RE: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
Curtis L. Olson writes: > > Norman Vine writes: > > Several of us tried doing that with PPE but at the time not many > > agree with us that this was *needed*, and the project languished > > > > Note many of the features used in FGFS today are a direct result of > > additions made to SG and SSG to support things that PPE required. > > > > But why doesn't someone just write a .SSG exporter for Blender ?? > > I would assert that the best approach would be to write > some sort of converter that takes the blender data, builds an ssg > tree, and then dumps the ssg tree out in ssg format. Indeed I assert that is a blender .ssg exporter :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
And why not a Blender loader for Plib. It seems to me that there is already one for osg (openscenegraph) -Fred Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Norman Vine writes: > > Several of us tried doing that with PPE but at the time not many > > agree with us that this was *needed*, and the project languished > > > > Note many of the features used in FGFS today are a direct result of > > additions made to SG and SSG to support things that PPE required. > > > > But why doesn't someone just write a .SSG exporter for Blender ?? > > > The .ssg format is nothing more than a binary dump of the ssg memory > structures. That means it's nearly trivial for ssg to read and write > this format, but it could be excessively difficult for other tools to > read or write the format. Even the *tiniest* change to any structure > in ssg could foul up the whole thing. There is no guarantee of > forward or backwards compatibility between plib versions. By my > estimation it could be a very large project for a non-ssg app to write > ssg format. I would assert that the best approach would be to write > some sort of converter that takes the blender data, builds an ssg > tree, and then dumps the ssg tree out in ssg format. But that still > requires a way to go from blender to ssg so we are right back where we > started. There is going to have to be some hard work done at some > level to make this work ... either with making blender speak ssg, or > making ssg speak vrml (or some other well supported blender format.) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
Norman Vine writes: > Several of us tried doing that with PPE but at the time not many > agree with us that this was *needed*, and the project languished > > Note many of the features used in FGFS today are a direct result of > additions made to SG and SSG to support things that PPE required. > > But why doesn't someone just write a .SSG exporter for Blender ?? The .ssg format is nothing more than a binary dump of the ssg memory structures. That means it's nearly trivial for ssg to read and write this format, but it could be excessively difficult for other tools to read or write the format. Even the *tiniest* change to any structure in ssg could foul up the whole thing. There is no guarantee of forward or backwards compatibility between plib versions. By my estimation it could be a very large project for a non-ssg app to write ssg format. I would assert that the best approach would be to write some sort of converter that takes the blender data, builds an ssg tree, and then dumps the ssg tree out in ssg format. But that still requires a way to go from blender to ssg so we are right back where we started. There is going to have to be some hard work done at some level to make this work ... either with making blender speak ssg, or making ssg speak vrml (or some other well supported blender format.) 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] OT: First Flight
Jim Wilson writes: > Yes, that is new. Obviously it makes a huge difference. Ac3d is > no doubt the best way to make ac3d files at this point. Blender is > open source, which is a major plus. But what we really need to > make the modeling take off is a open source tool that is easy to > use and fully supported by plib. I think that best path to that will be to fix plib's broken VRML1 support (it doesn't currently work with textured objects). Almost every 3D editor can export VRML1, so a good VRML1 loader will give modellers a lot of choice. Of course, we'd still have to wait for the next plib release before switching our model format over. 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] OT: First Flight
Jim Wilson wrote: Yes, that is new. Obviously it makes a huge difference. Ac3d is no doubt the best way to make ac3d files at this point. Blender is open source, which is a major plus. But what we really need to make the modeling take off is a open source tool that is easy to use and fully supported by plib. One disadvantage of ac3d files (using plib) is that it takes an incredible amount of CPU time to regenerate the normals. This is best seen when the trees are loaded. Converting the trees to another format results in much faster initialization of it. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Matt writes: > > > I might be wrong, but isn't Texture Coordinate Editor the same thing? I > > am using version 3.6... > > It may be. The last version I looked at, a few months ago, did not > allow you to position textures precisely with the mouse; instead, you > had to project them in various ways. > Yes, that is new. Obviously it makes a huge difference. Ac3d is no doubt the best way to make ac3d files at this point. Blender is open source, which is a major plus. But what we really need to make the modeling take off is a open source tool that is easy to use and fully supported by plib. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
Matt writes: > I might be wrong, but isn't Texture Coordinate Editor the same thing? I > am using version 3.6... It may be. The last version I looked at, a few months ago, did not allow you to position textures precisely with the mouse; instead, you had to project them in various ways. 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] OT: First Flight
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 19:28, David Megginson wrote: > Matthew Johnson writes: > > > I found Blender to be like a 3D version of emac's Might want to try > > this: > > > > http://www.ac3d.org > > > > Found this application to be much easier to use...But my 3D skills are > > terrible and only time and perseverence will change that, hopefully. > > With AC3D, you might find that the lack of a UV editor makes life > fairly difficult. > I might be wrong, but isn't Texture Coordinate Editor the same thing? I am using version 3.6... Or when I select the whole object I can map a texture to it? I have tried asking Andy, but what precisely is a UV mapper in technical terms? He seems very open to adding features and improvements to his program, perhaps if this is one thing missing I can try and get it added. Matt > > All the best, > > > David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
Matthew Johnson writes: > I found Blender to be like a 3D version of emac's Might want to try > this: > > http://www.ac3d.org > > Found this application to be much easier to use...But my 3D skills are > terrible and only time and perseverence will change that, hopefully. With AC3D, you might find that the lack of a UV editor makes life fairly difficult. 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] OT: First Flight
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Matthew Law wrote: > On Thursday 03 April 2003 22:01, David Megginson wrote: > > I've simulated soft-field takeoffs on long, paved runways many times, > > and used the technique for real a few times this winter to get up > > before snow, ice, and slushy puddles in the middle of runway. It > > tends to freak out passengers, because the plane climbs one or two > > feet then levels out, appearing to rush straight for the trees of > > buildings off the end of the runway -- an advance passenger briefing > > isn't a bad idea. > > Well, hopefully I won't develop the fear that I've seen some pilots have when > they are confronted with a short runway for the first time. I saw a guy (at > a different airfield) in a 182 go-around three times because he'd never had > to plant it straight on the threshold and then hit the brakes hard. He > landed OK on the fourth attempt :-) > > > Wolfgang Langweise, STICK AND RUDDER > > > Another good reference is John Denker's free, online book SEE HOW IT > > FLIES: > > Thanks, I'll have a look on Amazon! > > > Post as often as you'd like -- we'll all be interested in hearing as > > it goes. If you're willing to make a 3D model of a 152 in Blender, > > I'll be happy to cobble together a flight model for you. > > I just can't get my head around Blender. I have tried a couple of times but > the GUI kills me. I'm still working on the caravan in 3DS Max - another > behemoth of an app but hopefully I will get it finished this year. I'll > definitely be trying a 152 unless someone beats me to it ;-) It might be a > better candidate for me to learn modelling on than the caravan since it's a > smaller simpler airframe. Either way I'm sure I'll be bugging you for help > with a model sooner or later... > I found Blender to be like a 3D version of emac's Might want to try this: http://www.ac3d.org Found this application to be much easier to use...But my 3D skills are terrible and only time and perseverence will change that, hopefully. Matt > Cheers, > > Matt. > > ___ > 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] OT: First Flight
Matthew Law writes: > Well, hopefully I won't develop the fear that I've seen some pilots > have when they are confronted with a short runway for the first > time. I saw a guy (at a different airfield) in a 182 go-around > three times because he'd never had to plant it straight on the > threshold and then hit the brakes hard. He landed OK on the fourth > attempt :-) It is a little tricky because you have to approach so close to the stall -- if he wasn't used to it, he was wise to overshoot a few times until he was happy with his approach. > I just can't get my head around Blender. I have tried a couple of > times but the GUI kills me. Remember what beer tasted like when you were a child trying your first taste -- Blender's GUI is pretty-much the same situation. After a while you'll grow to like it, I promise (then again, I still haven't developed a taste for beer). > I'm still working on the caravan in 3DS Max - another > behemoth of an app but hopefully I will get it finished this year. That would be a nice plane to add. We have one on the north field at CYOW, and it's a big monster of a single. 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] OT: First Flight
On Thursday 03 April 2003 22:01, David Megginson wrote: > I've simulated soft-field takeoffs on long, paved runways many times, > and used the technique for real a few times this winter to get up > before snow, ice, and slushy puddles in the middle of runway. It > tends to freak out passengers, because the plane climbs one or two > feet then levels out, appearing to rush straight for the trees of > buildings off the end of the runway -- an advance passenger briefing > isn't a bad idea. Well, hopefully I won't develop the fear that I've seen some pilots have when they are confronted with a short runway for the first time. I saw a guy (at a different airfield) in a 182 go-around three times because he'd never had to plant it straight on the threshold and then hit the brakes hard. He landed OK on the fourth attempt :-) > Wolfgang Langweise, STICK AND RUDDER > Another good reference is John Denker's free, online book SEE HOW IT > FLIES: Thanks, I'll have a look on Amazon! > Post as often as you'd like -- we'll all be interested in hearing as > it goes. If you're willing to make a 3D model of a 152 in Blender, > I'll be happy to cobble together a flight model for you. I just can't get my head around Blender. I have tried a couple of times but the GUI kills me. I'm still working on the caravan in 3DS Max - another behemoth of an app but hopefully I will get it finished this year. I'll definitely be trying a 152 unless someone beats me to it ;-) It might be a better candidate for me to learn modelling on than the caravan since it's a smaller simpler airframe. Either way I'm sure I'll be bugging you for help with a model sooner or later... Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
On 4/3/03 at 5:01 PM David Megginson wrote: >Matthew Law writes: > > > I'll make just one more post after lesson 2... > >Post as often as you'd like -- we'll all be interested in hearing as >it goes. Ditto, I've thoroughly enjoyed the posted desciptions of both David's and now your flying training. If you feel like writing more, don't hesitate to post it! Thanks guys. Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
Matthew Law writes: > It actually felt OK - far less bumpy than the C206's I've been in > on concrete runways. I seem to remember that he held the yoke > quite far back early on in the take off run. Would this help? But > I might be mistaken... That would be a standard soft-field takeoff procedure. He'd get the plane up into ground effect as soon as he could, and then accelerate a couple of feet above the runway until he hit a safe climb speed (either Vx or Vy, depending on whether the climb path was obstructed). I've simulated soft-field takeoffs on long, paved runways many times, and used the technique for real a few times this winter to get up before snow, ice, and slushy puddles in the middle of runway. It tends to freak out passengers, because the plane climbs one or two feet then levels out, appearing to rush straight for the trees of buildings off the end of the runway -- an advance passenger briefing isn't a bad idea. This would be a good time for a couple of plugs. There are many interesting books about flying, but there is one that you absolutely need to buy and keep beside your bed as a bible: Wolfgang Langweise, STICK AND RUDDER Langweise wrote this book in the early 1940's, but it is still in print and is absolutely the best introduction I've ever seen to flying, even though it was written at a time when most students trained in fabric-covered tail draggers with control sticks; his book was the starting point for a lot of modern training technique. I bought and read it only recently, but wish I had done so sooner. It may save you a few hours training if you read and keep rereading it. Another good reference is John Denker's free, online book SEE HOW IT FLIES: http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/ Denker, like everyone else, is heavily influenced by STICK AND RUDDER, but he goes into more technical detail on aerodynamics, and also deals with modern navigation radios and so on. He describes short- and soft-field takeoffs in detail. > I'll make just one more post after lesson 2... Post as often as you'd like -- we'll all be interested in hearing as it goes. If you're willing to make a 3D model of a 152 in Blender, I'll be happy to cobble together a flight model for you. 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] OT: First Flight
On Thursday 03 April 2003 16:16, David Megginson wrote: > Yes, a 150 was simply too small for me -- I paid the extra money to > train in 172s, but I think that our rates are a bit cheaper over here. Cost-wise it simply isn't an option open to me. Also, I'm not sure but I think the club reserves their 172's for advanced training only - which would be for IMC (I think that's a UK only rating?) and night rating training. > I've never had the chance to use a grass runway -- how does it feel as > you get close to takeoff speed? We need to start modelling the bumps > and jolts in FlightGear. It actually felt OK - far less bumpy than the C206's I've been in on concrete runways. I seem to remember that he held the yoke quite far back early on in the take off run. Would this help? But I might be mistaken... > Depending on how much your instructor weighs and how much fuel was on > board, you were probably very close to max gross weight. The 150/152 > doesn't have a great climb rate, but since its forward speed is also > slow, it does have an OK climb angle (i.e. it will clear the trees, > but it takes a long time to reach them). I'm 210lb and he looked to be around 180 or so I didn't check how much fuel showed on the gauges but he did say that the one we were in was modded with long range tanks. > Eventually, my body adjusted to the 172 (since the 172 sure wasn't > going to adjust to my body); it probably would even have adjusted to > the 150, given enough time, but I wasn't willing to try. My biggest > fear even in the 172 were the cross-country dual flights, where I'd > have to have a map, navlog, E6B, etc. laid out on my lap in that tiny > space, but by the time I got to that point I didn't feel so crowded > any more. Mmm. Now you've got me thinking of a 152 with one of those car utility boxes strapped to the outside accessible through the open window. Instant storage! > Make sure she gets at least 25-50% of the proceeds for something *she* > wants (and save a bit of a reserve for the transit passes). 'she' wants to learn to fly a baloon. That's gotta be expensive... I'll make just one more post after lesson 2... Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Major A writes: > > > > > I've never had the chance to use a grass runway -- how does it feel as > > > you get close to takeoff speed? We need to start modelling the bumps > > > and jolts in FlightGear. > > > > I've taken off one (in the back seat, though), it's surprisingly > > smooth. I think it's the same effect as when you ride over a pothole > > on a bicycle -- the faster you go, the smaller the bump. The wheel > > simply has less time to sink into the hole. Also, by the time you > > reach take-off speed, load on the undercarriage is fairly small > > anyway. > > I've flown into and out of grass runways as a passenger. I think the > sensation depends very much on the quality of the runway. One runway > we flew off of was quite nice, hard packed and pretty smooth. One > runway we landed at was, well, hard to call a runway. It was an area The company I've been working for lately operates a farm in the Alagash area of Maine (far north) and there's a grass strip there. The first time I landed on it as a passenger was just after the second half of it's length had been rolled. The thing I remember most is the sensation of dropping down on something so short, as the pilot didn't trust half of the runway just done, we came down on the far half of the field. To me it really looked like we were going to get planted like a lawn dart. This was in a single engine Tiger, my boss now lands a Cougar twin on there regularly now. He had an old cutlass convertable at the farm and ran it up to 90mph on the newly rolled portion to see what it was like. It passed the test, so the departure was...ummm...just a little less stressful. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
Major A writes: > > > I've never had the chance to use a grass runway -- how does it feel as > > you get close to takeoff speed? We need to start modelling the bumps > > and jolts in FlightGear. > > I've taken off one (in the back seat, though), it's surprisingly > smooth. I think it's the same effect as when you ride over a pothole > on a bicycle -- the faster you go, the smaller the bump. The wheel > simply has less time to sink into the hole. Also, by the time you > reach take-off speed, load on the undercarriage is fairly small > anyway. I've flown into and out of grass runways as a passenger. I think the sensation depends very much on the quality of the runway. One runway we flew off of was quite nice, hard packed and pretty smooth. One runway we landed at was, well, hard to call a runway. It was an area cleared out of the jungle and I suspect they left in the stumps. It sounded like the aircraft was shreding itself when we touched down. But we got in and out of there ok. Apparently Helio Super Couriers are tough birds: http://www.yarina.org/~pgibson/yarina/images/planes1.jpg Yeah, I've been up in that Cat too :-) (but I was only 4 so I don't remember much.) I also do remember seeing it land on the lake a few times, and then taxi out up the concrete ramp. Must have been impressive to get burned in the old neurons like that. :-) Regards, 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] OT: First Flight
> I've never had the chance to use a grass runway -- how does it feel as > you get close to takeoff speed? We need to start modelling the bumps > and jolts in FlightGear. I've taken off one (in the back seat, though), it's surprisingly smooth. I think it's the same effect as when you ride over a pothole on a bicycle -- the faster you go, the smaller the bump. The wheel simply has less time to sink into the hole. Also, by the time you reach take-off speed, load on the undercarriage is fairly small anyway. The bumps might be a problem for sim pilots because the pilot would tend to overcorrect them, not having the feedback of one's bottom that one gets in a real plane. (...much the same as turbulence, I guess.) This gives me an idea -- I think a more challenging thing to model on grass strips is the tall grass hitting the canopy on landing in a glider. Since the glider usually tilts forward a bit because of the torque imposed by the wheelbrake, this looks quite impressive from inside. Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: First Flight
David Megginson writes: > Make sure she gets at least 25-50% of the proceeds for something > *she* wants (and save a bit of a reserve for the transit passes). I call it the wife tax. Here it is always at least 50% and usually much more. :-) 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] OT: First Flight
Matthew Law writes: > Well, I said I was going to do it and a freak combination of > holiday and nice weather made me jump in the car and drive to the > Sheffield Aero Club far earlier than planned. After the obligatory > cup of tea and handover of £92 I found myself sat in a C152 by the > name of href="http://www.sheffair.f9.co.uk/aircraft.htm";>'G-BIUM' Congratulations! It sounds like your first experience went much better than mine. > Scarily small aren't they?! I immediately felt a little > 'over-familiar' with Bob, my instructor - not helped by the fact > that I'm a fairly long legged 210lb 'chunker' ! Yes, a 150 was simply too small for me -- I paid the extra money to train in 172s, but I think that our rates are a bit cheaper over here. At least in Cessnas, the trim wheel is beside your knee; in a Cherokee, the trim wheel is on the floor in the tiny space between the seats, which makes for even more familiarity with the person in the right seat. > I explained that I'd never flown a 'plane before and had very > little idea about flight (not quite true but I didn't want to > appear a know-it-all) .. How veddy, veddy British (just joking). > ... so a very good briefing about the controls and their effects > etc was forthcoming. After a very short run-up and magneto test of > the engine we waited briefly for another 152 to land and then spun > around onto the very short (the UK's shortest licensed, apparently) > grass runway. I've never had the chance to use a grass runway -- how does it feel as you get close to takeoff speed? We need to start modelling the bumps and jolts in FlightGear. > We took off uneventfully but I did note how slow we appeared to > climb out. Maybe because I'm used to being in the back of fairly > quick skydiving 'planes which climb at optimum speed and > 800-1200fpm all the way to 13K. Depending on how much your instructor weighs and how much fuel was on board, you were probably very close to max gross weight. The 150/152 doesn't have a great climb rate, but since its forward speed is also slow, it does have an OK climb angle (i.e. it will clear the trees, but it takes a long time to reach them). > All in all a very enjoyable time. Will I carry on? well, I'm > having a medical tomorrow with a CAA doctor...so yes! I can > appreciate David's sentiments of his first flight in a 152. It is > very cramped and seems very susceptible to turbulence and other > 'bumps'. The cockpit left me slightly fatigued because although > I'm 5ft 11" I have long legs and even with the seat right back it > was still uncomfortable on the pedals. Eventually, my body adjusted to the 172 (since the 172 sure wasn't going to adjust to my body); it probably would even have adjusted to the 150, given enough time, but I wasn't willing to try. My biggest fear even in the 172 were the cross-country dual flights, where I'd have to have a map, navlog, E6B, etc. laid out on my lap in that tiny space, but by the time I got to that point I didn't feel so crowded any more. > Now, will she hate me when I sell the car to pay for the > lessons...?! Make sure she gets at least 25-50% of the proceeds for something *she* wants (and save a bit of a reserve for the transit passes). 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
