Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear at LinuxTag and FSWeekend needyour
Martin wrote > > Torsten Dreyer wrote: > > > As many of you might be aware of, a group of FlightGear enthusiasts have > been > > presenting FlightGear at FSWeekend in Lelystad(NL) and LinuxTag in > Berlin(DE) > > over the last years. > > I just recieved confirmation: > > "we are excited to inform you, that your application for the project > FlightGear Flight Simulator > qualified for a sponsored booth at this year's LinuxTag." > Very good. I hope we will have something new to show - like a new release. What happened to that? Vivian -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
Hal, Good to hear, well done. I hope and expect that it all works out for you. We never even got close to trying AFAIKS. Vivian -Original Message- From: Hal V. Engel [mailto:hven...@gmail.com] Sent: 19 March 2011 19:20 To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible? On Saturday, March 19, 2011 09:53:52 AM Vivian Meazza wrote: > Stewart wrote > > > -Original Message- > > From: S Andreason [mailto:sandrea...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 19 March 2011 15:35 > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it > > possible? > > > > Hal V. Engel wrote: > > > The model I am looking at only has one mesh [...clip...] drapped over > > > a set of armatures (bones) [...clip...] AC3D has no support for > > > armatures as far as I can tell so this imformation is lost on export > > > > If it is only one mesh, then that says it all. > > > > Correct. That technique is new, and not supported by AC3D. > > > > > Inside of Blender the posing process is actually very elegant > > > > Yes, Blender is more advanced, and I would say since aircraft are not > > organic and flex thus, it has not been a priority for the fg developers > > to focus in this direction. Only Detlef and myself have put effort into > > getting any body animations, from which other piloted aircraft and > > carriers have benefited. (Correct me if I'm missing something, Vivian) > > > > > The walker model is much like the existing modern pilot that is part > > > of the P-51D. > > > > I forget which pilot was version 1, but the current walker came about > > after Detlef and I improved the pilot. > > > > > Very unnatural and complex to animate and with seams at the joints > > > that are visible. > > > > I know, it is looking old already, but it is better than nothing. > > I hope someone else will feel inspired, and be talented enough to pick > > up where I left off. > > Not quite - I animated the pilot in the Hunter and Seahawk way ahead of > that. I have a crudely jointed model. But it just takes too long to adjust, > and I was hoping that we might do it in a more professional manner. > > We nearly got there under PLIB, but there were some fundamental bugs we > couldn't overcome. That thread of development just got lost in the cut over > to OSG. I think there is something built-in to OSG, but we never got around > to porting it to FG. Along with all the other things we didn't do with OSG. > > Google Summer of Code might have addressed one or more of these things, but > I think the deadline was missed again this year. > > Vivian GSoC sent out acceptance/rejection letters to mentoring orgs yesterday. I am one of the Admins for an orginization that got accepted so I will be doing GSoC paper work this week end. It takes a lot of prep work to get things ready for GSoC so it is easy to not get things ready in time. But it would have been great if FG had been able to leverage GSoC to get some specific things done. Hal -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear at LinuxTag and FSWeekend need your
Torsten Dreyer wrote: > As many of you might be aware of, a group of FlightGear enthusiasts have been > presenting FlightGear at FSWeekend in Lelystad(NL) and LinuxTag in Berlin(DE) > over the last years. I just recieved confirmation: "we are excited to inform you, that your application for the project FlightGear Flight Simulator qualified for a sponsored booth at this year's LinuxTag." Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
On Saturday, March 19, 2011 09:53:52 AM Vivian Meazza wrote: > Stewart wrote > > > -Original Message- > > From: S Andreason [mailto:sandrea...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 19 March 2011 15:35 > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it > > possible? > > > > Hal V. Engel wrote: > > > The model I am looking at only has one mesh [...clip...] drapped over > > > a set of armatures (bones) [...clip...] AC3D has no support for > > > armatures as far as I can tell so this imformation is lost on export > > > > If it is only one mesh, then that says it all. > > > > Correct. That technique is new, and not supported by AC3D. > > > > > Inside of Blender the posing process is actually very elegant > > > > Yes, Blender is more advanced, and I would say since aircraft are not > > organic and flex thus, it has not been a priority for the fg developers > > to focus in this direction. Only Detlef and myself have put effort into > > getting any body animations, from which other piloted aircraft and > > carriers have benefited. (Correct me if I'm missing something, Vivian) > > > > > The walker model is much like the existing modern pilot that is part > > > of the P-51D. > > > > I forget which pilot was version 1, but the current walker came about > > after Detlef and I improved the pilot. > > > > > Very unnatural and complex to animate and with seams at the joints > > > that are visible. > > > > I know, it is looking old already, but it is better than nothing. > > I hope someone else will feel inspired, and be talented enough to pick > > up where I left off. > > Not quite - I animated the pilot in the Hunter and Seahawk way ahead of > that. I have a crudely jointed model. But it just takes too long to adjust, > and I was hoping that we might do it in a more professional manner. > > We nearly got there under PLIB, but there were some fundamental bugs we > couldn't overcome. That thread of development just got lost in the cut over > to OSG. I think there is something built-in to OSG, but we never got around > to porting it to FG. Along with all the other things we didn't do with OSG. > > Google Summer of Code might have addressed one or more of these things, but > I think the deadline was missed again this year. > > Vivian GSoC sent out acceptance/rejection letters to mentoring orgs yesterday. I am one of the Admins for an orginization that got accepted so I will be doing GSoC paper work this week end. It takes a lot of prep work to get things ready for GSoC so it is easy to not get things ready in time. But it would have been great if FG had been able to leverage GSoC to get some specific things done. Hal -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
On Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:01:19 AM Michael Sgier wrote:
> Yes, i wanna know as well, because x-plane also uses armatures. In Blender
> for X-plane i only enter a dataref name like battery_on etc. This would
> make aircraft conversions much easier and fast.
> A nice book...i guess I'd need to wait for the english version...
On the forum thread one post says that using an on-line transalation engine
works OK. All of the screen shots are of Blender with an English UI.
> but as i
> already finished a PC-12 for X-Plane, I probably move on :-)Hal are all
> downloadable *.blend files free to use or have any copyright?
If you go to the web site it should have a statement about all of the models
being free to use in FG and it's projects. The author of the models (and
ebook) was told when asking for permission to use these that FG needed these
to be GPL compatible so he is aware that these will end up under GPL if they
are used in FG.
> I also
> remarked that Gimp has troubles with text as *.png. Therefore I mostly use
> PS 7 on Wine. BTW is someone working on integrating the current x-plane
> apt format?
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/18/11, Hal V. Engel wrote:
>
> From: Hal V. Engel
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it
> possible? To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 8:39 PM
>
>
>
> #yiv1446985333 p, #yiv1446985333 li {white-space:pre-wrap;}
>
> On Friday, March 18, 2011 07:08:14 AM S Andreason wrote:
> > Hi Hal,
> >
> > Oh yes, it is possible. But not easy.
> >
> > Hal V. Engel wrote:
> > > I have been able to get a AC3D export but of course all of the
> > > armature stuff is gone and all I have at that point is a static model
> > > that can not be animated.
> >
> > The export process from Blender may not be the problem. _If_ each limb
> > is correctly defined separately, and a child of the parent limb, then
> > the hard part is generating the _xml_ file that defines the center of
> > rotation of each limb's connection, and how it rotates. Each limb needs
> > between 1 and 3 axis properties.
> > Take a look at the animated walker in the Bluebird aircraft.
> >
> > Stewart
> > http://seahorseCorral.org/flightgear_aircraft
>
> Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that the AC3D
> export was not working. Rather only that all it created from this
> armature based model is a static model that had very limited posibilities
> for animation. You are correct that if "..each limb is correctly defined
> separately, and a child of the parent limb.." for non-armature animation
> that the export would likely work OK.
>
>
> The model I am looking at only has one mesh for the body including arms,
> hands, fingers, figer tips, thumb, legs and feet. This mesh is drapped
> over a set of armatures (bones) and it is designed to be animated by
> moving the bones with that mesh following them (IE. no visiable seams).
> AC3D has no support for armatures as far as I can tell so this imformation
> is lost on export and I end up with a mesh that is the shape that the
> model was posed in when it was exported.
>
>
> Inside of Blender I can pull, push and/or rotate the bones to pose the
> model in extreamly precise ways even down to changing the grip of the
> hands to fit around controls. The exported AC3D model can be made to fit
> very nicely into the cockpit but the only thing that can be animated is
> the head because it is a seperate mesh from the rest of the model.
> Inside of Blender the posing process is actually very elegant as all of
> the bones know how they are connected and everything moves together as it
> should when one part of moved. That is if you rotate the forarm the hands
> and fingers follow along with no need to move them seperately. I am not
> sure (I am new to this 3D stuff) but it seams to me that the same types of
> transformations should happen when the bones are animated in sim/game (IE.
> move the hand with the stick and the fingers, finger tips, thumb, forarm
> and upper arm should follow automatically). But maybe I'm wrong.
>
>
> The walker model is much like the existing modern pilot that is part of the
> P-51D. Very unnatural and complex to animate and with seams at the joints
> that are visible.
>
>
> The OSG docs I have looked at indicate that it supports armature based
> animation. So in theroy if I can get the armature based blender pilot
> into a correct OSG 3D file then it should be possible to animate it and
> the animation should be fairly elegant. But it appears that the Blender
> OSG exporter is broken. It also appears that no one has tried doing
> armature based animation with any file format from with in FG yet. So I
> don't even know at this point if this will work with the correctly formed
> 3D files. What I am really trying to get at is:
>
>
> 1. Will this work from with in FG?
>
>
> 2. If so how do I get well formed armature based 3D files tha
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
Stewart wrote > -Original Message- > From: S Andreason [mailto:sandrea...@gmail.com] > Sent: 19 March 2011 15:35 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it > possible? > > Hal V. Engel wrote: > > > > The model I am looking at only has one mesh [...clip...] drapped over > > a set of armatures (bones) [...clip...] AC3D has no support for > > armatures as far as I can tell so this imformation is lost on export > > > > If it is only one mesh, then that says it all. > > Correct. That technique is new, and not supported by AC3D. > > > > Inside of Blender the posing process is actually very elegant > > > Yes, Blender is more advanced, and I would say since aircraft are not > organic and flex thus, it has not been a priority for the fg developers > to focus in this direction. Only Detlef and myself have put effort into > getting any body animations, from which other piloted aircraft and > carriers have benefited. (Correct me if I'm missing something, Vivian) > > > The walker model is much like the existing modern pilot that is part > > of the P-51D. > I forget which pilot was version 1, but the current walker came about > after Detlef and I improved the pilot. > > > Very unnatural and complex to animate and with seams at the joints > > that are visible. > I know, it is looking old already, but it is better than nothing. > I hope someone else will feel inspired, and be talented enough to pick > up where I left off. > Not quite - I animated the pilot in the Hunter and Seahawk way ahead of that. I have a crudely jointed model. But it just takes too long to adjust, and I was hoping that we might do it in a more professional manner. We nearly got there under PLIB, but there were some fundamental bugs we couldn't overcome. That thread of development just got lost in the cut over to OSG. I think there is something built-in to OSG, but we never got around to porting it to FG. Along with all the other things we didn't do with OSG. Google Summer of Code might have addressed one or more of these things, but I think the deadline was missed again this year. Vivian -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
Hal V. Engel wrote: > > The model I am looking at only has one mesh [...clip...] drapped over > a set of armatures (bones) [...clip...] AC3D has no support for > armatures as far as I can tell so this imformation is lost on export > If it is only one mesh, then that says it all. Correct. That technique is new, and not supported by AC3D. > Inside of Blender the posing process is actually very elegant > Yes, Blender is more advanced, and I would say since aircraft are not organic and flex thus, it has not been a priority for the fg developers to focus in this direction. Only Detlef and myself have put effort into getting any body animations, from which other piloted aircraft and carriers have benefited. (Correct me if I'm missing something, Vivian) > The walker model is much like the existing modern pilot that is part > of the P-51D. I forget which pilot was version 1, but the current walker came about after Detlef and I improved the pilot. > Very unnatural and complex to animate and with seams at the joints > that are visible. I know, it is looking old already, but it is better than nothing. I hope someone else will feel inspired, and be talented enough to pick up where I left off. Stewart http://seahorseCorral.org/flightgear_aircraft -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] File sizes in fgdata, clean up needed?
Am 18.03.11 20:00, schrieb ThorstenB: > > Indeed, fgdata/master is becoming way too big though. But we can only > solve this by splitting our current repository - and then push the > different parts to fresh git repositories. Splitting fgdata was planned > anyway. The new "--fg-aircraft" options was the first step to make this > possible. I'm just not sure what the status of splitting fgdata is though... > > cheers, > Thorsten > Splitting is a good idea, sorry I didn’t realize that this is on the way right now. I "splitted" fgdata locally today because I want to distribute a snapshot of my new OSX launcher (FlightGear 2.2 for 10.5/6 intel) with some basic fgdata included, for testing purposes. Now "fgx full" comes with very basic fgdata around 800 MB. The .dmg to download takes ~500 MB. From the aircrafts I only included 737-100 b1900d bo105 c172p Citation-Bravo Concorde ec135 followme Generic Instruments Instruments3d MPCarrier Pushback seahawk Sikorsky-76C Storch ufo UH-1 wrightFlyer1903 ZLT-NT I am looking forward to include a better selection. I just wanted to have a good selection for a starting point with "working" aircrafts and a good mix of types. Maybe you see something important missing here, but when a new (and probably well discussed) repo with "default fg aircrafts" comes around, I will switch to this selection of course. Thanks, Yves -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
Yes, i wanna know as well, because x-plane also uses armatures. In Blender for
X-plane i only enter a dataref name like battery_on etc.
This would make aircraft conversions much easier and fast.
A nice book...i guess I'd need to wait for the english version...but as i
already finished a PC-12 for X-Plane, I probably move on :-)Hal are all
downloadable *.blend files free to use or have any copyright?
I also remarked that Gimp has troubles with text as *.png. Therefore I mostly
use PS 7 on Wine.
BTW is someone working on integrating the current x-plane apt format?
--- On Fri, 3/18/11, Hal V. Engel wrote:
From: Hal V. Engel
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Using native OSG 3D models - is it possible?
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 8:39 PM
#yiv1446985333 p, #yiv1446985333 li {white-space:pre-wrap;}
On Friday, March 18, 2011 07:08:14 AM S Andreason wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> Oh yes, it is possible. But not easy.
>
> Hal V. Engel wrote:
> > I have been able to get a AC3D export but of course all of the
> > armature stuff is gone and all I have at that point is a static model
> > that can not be animated.
>
> The export process from Blender may not be the problem. _If_ each limb
> is correctly defined separately, and a child of the parent limb, then
> the hard part is generating the _xml_ file that defines the center of
> rotation of each limb's connection, and how it rotates. Each limb needs
> between 1 and 3 axis properties.
> Take a look at the animated walker in the Bluebird aircraft.
>
> Stewart
> http://seahorseCorral.org/flightgear_aircraft
Sorry I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that the AC3D export
was not working. Rather only that all it created from this armature based
model is a static model that had very limited posibilities for animation. You
are correct that if "..each limb is correctly defined separately, and a child
of the parent limb.." for non-armature animation that the export would likely
work OK.
The model I am looking at only has one mesh for the body including arms, hands,
fingers, figer tips, thumb, legs and feet. This mesh is drapped over a set of
armatures (bones) and it is designed to be animated by moving the bones with
that mesh following them (IE. no visiable seams). AC3D has no support for
armatures as far as I can tell so this imformation is lost on export and I end
up with a mesh that is the shape that the model was posed in when it was
exported.
Inside of Blender I can pull, push and/or rotate the bones to pose the model in
extreamly precise ways even down to changing the grip of the hands to fit
around controls. The exported AC3D model can be made to fit very nicely into
the cockpit but the only thing that can be animated is the head because it is a
seperate mesh from the rest of the model. Inside of Blender the posing
process is actually very elegant as all of the bones know how they are
connected and everything moves together as it should when one part of moved.
That is if you rotate the forarm the hands and fingers follow along with no
need to move them seperately. I am not sure (I am new to this 3D stuff) but it
seams to me that the same types of transformations should happen when the bones
are animated in sim/game (IE. move the hand with the stick and the fingers,
finger tips, thumb, forarm and upper arm should follow automatically). But
maybe I'm wrong.
The walker model is much like the existing modern pilot that is part of the
P-51D. Very unnatural and complex to animate and with seams at the joints that
are visible.
The OSG docs I have looked at indicate that it supports armature based
animation. So in theroy if I can get the armature based blender pilot into a
correct OSG 3D file then it should be possible to animate it and the animation
should be fairly elegant. But it appears that the Blender OSG exporter is
broken. It also appears that no one has tried doing armature based animation
with any file format from with in FG yet. So I don't even know at this point
if this will work with the correctly formed 3D files. What I am really trying
to get at is:
1. Will this work from with in FG?
2. If so how do I get well formed armature based 3D files that will work with
OSG out of Blender (I don't care what format it is as long as OSG understands
it)?
Hal
-Inline Attachment Follows-
--
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
-Inline Attachment Follows-
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
---
