Re: [Flightgear-devel] FSWeekend 2012...
Hmm . that's an underwhelming list, and I can't come up with anything that's really any better. Does that encapsulate the problem? Well well, it would seem our shader-based treatment of light and the environment is quite competitive against what FSX has to offer: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19t=18325#p170811 * Thorsten -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Next FlightGear release (Feb. 17 2013)
Hi Torsten, Thanks for kickstarting the release process. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: 1. A lack of stress testing. We have a four weeks testing period with release binaries publically available, so I am not sure how to improve that. Do we need more testers? Do we need more time? We've already got a fairly extensive lead-in time for the release. More testers on more platforms would seem to be the answer. Perhaps we should advertize for testers of those platforms that aren't adequately covered by developers running git? Making a complete package available, not just the binaries would help, as testers wouldn't need to be git-aware. 2. Lack of graceful feature scaling. Is this really something we can solve in the release process? AFAIK this was caused by the random buildings code, and entirely my fault. I think that is probably a once-off rather than a systemic problem. 3. Change of the NOAA METAR url Also, this is more a bug or feature request than an issue with the release process Agreed. snip 8. Write the changelog ASAP Yes - That can easily start right now. As it is just a simple wiki page, please contribute to http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_3.0.0 As with the last release, I'll trim this down when we get to the release date and produce a release announcement. -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Next FlightGear release (Feb. 17 2013)
Am 17.11.2012 22:43, schrieb Stuart Buchanan: On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: 1. A lack of stress testing. We have a four weeks testing period with release binaries publically available, so I am not sure how to improve that. Do we need more testers? Do we need more time? We've already got a fairly extensive lead-in time for the release. More testers on more platforms would seem to be the answer. Perhaps we should advertize for testers of those platforms that aren't adequately covered by developers running git? The main area to improve is to distribute release candidates for all platforms earlier - preferably starting immediately after the freeze. That would already give us more time for testing - without extending the actual freeze period. As I remember, we were pretty late with the initial distribution of FG 2.8.0-RCs - especially for Mac (partly due to technical issues and partly due to people not being available - for which no one is to be blamed for, of course). We should be in much better shape for the upcoming release - since the build automation on Jenkins should be working for all platforms now - and nothing about the infrastructure or build system has changed since the last release. How about having a test run a week or two in advance, just to make sure we can indeed produce release installers for Win+Mac - and then release the first RC on December 17th/18th or 19th ;-) ? Curt, Fred, James? ;-) cheers, Thorsten -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Effects/shaders change (fgviewer related)
Hi all, I've pushed a change to the effect files that makes sure that shaders are disabled when /sim/rendering/shaders/quality-level is 0 or non existant. Previously this relied on gui.nas to set the individual shader levels to 0, and fgviewer had no easy way to disable them. This will change default behaviour for fgviewer, in that it will not load/display shaders by default anymore. To enable shaders preview run fgviewer like this (any non-zero number will do): fgviewer --prop /sim/rendering/shaders/quality-level 1 /path/to/object Cheers, Emilian -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fix.dat.gz and nav.dat.gz modification
I haven't gotten any answer from Martin. Is there anybody having concern that these fix.dat.gz and nav.dat.gz to be updated? If no one has then I will push these files. Let me know. Thanks, Hyde (2012?11?07? 14:19), Hyde Yamakawa wrote: Hello Martin, I can not reach you by PM hence I send using mailing list as suggested by Gijs. 1. I have the fix.dat.gz which reflects the latest AIS Japan data https://aisjapan.mlit.go.jp/Login.doand was provided on Japan forum. I already sent this to Robin to update but he is too busy to answer and I haven't gotten any response yet. 2. I have the nav.dat.gz which I corrected all the GS antenna elevation measuring actual touchdown point. Robin already corrected some of them since I had reported that RJSF GS elevation is not correct as following mail. And I notice that this change is not applied FG yet. Sent:March 31 2012 Hyde: I apologise for the delay in replying, but we have been working on enhancements to my database to support the new features of X-Plane 10. That work is complete, so I am now processing the backlog of airport updates. I have corrected the elevation of the glideslopes. The FG team should incorporate this to their database whenever they reload my data. Thanks! Robin Peel Custodian of the X-Plane master database of airports and nav-aids Visit the website at http://data.x-plane.com ro...@xsquawkbox.net mailto:ro...@xsquawkbox.net Seattle, Washington -Original Message- From: Hyde Yamakawa [mailto:h...@hyde-tech.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:26 AM To: ro...@xsquawkbox.net mailto:ro...@xsquawkbox.net Subject: GS antenna elevation data is incorrect in nav.dat Hello, Robin, At first, thank you for your dedication for these database maintenance. Now I have found some issues in nav.dat GS antenna elevation data. GS antenna elevation data of RJSA, RJSC, RJSF and RJSK are all 54 feet nevertheless other data are around 660, 330, 1220 and 310 for each. This causes plane crash when I do ILS landing. Then I checked all the RJ** airport data and found those data were not accurate. That's why the GS slope and PAPI indication has discrepancy. I was a FFS maintainer once and this GS antenna elevation data was a must be adjusted data after delivery the simulator since the slope might be different because of visual model accuracy. Therefore this data may be differ between different simulator. What do you think to keep accuracy of this data? I'm currently the Flightgear user so Flightgear should have independent data? Let me know your thought. Best regards, Hyde My question is, can I push these files to GIT? If not who should I ask? I know they will be modified when V850 scenery will be delivered but it will be next February or later. Until that time can we use these my files? And this also fixes the issue of http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bug ... start=100 http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=630colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Summary%20Aircraft%20Milestonestart=100. Regards, Hyde -- LogMeIn Central: Instant, anywhere, Remote PC access and management. Stay in control, update software, and manage PCs from one command center Diagnose problems and improve visibility into emerging IT issues Automate, monitor and manage. Do more in less time with Central http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein12331_d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- ** Hyde Yamakawa 308 Brookewood Dr. Peachtree City, GA 30269 Phone (770)632-6461 Cell (404)353-8758 e-mail: h...@hyde-tech.com http://www.hyde-tech.com/ ** -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
