Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
> Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's > mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with respect > to the cockpit model. (I'd really appreciate if you guys would call me on first-name basis 'Thorsten'...) That's a question of what a fair comparison is. I'm going to assume that whoever put a demo version from FSX together has specifically chosen scenery and airplanes in the demo to impress users. So my standard of comparison is not 'How does the same airplane or the same scenery in FG look like' because I regard that as unfair - they got to chose, we didn't. My standard of comparison would be - if I were to put together a FG demo to impress users, how would that compare? You are certainly right with the c172, but the fair comparison is e.g. our DR-400 against the FSX C-172, and FG is going to win that one. It doesn't matter so much that many aircraft in FG can not measure up to that standard - I don't usually fly them. We have 20-30 really high quality aircraft, and I doubt FSX has that many out of the box. If you count addons, we can field all the non-GPL hangars in return, where I believe T4T is doing some really impressive warbirds... If you're going into comparing 'the same' (scenery, aircraft,...) than my next question would be - FG has beautiful scenery in central Iran with the Middle-East texturing definitions. I doubt FSX out of the box has any scenery there at all. So we're winning flat out in many cases by virtue of having scenery everywhere. It doesn't make too much sense to me to go into that direction. > One thing I'd really like to see put together is a "The Hidden Secrets of > FlightGear" page that illustrates all the little bits that people aren't > necessarily aware of. Things like the hard science behind a lot of the > things FG tries to get right that "other" simulation software completely > ignores or fakes poorly. We've sort of started this here http://wiki.flightgear.org/Unique_Features My problem is that I often know very well how X is implemented in FG, I may suspect that it's not in FSX or X-Plane, but since I'm not running X-Plane or FSX with all addons I don't really know for a fact if it is a genuinely unique feature or if there is a 3rd party addon to FSX/X-Plane which provides the same thing. And we would want to be factually correct here. > While we wait for the FSX screenshot, I'd like to see the FSX > equivalents of these as well: Honestly, I have no clue how to make a screenshot in FSX... and I don't want to fiddle around with it much longer, suffice to say it gave me some ideas how the GUI could be, but it doesn't draw me in in any way. And you'll not going to find me argue that the Vinson doesn't measure up. It's a spectacular model, and I do love doing carrier ops in FG. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Regional texturing project - Cntrl. Alt. Click
> Thorsten, work is halted as my co-ordinates must be wrong, can you tell > me the dimensions I need to use? Bruce, I'm not sure I understand your question - the coordinates in the conditional used to define a region are latitude and longitude in degrees (but I guess you know that, so probably you refer to something different?) * Thorsten -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] download_and_compile.sh one git repository or serveral.
I thought there would be a benefit to moving fgdata out from under
${CBD}/install. Currently, if you do mulitple builds with different
options in different folders, you end up with multiple copies of the
same version of fgdata, even though a related build has a perfectly
good copy.
I've got it set up like this:
build/
download_and_compile.sh
fgdata-2.11.0
fgdata
fgdata-2.10.0
fgdata
master
install
fgfs
fgdata symlink
stable
install
fgfs
fgdata symlink
stable-e
install
fgfs
fgdata symlink
stable-ei
etc.
I'm trying this out and will send a patch when its working right.
-Pat
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low visibility issues
Thorsten Renk wrote ... snip > The design idea behind the current GUI was that the user should no longer > be presented with two different weather options to choose from, but just > see a single GUI which controls weather. If that is still the idea, it works > remarkably well. If you have an idea for a more descriptive text, please let us > know. Snip ... You asked for ideas for a more descriptive text - I've gone one better and added descriptive texts to the gui. My design aim was to provide the average user with some indication of which option he should choose and in which circumstance. It's only a shallow redesign. It would be nice, I think, to allow max vis range to be as low as 10kms, and also if this could be driven by z/Z. However, these items are beyond the scope of what I set out to do. I've pushed it to fgdata. Vivian -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Checklists
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Alan Teeder wrote: >> The reason for my query was that I have found making a representative set of >> checklists is becoming very unwieldy. >> >> With just my "entering the cockpit checks", I have already made 9 separate >> checklist. Each one has about 10 checks. I have made one checklist per >> check list card on the real aircraft. These checklist items disappear off >> the top of the menu list screen, and there is no indications as to which >> checklists/cards have been completed, or which is the next to do. >> >> Having got this far it is obvious that the current system will not cope for >> the rest of the aircraft checklists that I intend to replicate. > > OK, sounds like you've got much longer checklists than I have encountered > myself. > > I'll see what I can do to support multi-page checklists. I can probably add > Next and Previous buttons to page through the checklist. This is now available. nodes can now be grouped under a , which the checklist display handles as you would expect. I've also added support for tags which leverage the existing tutorial markers. I've updated Docs/README.checklist and the wiki to reflect both these changes. As always, the c172p has an example (Aircraft/c172p/c172-checklists.xml). I've still to update the checklist->tutorial converter to support the tags - that's next on my TODO list. -Stuart -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
I wrote: > Renk Thorsten wrote: > > ... snip > > > * Models of trees and of the aircraft carrier in the vicinity where > largely on > > par. Probably FSX has more graphical artists and the quality of for > instance > > tree textures seems to be a bit better, but the technique is otherwise > pretty > > similar. I liked seeing a few other aircraft lined up on a carrier - > > the > FG carriers > > are usually rather empty. > > > > -> Ever so slight edge for FSX > > snip ... > > Better than this? > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-130.png > > As many ac in the deckpark as framerate considerations would allow. I'd like > to see the equivalent FSX screenshot. If it really is better then I'll have to > beat up Alexis a bit :-) > While we wait for the FSX screenshot, I'd like to see the FSX equivalents of these as well: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-131.png https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-133.png Personally, I reckon Alexis is safe for a while yet :-) Vivian -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
On 27/02/13 15:33, geneb wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > And then FX X is dead. It no longer exists. If you compare, do it with what exists. Xplane 10 (64 bit) or Prepar3D, this is the surviving of FS X (production of Lockheed Martin) >>> While your diatribe makes ZERO sense to me, you're incorrect that >>> "FSX is dead". >> ..I thought Microsoft end-lifed it? >> > As far as I know, they're still distributing it. Games typically don't > get an official "EOL" like other products do. > They do still support it through their website although further > development ceased when they closed the ACES studio and sold the ESP > assets to Lockheed-Martin. > >>> It's still being sold (you can buy brand new copies >>> from Amazon, right now) and it's still heavily supported by the >>> third-party developer community. >> ..yes, but not by Microsoft? >> > Yes, by Microsoft. > > Note that until you stop beginning every sentence with "..", you're going > in my killfile. > > g. Well said G. While I appreciate Arnt's contributions, I too find his double-dot convention infuriating and almost unreadable. Alasdair -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >>> And then FX X is dead. It no longer exists. If you compare, do it >>> with what exists. Xplane 10 (64 bit) or Prepar3D, this is the >>> surviving of FS X (production of Lockheed Martin) >>> >> While your diatribe makes ZERO sense to me, you're incorrect that >> "FSX is dead". > > ..I thought Microsoft end-lifed it? > As far as I know, they're still distributing it. Games typically don't get an official "EOL" like other products do. They do still support it through their website although further development ceased when they closed the ACES studio and sold the ESP assets to Lockheed-Martin. >> It's still being sold (you can buy brand new copies >> from Amazon, right now) and it's still heavily supported by the >> third-party developer community. > > ..yes, but not by Microsoft? > Yes, by Microsoft. Note that until you stop beginning every sentence with "..", you're going in my killfile. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:14:12 -0800 (PST), geneb wrote in message : > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, BARANGER Emmanuel wrote: > > > > > And then FX X is dead. It no longer exists. If you compare, do it > > with what exists. Xplane 10 (64 bit) or Prepar3D, this is the > > surviving of FS X (production of Lockheed Martin) > > > While your diatribe makes ZERO sense to me, you're incorrect that > "FSX is dead". ..I thought Microsoft end-lifed it? > It's still being sold (you can buy brand new copies > from Amazon, right now) and it's still heavily supported by the > third-party developer community. ..yes, but not by Microsoft? > The geneology(sp!) of FSX goes like this: > > ESP -> FSX > | > -> Prepar3D -- ..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. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, BARANGER Emmanuel wrote: > > And then FX X is dead. It no longer exists. If you compare, do it with > what exists. Xplane 10 (64 bit) or Prepar3D, this is the surviving of FS > X (production of Lockheed Martin) > While your diatribe makes ZERO sense to me, you're incorrect that "FSX is dead". It's still being sold (you can buy brand new copies from Amazon, right now) and it's still heavily supported by the third-party developer community. The geneology(sp!) of FSX goes like this: ESP -> FSX | -> Prepar3D The Lockheed guys are doing some great work with Prepar3D. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Stefan Seifert wrote: > On Wednesday 27 February 2013 07:42:19 Renk Thorsten wrote: > >> * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass seams. Is this why there's such a hard edge on the coastlines? g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > Following a forum discussion, I finally became curious and tested the > FSX demo version yesterday. I've spent about two hours flight with it, > testing 3 different planes (the ultralight, the Baron and the Learjet) > and had a look at different weather conditions and daytimes around TNCM. [great review snipped] Renk, you should take a look at the default Cessna 172 in FG and it's mate in FSX. The FSX version wipes the floor with the FG version with respect to the cockpit model. One thing I'd really like to see put together is a "The Hidden Secrets of FlightGear" page that illustrates all the little bits that people aren't necessarily aware of. Things like the hard science behind a lot of the things FG tries to get right that "other" simulation software completely ignores or fakes poorly. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
Renk Thorsten wrote: ... snip > * Models of trees and of the aircraft carrier in the vicinity where largely on > par. Probably FSX has more graphical artists and the quality of for instance > tree textures seems to be a bit better, but the technique is otherwise pretty > similar. I liked seeing a few other aircraft lined up on a carrier - the FG carriers > are usually rather empty. > > -> Ever so slight edge for FSX snip ... Better than this? https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-130.png As many ac in the deckpark as framerate considerations would allow. I'd like to see the equivalent FSX screenshot. If it really is better then I'll have to beat up Alexis a bit :-) Vivian -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
> A small addition: what has always bothered me about terrain in FG is that > roads and rivers are all the same size. Good point. That wasn't really apparent from the FSX demo (not so many roads of different size in the Caribbean). I think rivers are less of an issue in CORINE based custom scenery - I seem to remember that I was quite happy following major rivers in custom France or Italy. Roads... yes - Vivian's screenshot looks quite promising though. It's not something that's very important to me personally because I usually fly in pretty lonely places where roads are far an inbetween, so it's something I tend to overlook. > Obviously compare the worst YASim with the best JSBSim will always be > beneficial for JSBSim. But the opposite will be benefit YASim. This is > ridiculous. Erik basically said it - it's not a YaSim vs. JSBSim comparison here. We could make a best YaSIm vs. best JSBSim comparison, and I do have an opinion about that, but that's a different discussion. > This kind of remark has no place here, and especially not by you. What's the last half-sentence supposed to mean? Why would I be an especially unsuitable person to remark on aerodynamics? Granted, I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I do have a sufficient comprehension of fluid dynamics, solving equations of motion and all the rest, and I have real-world experience as a glider pilot, so I feel entirely qualified to comment on aerodynamical issues. > FS X was released in 2006. What is really surprising is that a person > like you never had the curiosity to test it before today. Not really - I'm not a Microsoft fan, I try to run Windows as little as possible and mostly live on Linux. > What is it > then for X-Plane, Fly II Legacy and all the others ? And I am speaking > not even of older sim. FS 1, FS II, FS 3, FS 4, FS 5, Gunship, Knight of > the Sky, Reach The Sky of, A320, F15II, F29 Retaliator, Falcon, Falcon > 4, IL 2, Flanker 2.0, Lock On, etc. .. I have logged many happy hours with Falcon 3 and Falcon 4 and I think they were excellent simulators. I fail to get your point though - if I compare FG with FSX and write my opinion, am I somehow under obligation to make a comparison to every other flightsim in existence at some point in time? So I tested FSX, I found we fare quite well in comparison, I did not test Gunship or X-Plane 10, so I don't know how we fare in comparison and I will not offer an opinion without knowing - what exactly is the problem? Best, * Thorsten -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
On 02/27/2013 12:17 PM, BARANGER Emmanuel wrote: > Le 27/02/2013 11:45, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a > écrit : >> >> -- >> >> Message: 15 >> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:42:19 + >> From: Renk Thorsten >> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo >> To: FlightGear developers discussions >> >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> >> 4) FDMs >> >> * I've tried the ultralight, the twin-prop Baron and the Learjet. As far as >> I could tell, they handled just the same, the only difference i noticed was >> the airspeed I could get out of them. It's just no comparison at all to our >> JSBSim beauties like the SenecaII or the P-51D where the FDM feels even the >> torque from spinning up the engine. The FSX experience reminded me of badly >> tuned YaSIm models - it sort of gets the rough characteristics right, but >> that's about all. > How can you say such nonsense without anyone to react ? > > Obviously compare the worst YASim with the best JSBSim will always be > beneficial for JSBSim. But the opposite will be benefit YASim. This is > ridiculous. This was not a comparison between YASim and JSBSim, we all know both have their strengths and weaknesses. It was a comparison between a badly tuned YASim model and normal FSX behaviour. So even there YASim beats FSX when the YASim models is properly tuned. Erik -- http://www.adalin.com - Hardware accelerated AeonWave and OpenAL for Windows and Linux -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
Le 27/02/2013 11:45, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit : > > -- > > Message: 15 > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:42:19 + > From: Renk Thorsten > Subject: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > 4) FDMs > > * I've tried the ultralight, the twin-prop Baron and the Learjet. As far as I > could tell, they handled just the same, the only difference i noticed was the > airspeed I could get out of them. It's just no comparison at all to our > JSBSim beauties like the SenecaII or the P-51D where the FDM feels even the > torque from spinning up the engine. The FSX experience reminded me of badly > tuned YaSIm models - it sort of gets the rough characteristics right, but > that's about all. How can you say such nonsense without anyone to react ? Obviously compare the worst YASim with the best JSBSim will always be beneficial for JSBSim. But the opposite will be benefit YASim. This is ridiculous. Dc 3, IAR80, F14 etc. ... This kind of remark has no place here, and especially not by you. FS X was released in 2006. What is really surprising is that a person like you never had the curiosity to test it before today. What is it then for X-Plane, Fly II Legacy and all the others ? And I am speaking not even of older sim. FS 1, FS II, FS 3, FS 4, FS 5, Gunship, Knight of the Sky, Reach The Sky of, A320, F15II, F29 Retaliator, Falcon, Falcon 4, IL 2, Flanker 2.0, Lock On, etc. .. . Finally all these simulators that have existed since 30 years ago. (for information, I almost everyone here. their box with their instructions etc ...). And then FX X is dead. It no longer exists. If you compare, do it with what exists. Xplane 10 (64 bit) or Prepar3D, this is the surviving of FS X (production of Lockheed Martin) Regards Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr http://embaranger.free.fr -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
Cool review Renk! Regarding FDMs: I was at a friend's this christmas and since he had just bought X-Plane 10, I had the chance to test it with C172 to see how it handles... FG clearly wins here since on X-plane there was not even a slight 'adverse yaw' (aileron-breaking) attitude when turning the plane, with realism on full. (Unless that particular c172 model had differential ailerons, although nothing of the sort was visible when I was looking at the model from the outside). All best, /Klearchos On 27 feb 2013, at 08:44, "Renk Thorsten"ng wrote: > > Following a forum discussion, I finally became curious and tested the FSX > demo version yesterday. I've spent about two hours flight with it, testing 3 > different planes (the ultralight, the Baron and the Learjet) and had a look > at different weather conditions and daytimes around TNCM. > > The installation process takes forever, opens one useless wizard after the > next one and never gives any indication what it's actually doing - the > Windows way Also startup isn't exactly fast. > > A few immediate nice impressions: > > * The launcher GUI is very pretty - including some pics in the GUI adds a > nice touch and gives you more immediate impressions what things are about. In > comparison, the FG GU (both launcher and in-sim) is very rough around the > edges. > > -> I guess it's a matter of taste, but including a pic of the weather > situation to expect in pre-defined scenarios would not be a bad touch for our > GUI for instance. > > * I got the IR-sycnhronized LCD shutter glasses 3D effect working out of the > box, so I was able to test FSX in real-color 3D which looked very cool - I've > never been able to make FG do that, I can activate the whole set of 3d > options, but they never trigger my shutter glasses. I wish FG would support > that function... > > -> Win for FSX. > > One in the cockpit, I had serious trouble finding my way around. Maybe it's > just whay one is used to, but looking around in the virtual cockpit the FG > way came much more natural to me than looking around in FSX. I didn't find > any way to adjust my field of view at all. > > In the following, I maxed out all graphics and realism options I could find. > > 1) Terrain: > > * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass seams. > That makes it quite a bit nicer to look at from above. It's not so impressive > from close-up, and all in all, I would conclude that regions where we did > apply a regional texturing scheme and use the best shader effects available > are in fact quite competitive. In particular, I think the recent 2nd > generation Hawaii in FG or middle-east looks much better from close-up and > is still about on par when seen from a few thousand feet. Of course, FG > terrain can look much worse in areas where we didn't customize it. > > -> Pretty much a draw. Hiding the landclass seams better would still be the > thing for FG.. it's just not so easy. > > * I know several people who were especially impressed by the water in FSX. > Personally I wasn't at all. What it does get is that it knows where shallow > water is and thus it gets lighter and the ground can be seen through. But for > instance it doesn't have as nice waves and foam as our water, the scenery > reflections it generates look completely unrealistic, ocean just doesn't do > that, and it didn't really change color when underneath a 8/8 cloud cover > where it should have gone to grey - as the FG water shader does. > > -> So that's a win by a narrow margin for FG - still, being able to include > depth information into the rendering would be cool. > > * Models of trees and of the aircraft carrier in the vicinity where largely > on par. Probably FSX has more graphical artists and the quality of for > instance tree textures seems to be a bit better, but the technique is > otherwise pretty similar. I liked seeing a few other aircraft lined up on a > carrier - the FG carriers are usually rather empty. > > -> Ever so slight edge for FSX > > 2) Weather (I looked at 'Fair Weather' and 'Rain' scenarios.): > > * I wasn't at all impressed by the quality of 3d clouds. The Cu clouds are > sort of very impressive at first glance from the ground , right until the > point where you realize that they just don't look like real clouds. The form > seems to be designed by an artist to impress, but the combination of shapes > doesn't occur in real Cu clouds which are turbulent raising air motion. The > distribution of cloud sizes is all wrong - a real sky generates Cumuli at all > size scales, FSX just does two or three. The distribution of locations is all > wrong - they should cluster over islands where convection is stronger than > over water, but they don't. They don't respect time - I've gotten the same > amount and size in the morning as during the day. They're far too white - > real Cu have rather strong self-shading. This leaves th
Re: [Flightgear-devel] download_and_compile.sh one git repository or serveral.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:19:54 +0100 Stefan Seifert wrote: > On Sunday 24 February 2013 22:18:05 Pat wrote: > > > > > Anders made a suggestion on IRC I'm going to follow up on. " > > > > You can have local git clones that share the same .git/* files > > > > via file links" > > > > > > ..you feed 4 build trees from 1 git clone, how? > > > A "du -sch $git-n-build-trees" on them all? - Arnt > > You probably don't want to symlink all the files in .git. You just > want to symlink the objects subdirectory. This is the place where all > the real data is and it would be the same for all local repositories. > The other files list for example branches and tags and very > important: the currently checked out branch. So if you want several > local repositories with different branches checked out, you may not > share these files. > Stefan Thanks! With the one above, and one each from Anders and James, I now have three good suggestions with two alternative new approaches to look into. However this may all be moot unless the new approaches save considerable time and effort down the road. I'm not sure they would so I'm not going to pursue them at this time. My original purpose was to avoid cloning from git for each test build. I'm using download and compile.sh to create builds for several sets of option combinations. Do this for more than one version and you end up with more than enough complete copies of git to satisfy an army of coders. This wastes bandwidth on gitorious. I'm thinking that one local git for each version (next, master, maint & 2.10.0 ) is simple enough. Its four copies of git but that's not too bad... I can make change to the script to allow concurrent separate builds with different options off these separate gits without too much change. The single git method could come later if anyone thinks it's worth doing. -Pat -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 09:10:01 Vivian Meazza wrote: > Linear features for the scenery (roads, railways, rivers) are already under > development for FG: > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-129.png > > That is a small area of Kent, UK. It is very possible to use the accurately > placed features for VFR navigation. Yeah! That's great news :) Thanks to everyone working on FG! Stefan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
Stefan Seifert wrote: > On Wednesday 27 February 2013 07:42:19 Renk Thorsten wrote: > > > * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass seams. > > That makes it quite a bit nicer to look at from above. It's not so > > impressive from close-up, and all in all, I would conclude that > > regions where we did apply a regional texturing scheme and use the > > best shader effects available are in fact quite competitive. In > > particular, I think the recent 2nd generation Hawaii in FG or > > middle-east looks much better from close-up and is still about on par > > when seen from a few thousand feet. Of course, FG terrain can look > > much worse in areas where we didn't customize it. > > > > -> Pretty much a draw. Hiding the landclass seams better would still > > -> be the > > thing for FG.. it's just not so easy. > > A small addition: what has always bothered me about terrain in FG is that > roads and rivers are all the same size. For me as a VFR pilot they are the most > important navigation helpers while in FG, they are useless. There's no > difference between the Autobahn and a small country road. Same for the > Danube vs. some riverlet. > > I've tried some version of MS Flightsim once with Austrian scenery and could > easily find my way around. So while we may have the prettier scenery with > regional textures, in practice, I'd have to call it a win for FGX. > Linear features for the scenery (roads, railways, rivers) are already under development for FG: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57645542/fgfs-screen-129.png That is a small area of Kent, UK. It is very possible to use the accurately placed features for VFR navigation. There are some problems to resolve about memory usage, but it is already possible to generate scenery with these features. However, at the current stage of development it is pushing the memory limits of 32 bit systems. Vivian -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG vs. FSX demo
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 07:42:19 Renk Thorsten wrote: > * A big plus about the FSX terrain is that it doesn't have landclass seams. > That makes it quite a bit nicer to look at from above. It's not so > impressive from close-up, and all in all, I would conclude that regions > where we did apply a regional texturing scheme and use the best shader > effects available are in fact quite competitive. In particular, I think the > recent 2nd generation Hawaii in FG or middle-east looks much better from > close-up and is still about on par when seen from a few thousand feet. Of > course, FG terrain can look much worse in areas where we didn't customize > it. > > -> Pretty much a draw. Hiding the landclass seams better would still be the > thing for FG.. it's just not so easy. A small addition: what has always bothered me about terrain in FG is that roads and rivers are all the same size. For me as a VFR pilot they are the most important navigation helpers while in FG, they are useless. There's no difference between the Autobahn and a small country road. Same for the Danube vs. some riverlet. I've tried some version of MS Flightsim once with Austrian scenery and could easily find my way around. So while we may have the prettier scenery with regional textures, in practice, I'd have to call it a win for FGX. Regards, Stefan -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
