Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Le 20/05/2011 23:47, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit : Message: 16 Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:15:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Gene Buckle Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 11 To: FlightGear developers discussions Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Fri, 20 May 2011, Heiko Schulz wrote: > > Emmanuel, > > and all here involved or not, TAKE. THIS. OFF. LINE. g. I'm sorry. My answers were made in private to avoid contamination of the devel list. I also replaced the FDM was missing in these people.But it seems they do not want to understand. And as I have no time to waste on that kind of fruitless talks, know that all this time, I also added an airplane in FG, started two other planes (Nakajima B5N Kate and Aichi D3A Val) and improved R44. My goal is to give pleasure the greatest number and not to satisfy the ego of one or two people. Regards. Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: android/ipad development
Hi Curt, > I have an android phone myself, but everyone else involved in this > UAS project is mac so I'll probably get out voted. :-) but remember: iPxxx needs the app store do install software unless you jailbreaked your device. App store is more or less incompatible with GPL software. I once hacked a small fg-remote control for my iPod but was only able to run it in the x-code device-emulator and was unable to transfer it to the actual device without being registered as a developer with Apple (certainly not a free option). I gave up on this and if I ever buy a smartphone, it'l run an open O/S. Greetings, Torsten -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: android/ipad development
If you want to place a application in the app store, it costs some $99/year iirc, but it allows for as many applications you want, paid or not. > Hi Curt, > > > I have an android phone myself, but everyone else involved in this > > UAS project is mac so I'll probably get out voted. :-) > but remember: iPxxx needs the app store do install software unless you > jailbreaked your device. App store is more or less incompatible with GPL > software. > I once hacked a small fg-remote control for my iPod but was only able to run > it in the x-code device-emulator and was unable to transfer it to the actual > device without being registered as a developer with Apple (certainly not a > free option). I gave up on this and if I ever buy a smartphone, it'l run an > open O/S. > > Greetings, Torsten > > -- > What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! > Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its > next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran > developers boost performance applications - including clusters. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Atmospheres
My tests with "Vostok" shows what current FlightGear atmosphere have serious issues in means of high altitude flights. On reentry dynamic pressure inverts and have negative values on 60...50km. That can be tested by dropping any FG JSBSim based craft from altitudes higher than 60km, from, say, 200.000ft. Setting /environment/params/control-fdm-atmosphere to false in runtime as Anders had propose does nothing. Setting /environment/params/control-fdm-atmosphere to false in set file by other Anders proposition 0 makes atmosphere pressure to be equal to sea level pressure on any altitude. It seems to be inner FlightGear issue since standalone JSBSim tests do not shows negative qbar in same trajectory conditions. It have other problems, air pressure what seems to not depends of altitude if altitude is high enough and equals 0.008310 on any high altitude, but not antimatter in the middle. Links of source files of standalone JSBSim test included. vostok-reentry-test.xml http://pastebin.com/jxNuV952 vostok-reentry-test-runscript.xml http://pastebin.com/fKNupar3 vostok-reentry-test-reset.xml http://pastebin.com/bc60amQz how-to-start.txt http://pastebin.com/4Yt2CaGV With best regards, Victor Slavvutinsky -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Fog vs black sky (issue #319)
Am Freitag, den 20.05.2011, 19:06 +0200 schrieb ThorstenB:
> On 19.05.2011 20:38, Lauri Peltonen wrote:
> > So the solution is either change the clear color to what it was, or make
> > it ramp linearly to black or something with altitude.
> >
> > Or change simgear/scene/sky.cxx around line 117 (repaint method), there
> > is a
> > if ( effective_visibility> 1000.0 ) {
> >...
> > } else {
> >// turn off sky
> >disable();
> > }
> My suggestion: we try removing the condition now and see if anyone sees
> new issues.
After looking into this more closely, I revert my suggestion. Not a good
idea to remove the condition. It's there for several reasons:
* Switches off sun/moon/stars when visibility is low. Looks odd when
there's a bright (red) sun or stars in very dense the fog - so we have
to keep this.
* Also switches off the blue (or colorful) sky dome at low visibility.
Before the patch, the clear color was synchronized to the current fog
color:
SGVec4f clearColor(l->adj_fog_color());
Hence, switching off the sky dome turned all empty bits into fog -
including the entire sky.
So, we need something in the scenery which can be painted with the fog
color. For anyone interested in working on it (Lauri? ;-) ) here are
some options:
* Change the sky dome itself so its color can uniformly be switched to
"fog color" when visibility is low, and then (the easy part ;-) ) move
the sky dome element above the switched sky group (so it's not affected
when the other sky elements are switched off).
* Switch the sky dome off but introduce/enable a new "fog dome" at low
visibility (painted with the fog color).
* Or, change the implementation of FGLighting::adj_fog_color
(and ::sky_color) to return black as the current fog/sky color at high
altitudes - and keep all the other stuff.
The last option is probably the easiest. But not sure what the "right"
solution was - maybe an osg/scenery expert can comment? (Tim/Mathias?)
I've reverted the original patch for now, since we'll need to work on
the particular renderer.cxx lines anyway to solve the issue - and there
were also a few minor "technical" things (see revert-commit comment), so
we should provide a better patch once we know how to solve the fog issue
altogether.
Tracker issue:
http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=319
cheers,
Thorsten
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Hello, I'm new to FlightGear but I'm using mostly OpenSource software since a whole while. I stumbled in here on the list when I was searching for some problems I had with GIT and FlightGear. Luckily I could solve it- thanks to the mails here on list and the wiki. :-) Thanks for a simulator with great possibilities! Quote: > > > > Emmanuel, > > > > and all here involved or not, > > TAKE. THIS. OFF. LINE. I have followed this ugly discussion. This words by Mr. Buckle are clear enough. But I hope I may allowed to add some random thoughts here though ?! Quote: > I'm sorry. My answers were made in private to avoid contamination of the >devel list. I also replaced the FDM was missing in these > > people.But it seems they do not want to understand. It wasn't good that later in this discussion a private communication had been brought into public by Mr. Schulz- it made the mess not look better. I'm not sure if this was made on purpose, or accidently. At least it looks to me as several mails sent to the list by Mr. Baranger was originally meant to be private as well, but landed here in public. Wanted or not Even when private Emails lands in public accidently- it let escalate such conflicts on both sides. Uh Oh This can happen in the heat of the battle. My advice: check that your Email browser uses the right email address and not automatically added the wrong one. It happened to me as well once time on another list. Awkward And of course: Google Translate and other machine translators should be not used in communications between people. They are maybe good for books and articles- but not for communications between each other! If there is the chance that someone other can translate it - use it. So much about this from me about. I hope this conflicts doesn't happening much often Quote: > , I also added an airplane in FG, started two other > planes (Nakajima B5N Kate and Aichi D3A Val) and improved R44. My goal is to >give pleasure the greatest number and not to satisfy > > the ego of one or two people. So there is a serious competition with getting the biggest number of aircraft into FlightGear in a short time? I am surprised about this statement by Mr. Baranger, but I'm carefull... seems like Google Translate behind again. I tried MSFS, but someone told me that FlightGear is much more realistic, and even tries to be most realistic simulator in OpenSource and in general. At least the introduction at flightgear.org says it. So I came here because I hoped to get qualitity than useless quantity. Well, my short review: About 300-400 aircraft but about 75% seems to be not finished, are not really flyable or actually uses wrong Flight Model (fdm called, right?) copied from other aircraft. And all this ones I meant are made by just one man. (on the other side the 25% are already really nice: SenecaII, F-14, A-10 A-6E, 777-200, TwinOtter, Spitfire, Bf109, Pilatus Porter, EC130, S76cgood, realistic aircraft needs time to develope ) I am not long enough using FlightGear and never contributed yet, but I would like to say: Sorry, but you can count me to those 1-2 people with this ego as well! I hoped I hope that there are enough serious aircraft developer there who satisfy the ego those 1-2 people like me. I like FlightGear, as the report from the LinuxTag shows, the possibilities to use FlightGear seems to be great! I hope it wasn't the wrong place to come up with a short review Kind Regards P.M. -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:22:23 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message <557074.13714...@web29803.mail.ird.yahoo.com>: > <...> but I'm carefull... seems like Google Translate behind again. ..looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o) > I tried MSFS, but someone told me that FlightGear is much more > realistic, and even tries to be most realistic simulator in > OpenSource and in general. At least the introduction at > flightgear.org says it. So I came here because I hoped to get > qualitity than useless quantity. > > > Well, my short review: > About 300-400 aircraft but about 75% seems to be not finished, ..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g. "git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0" for both SG and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o) http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear > are not really flyable or actually uses wrong Flight Model (fdm called, > right?) copied from other aircraft. And all this ones I meant are > made by just one man. (on the other side the 25% are already really > nice: SenecaII, F-14, A-10 A-6E, 777-200, TwinOtter, Spitfire, Bf109, > Pilatus Porter, EC130, S76cgood, realistic aircraft needs time > to develope ) ..yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o) Welcome aboard. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Hello, > ...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o) I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate without Google translate. But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really meaning. I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are really all developed further and being usuable later? In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as discussed here, wanted by those "1-2" person aren't a pleasure. Maybe a misunderstood. >..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into > the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g. > "git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0" for both SG > and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o) > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear Thanks, I will take a look! > ...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o) > Welcome aboard. I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in developement. So if there is a release they will be add to the Download page, am I right? I expected a far smaller number of aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess, which will hardly be usuable. As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity... *blush* How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more realistic? So thanks for the welcome P.M. P.S. I just noticed that this mail maybe fits more to the users-list, I'm sorry! -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:04:33 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message
<379675.56250...@web29801.mail.ird.yahoo.com>:
>
> Hello,
>
> > ...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o)
>
>
> I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate
> without Google translate.
> But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really
> meaning.
>
> I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another
> aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much
> pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are
> really all developed further and being usuable later?
> In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as
> discussed here, wanted by those "1-2" person aren't a pleasure.
>
> Maybe a misunderstood.
..the whole "conflict" is a product of misunderstandings.
Best cure is write in your own language if you need
translation programs to read or write in the English
language more than once a week.
> >..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into
> > the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g.
> > "git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0" for both SG
> > and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o)
> > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian
> > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
> > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear
>
> Thanks, I will take a look!
>
> > ...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o)
> > Welcome aboard.
>
>
> I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the
> developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in
> developement.
..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
> So if there is a release they will be add to the
> Download page, am I right?
..if somebody puts it there, yes. ;o)
> I expected a far smaller number of
> aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all
> aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that
> high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess,
> which will hardly be usuable.
..define "useable", newbie, then consider
the developer bait context. ;o)
> As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity...
> *blush*
> How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which
> aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more
> realistic?
..try "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production "
.."--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}"
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
>
> So thanks for the welcome
>
> P.M.
>
>
> P.S. I just noticed that this mail maybe fits more to the users-list,
> I'm sorry!
..hush, we're fishing. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...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.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] OSG + vrml plugin
Has anyone built the vrml plugin for OSG under linux (fedora). The
README.txt says I need boost and openvrml installed. I've installed
openvrml and libopenvrml{,-devel}, and rerun ./configure but the vrml plugin
still isn't getting built.
Apparently I don't know enough about cmake to trace through the scripts and
figure out what the "findvrml" plugin is looking for specifically. I'm not
even sure that module is getting run or how to tell cmake to even look for
openvrml?
Does anyone have any tips or suggestions?
Thanks,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson:
http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/
http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
> ..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
> Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
> buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
I meant stable-versions.
When I use builds from the Hudson server I do get a snapshot. So things can be
broken, not run or completly buggy and not work as expected.
I take v2.0.0 as an example: a freezed developement status and is meant as
stable version, so should work without any major bugs ( it does for me here on
win32! :-)).
>..define "useable", newbie, then consider
> the developer bait context. ;o)
"Useable"- at least the standard six instruments are available and working for
aircraft flying VFR; (as an example on the DA42 they aren't working, or the
Fouga Magister is missing the Artificial Horizon...)
- aircraft with IFR certification should have the necessary instruments and
avionics working (as an example not like the 737-230, B52F, Caravelle ...)
- a reasonable fdm ( as an example the ME262 has a poor roll rate for a
fighter,
the Caravelle seems to be underpowerd, lot others seems not well balanced and
tends to oscillate...)
I tried a random cross-section of each each type of aircraft. Please don't mind
it, maybe I'm a bit spoiled. And yes, as mentioned there are aircraft which
can
even could compete with Payware aircraft made for X-Plane like the IAR80,
B1900d, FW190, SenecaII, Hansajet
>..try "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production "
>.."--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}"
>Allows you to define a minimum status level
>(=development status) for all listed aircraft
I see, Thanks!
Kind Regards
P.M.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:04:33 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message
>
> <379675.56250...@web29801.mail.ird.yahoo.com>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > > ...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o)
> >
> > I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate
> > without Google translate.
> > But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really
> > meaning.
> >
> > I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another
> > aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much
> > pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are
> > really all developed further and being usuable later?
> > In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as
> > discussed here, wanted by those "1-2" person aren't a pleasure.
> >
> > Maybe a misunderstood.
>
> ..the whole "conflict" is a product of misunderstandings.
> Best cure is write in your own language if you need
> translation programs to read or write in the English
> language more than once a week.
>
> > >..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into
> > >
> > > the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g.
> > > "git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0" for both SG
> > > and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o)
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear
> >
> > Thanks, I will take a look!
> >
> > > ...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o)
> > > Welcome aboard.
> >
> > I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the
> > developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in
> > developement.
>
> ..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
> Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
> buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
>
> > So if there is a release they will be add to the
> > Download page, am I right?
>
> ..if somebody puts it there, yes. ;o)
>
> > I expected a far smaller number of
> > aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all
> > aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that
> > high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess,
> > which will hardly be usuable.
>
> ..define "useable", newbie, then consider
> the developer bait context. ;o)
>
> > As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity...
> > *blush*
> > How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which
> > aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more
> > realistic?
>
> ..try "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production "
>
>
> .."--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}"
> Allows you to define a minimum status level
> (=development status) for all listed aircraft
>
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been tagged as
production quality it may miss some aircraft that are actually of very high
quality and some of the listed aircraft may not be truly "production" quality.
In fact looking at the list of "production" aircraft from my installation I
would say that some of these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT install as
it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how much
space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the bigger the
aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all have
very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although I don't think
that any of the authors consider them to be complete yet.Using "--min-
status=production" should include the IAR80 in it's list but not the p51d-
jsbsim (which has a status of early production) or the MiG-15 (which has no
status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue of helping
users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long standing and
significant issue. There was a rating system that was proposed here that would
have made it simple for aircraft authors to produce a consistent and verifiable
status for their aircraft. The system set a very high bar for the higher
status ratings. Status ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early
production, production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.Taking the
p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an idea how well
developed a model under this system needs to be to get a production or
advanced
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:31:17 -0700, Hal wrote in message
<201105211431.19074.hven...@gmail.com>:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..try "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production "
> >
> >
> > .."--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}"
> > Allows you to define a minimum status level
> > (=development status) for all listed aircraft
> >
>
> Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been
> tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are
> actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not
> be truly "production" quality. In fact looking at the list of
> "production" aircraft from my installation I would say that some of
> these are not true production quality. In addition the
> --min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT
> install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
..browsing the list archive, I see mention of argument order
mattering, i.e. "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production"
being different to "fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft",
has this changed?
> FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft
> screen.
>
> Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how
> much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the
> bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For
> example, the p51d (81.1 meg
> - use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all
> have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although
> I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete
> yet.Using "--min- status=production" should include the IAR80 in
> it's list but not the p51d- jsbsim (which has a status of early
> production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information).
>
> There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue
> of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long
> standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was
> proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to
> produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The
> system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status
> ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production,
> production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
> jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.
> Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an
> idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get
> a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears
> that only a few of the models are actually using this system.
>
> Hal
..it's also a matter of opinion, some developers are _very_
critical of and demanding on their own work, which is good
for FG release quality but bad for those lofty plans of
release schedules, is why I advocate having the release
dictator play with git until (s)he finds git commit
combinations (s)he likes, and release those on the spot.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...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.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 04:24:38 PM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:31:17 -0700, Hal wrote in message
>
> <201105211431.19074.hven...@gmail.com>:
> > On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > ..try "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production "
> > >
> > >
> > > .."--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}"
> > >
> > > Allows you to define a minimum status level
> > > (=development status) for all listed aircraft
> >
> > Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been
> > tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are
> > actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not
> > be truly "production" quality. In fact looking at the list of
> > "production" aircraft from my installation I would say that some of
> > these are not true production quality. In addition the
> > --min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT
> > install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
>
> ..browsing the list archive, I see mention of argument order
> mattering, i.e. "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production"
> being different to "fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft",
> has this changed?
I used
fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status="production"
which did not work. So as a test I tried
fgfs --min-status="production" --show-aircraft
and that worked and it produced a list of 15 "production" aircraft. This did
not include the IAR80 perhaps because it sets production in
IAR80-base.xml rather than in IAR80-set.xml?
>
> > FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft
> > screen.
> >
> > Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how
> > much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the
> > bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For
> > example, the p51d (81.1 meg
> > - use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all
> > have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although
> > I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete
> > yet.Using "--min- status=production" should include the IAR80 in
> > it's list but not the p51d- jsbsim (which has a status of early
> > production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information).
> >
> > There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue
> > of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long
> > standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was
> > proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to
> > produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The
> > system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status
> > ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production,
> > production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
> > jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.
> > Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an
> > idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get
> > a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears
> > that only a few of the models are actually using this system.
> >
> > Hal
>
> ..it's also a matter of opinion, some developers are _very_
> critical of and demanding on their own work, which is good
> for FG release quality but bad for those lofty plans of
> release schedules, is why I advocate having the release
> dictator play with git until (s)he finds git commit
> combinations (s)he likes, and release those on the spot.
I think a better plan is to have a defined release schedule that includes
things like feature freeze dates and use of branches for the releases. Not
too hard to do once things are setup and it injects some disipline into the
process. But it does take some effort to get this type of thing going as well
as someone willing to be a strong release manager.
But the issue here is not really a release management issue but more of a
documentation issue. Besides those aircraft authors/developers who are very
critical of thier own work are not the ones who have held up the release
schedule nor are they the ones who are causing the issue with poor
quality/incomplete aircraft models.
Hal
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
