeable - that is, allow use of an engine with several aircraft. The idea is to preclude the need to have an engine defined in each aircraft subdirectory and just have one engine "corral" (sorry - remember, I'm from Texas ;-) However, I am beginning to warm to the idea of having one location where an aircraft could be found, and under that - or even inside that directory - the engine itself could be found, as well as other required files. The engine files specifically are small enough so they could be duplicated with hardly a storage impact at all. Ideally, the "controlling program" (either the JSBSim.cpp wrapper for standalone operation, the Flightgear FDM interface class in the case of integrated operation, etc...) would pass along or specify the directory to search and the aircraft file name. We really don't care where we get the aircraft file name from - we just need the file name (and path). Right now, I think we are trying to be too rigid in specifying where files are to be found. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Jon S Berndt wrote: From a JSBSim FDM point of view, I've been giving this some thought with respect to standalone JSBSim, as well. There ought to be more flexibility in this system. We have aircraft, engines, control systems, etc. files. Some of them we might tend to want to be interchangeable - that is, allow use of an engine with several aircraft. The idea is to preclude the need to have an engine defined in each aircraft subdirectory and just have one engine "corral" (sorry - remember, I'm from Texas ;-) However, I am beginning to warm to the idea of having one location where an aircraft could be found, and under that - or even inside that directory - the engine itself could be found, as well as other required files. The engine files specifically are small enough so they could be duplicated with hardly a storage impact at all. Ideally, the "controlling program" (either the JSBSim.cpp wrapper for standalone operation, the Flightgear FDM interface class in the case of integrated operation, etc...) would pass along or specify the directory to search and the aircraft file name. We really don't care where we get the aircraft file name from - we just need the file name (and path). Right now, I think we are trying to be too rigid in specifying where files are to be found. I don't think we need to kill ourselves trying to be overly flexible. I think it's worth having a central repository of commonly used items (engines, instruments, etc.) An aircraft could refer to a standard item, or could refer to a specific item in it's own directory. I don't think we would need to go overboard on recursive directory searches to hunt for stuff. However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to stuff as "../../../Instruments/hsi.xml" etc. If we move an aircraft one directory level deeper (or more) all those relative references break. :-( I'm calling for someone to take on the task of making aircraft more relocatable. If someone wants to make a family of aircraft varients and share parts ... I think it's ok to make them all live as siblings to a single parent directory, but right now everything is hardwired so every aircraft must be a child of the Aircraft subdirectory. We can't make up organization aircraft directories (i.e. Single-Engine, WWII, Boeing, Cargo, Biz-jet, etc.) 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Curtis L. Olson wrote: However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to stuff as "../../../Instruments/hsi.xml" etc. If we move an aircraft one directory level deeper (or more) all those relative references break. :-( Well, this is then about relative paths, it could probably already be solved if one added support for standard paths such as $FG_ROOT. Which could mean that the path becomes: $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/Instruments/hsi.xml I think it would take 5 minutes to add support for -automatically defined- environment variables such as: - $FG_AIRCRAFT - $FG_INSTRUMENTS These could all be based on a properly set $FG_ROOT, that way one could simply refer to: "$FG_AIRCRAFTS/c172/c172-set.xml" or "$FG_INSTRUMENTS/hsi.xml" Dealing with such path specifications would mainly come down to looking for an initial '$' sign and stripping of everything behind the first slash in order to determine the real path. I'm calling for someone to take on the task of making aircraft more relocatable. If you are mainly thinking about the above problem and my suggestion for a solution is already sufficient, I wouldn't mind to send Erik a corresponding patch. - Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:29:36 -0600 "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jon S Berndt wrote: I don't think we need to kill ourselves trying to be overly flexible. I think it's worth having a central repository of commonly used items (engines, instruments, etc.) An aircraft could refer to a standard item, or could refer to a specific item in it's own directory. I don't think we would need to go overboard on recursive directory searches to hunt for stuff. I agree - I sure wasn't suggesting that. My point was that the controlling application can have all the smarts as far as directory searches are concerned. It ought not to matter to the FDM where the files are stored - right now, JSBSim cares, at least for standalone operation. It is sort of a forced directory structure. I don't like that any more. I'm calling for someone to take on the task of making aircraft more relocatable. If someone wants to make a family of aircraft varients and share parts ... I think it's ok to make them all live as siblings to a single parent directory, but right now everything is hardwired so every aircraft must be a child of the Aircraft subdirectory. We can't make up organization aircraft directories (i.e. Single-Engine, WWII, Boeing, Cargo, Biz-jet, etc.) This makes a lot of sense. Dave Culp prodded us to support placing the engine directory under the specific aircraft directory as a first step for JSBSim. I'd like to see that changed so we (JSBSim) can simply accept a directory path and name for the aircraft being modeled. That does raise some issues for us, though. Within the aircraft config file, we specify various filenames for engine, thruster, and perhaps control system, etc. By default now there is a series of directories taht are searched for engines (the engine filename only is given in the main aircraft config file - not the entire path). So, there is really a series of acceptable paths. I don't like that. I'd like there to be a single way to do this - such as specifying that all FDM-relevant config files (aircraft, engine, controls, etc.) should all be in the same directory. The path to said FDM directory ought to be passed in by the controlling program and then we're all set. I'd actually prefer (now) to NOT have separate directories for engines and aircraft. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Two points: 1) Relative vs. Absolute links. Relative links makes it tricky, to say the least, to shift a/c around (though I think I have a relative --> absolute python function kicking around somewhere; it's not hard). I can recall some dislike of absolute links. In some ways, a resource-identifier system might be a good idea (and this kind of fits with the XML philosophy), along with a central table (also in XML) that looked something like this: Resource ID Filename yazzascope-3d \instruments\yazzascope-3d-set.xml 2) Organising aircraft The categories you describe aren't exclusive - without some seriously weird symlinking, an a/c can't be a member of Boeing, and of 2-engines, and of Bizjet. (And if you symlinked for this result, Windows users might have difficulties) On a slightly more theoretical note, I would have thought that these non-exclusive categories don't need to be the subject of directories. As a developer, one pokes about the \Aircraft directory a lot. As a user, one very rarely does. What the user wants is to be able to say "gimme a list of a/c that are 2-engined Boeing passenger jets", and it produces it. That could also be the subject of a table/database - and keeping all a/c immediately under \Aircraft should make addition and removal of aircraft easier (what happens in a simple untar system, for instance, if we change the classification of, say, the 737 from Boeing to 2-engined, and the user untars an update - bingo, he has two versions of the 737 --- keeping track of this over time could be difficult) It's your two cents now. Giles Robertson -Original Message- From: Curtis L. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 November 2004 21:30 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure Jon S Berndt wrote: > From a JSBSim FDM point of view, I've been giving this some thought > with respect to standalone JSBSim, as well. There ought to be more > flexibility in this system. We have aircraft, engines, control > systems, etc. files. Some of them we might tend to want to be > interchangeable - that is, allow use of an engine with several > aircraft. The idea is to preclude the need to have an engine defined > in each aircraft subdirectory and just have one engine "corral" (sorry > - remember, I'm from Texas ;-) However, I am beginning to warm to the > idea of having one location where an aircraft could be found, and > under that - or even inside that directory - the engine itself could > be found, as well as other required files. The engine files > specifically are small enough so they could be duplicated with hardly > a storage impact at all. > > Ideally, the "controlling program" (either the JSBSim.cpp wrapper for > standalone operation, the Flightgear FDM interface class in the case > of integrated operation, etc...) would pass along or specify the > directory to search and the aircraft file name. We really don't care > where we get the aircraft file name from - we just need the file name > (and path). Right now, I think we are trying to be too rigid in > specifying where files are to be found. I don't think we need to kill ourselves trying to be overly flexible. I think it's worth having a central repository of commonly used items (engines, instruments, etc.) An aircraft could refer to a standard item, or could refer to a specific item in it's own directory. I don't think we would need to go overboard on recursive directory searches to hunt for stuff. However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to stuff as "../../../Instruments/hsi.xml" etc. If we move an aircraft one directory level deeper (or more) all those relative references break. :-( I'm calling for someone to take on the task of making aircraft more relocatable. If someone wants to make a family of aircraft varients and share parts ... I think it's ok to make them all live as siblings to a single parent directory, but right now everything is hardwired so every aircraft must be a child of the Aircraft subdirectory. We can't make up organization aircraft directories (i.e. Single-Engine, WWII, Boeing, Cargo, Biz-jet, etc.) 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Giles Robertson wrote: Two points: 1) Relative vs. Absolute links. Relative links makes it tricky, to say the least, to shift a/c around (though I think I have a relative --> absolute python function kicking around somewhere; it's not hard). I can recall some dislike of absolute links. In some ways, a resource-identifier system might be a good idea (and this kind of fits with the XML philosophy), along with a central table (also in XML) that looked something like this: Resource ID Filename yazzascope-3d \instruments\yazzascope-3d-set.xml 2) Organising aircraft The categories you describe aren't exclusive - without some seriously weird symlinking, an a/c can't be a member of Boeing, and of 2-engines, and of Bizjet. (And if you symlinked for this result, Windows users might have difficulties) On a slightly more theoretical note, I would have thought that these non-exclusive categories don't need to be the subject of directories. As a developer, one pokes about the \Aircraft directory a lot. As a user, one very rarely does. What the user wants is to be able to say "gimme a list of a/c that are 2-engined Boeing passenger jets", and it produces it. That could also be the subject of a table/database - and keeping all a/c immediately under \Aircraft should make addition and removal of aircraft easier (what happens in a simple untar system, for instance, if we change the classification of, say, the 737 from Boeing to 2-engined, and the user untars an update - bingo, he has two versions of the 737 --- keeping track of this over time could be difficult) A couple points in response. 1. I think ultimately, we could have hundreds our thousands of aircraft and it would be very difficult to maintain all of these in a single Aircraft folder. 2. If I understand your point #2, you are suggesting each aircraft could have a list of categories it fits in. That is a good idea, I like it a lot. However, I don't want it to side track from the original need to make aircraft arbitrarily relocatable within sub[sub[sub]]folders of the Aircraft folder. 3. I don't want to get caught up so over-engineering a solution to the problem that we never actually get to the point of implimenting anything. I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable. Then step #2 and beyond could be coming up with an a useful/interseting categorization, organization, and filtering scheme. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
That's much neater than what I suggested. How many of these variables do we need so that the directory for the a/c does not have to be a subdirectory of $FG_ROOT? Giles Robertson -Original Message- From: Boris Koenig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 November 2004 21:50 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure Curtis L. Olson wrote: > However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to > stuff as "../../../Instruments/hsi.xml" etc. If we move an aircraft one > directory level deeper (or more) all those relative references break. :-( Well, this is then about relative paths, it could probably already be solved if one added support for standard paths such as $FG_ROOT. Which could mean that the path becomes: $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/Instruments/hsi.xml I think it would take 5 minutes to add support for -automatically defined- environment variables such as: - $FG_AIRCRAFT - $FG_INSTRUMENTS These could all be based on a properly set $FG_ROOT, that way one could simply refer to: "$FG_AIRCRAFTS/c172/c172-set.xml" or "$FG_INSTRUMENTS/hsi.xml" Dealing with such path specifications would mainly come down to looking for an initial '$' sign and stripping of everything behind the first slash in order to determine the real path. > I'm calling for someone to take on the task of making aircraft more > relocatable. If you are mainly thinking about the above problem and my suggestion for a solution is already sufficient, I wouldn't mind to send Erik a corresponding patch. - Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable. If I did get everything right, the major problem is that aircraft rely on instruments and other devices that reside in abitrary locations within the $FG_ROOT directory structure. As a workaround it might really be already sufficient to simply use a bunch of variables that simply refer to $FG_ROOT - that way there wouldn't be any messing around with relative paths - rather, FlightGear itself would simply look for a supported environment variable such as $FG_INSTRUMENTS or $FG_AIRCRAFT and would automatically return a corresponding such as $FG_ROOT/data/Instruments or $FG_ROOT/data/Aircraft. This is really no big deal and would essentially allow Aircraft to reside anywhere - right ? Alternatively, one could also decide to use the Property Tree to store the absolute paths, so that these can be dynamically modified at runtime - if necessary. Then step #2 and beyond could be coming up with an a useful/interseting categorization, organization, and filtering scheme. I think this would be mainly about providing additional tags that support specification of the of aircraft, number of , the , possibly using also data such as weight, pax etc. Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
