Re: [Flightgear-devel] Trains?
On 1/30/07, Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear seems like a perfect platform to rig up their experiment. So my question is this ... to save us some time, does anyone out there have a 3d train model in their back pocket they would be willing to contribute to FlightGear? i can't answer your question directly, but indirectly i could suggest the following : Have you looked in the train simulator geek communities for content ? There are (2) train simulators that I know of, one by Microsoft, and the other by a publisher called Auran out of australia. Both simulations have communities of geeks, just like flight simulators do, and there are people who develop trains and addons, just like in the flight sim community, as freeware. you may look around those communities and fan sites to see if you can find anything to play with. i believe both simulators use GMax models natively ? not sure if there is a materials path from GMax to something flight gear can use. and as a passing comment, i wonder if one of the train simulators might be a better train simulator that flightgear for your intended purpose ... Curt. Tony - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] osg/plib, difference in collision detection
On 12/8/06, Heiko Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But If Flightgear want to be realistic, and we want aircrafts showing us what happen when you do something wrong you can't close your eyes about this. i see this conversation flare up on the x-plane lists from time to time. collision detection with cows, or other planes, or buildings etc, is quite arguably pointless as a tool for learning. it's candy for people who like to run into stuff. if you collide with a big solid object in a plane in real life, you will crash. no confirmation from the simulator is really required. having said that, i think good collision detection modeling between the aircraft and the ground _is_ important, as is failure modeling. again, my $0.02. Tony - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 3D model for the F-15
On 9/29/06, Ampere K. Hardraade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also I do not want this work, that I do for entertainment, to be used for Real Life (TM) military purposes. The latter is a moral position. I simply avoid this moral position by not creating any military model. :) *sigh* seems like this whole and military use is popping up more and more lately. if folks are are of such high moral standards, they'd better take a real hard look at _alot_ of things in their life that they take for granted, that were born in the military/industrial complex. especially those of us who fancy software, the internet and simulation technology. in addition, like all licensing, it's a fools game, filled with unintended consequences and viral implications, and usually serves no good end. but keep trying to hold that high moral ground ... ;) -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
On 6/13/06, Major A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to my suggestion of linking FG and X-Plane to fly FG on VATSIM, i think better, would be to provide an integration within x-plane that would allow it to use the FG MP server system. x-plane has an SDK that would make this quite possible i think, notwithstanding possible issues with terrain differences. i *know* that the x-plane community is desperate for an easy to use multi-player system. i was pleased as punch to find the community and centralized server that the flightgear project is currently offering. and who knows, maybe even bringing an MSFS integration, which could then quite possibly turn the tables on where the action is and who owns the bulk of the multiplayer flight sim community. I haven't forgotten the project but haven't actually got a working installation of X-Plane under Linux that would allow me to write a plugin. I'll try and carry on with that once I have X-Plane running again (actually, it's the OpenGL acceleration that currently isn't working on my computer, thanks to ATI being a year behind Linux and Xorg development). let me know if you need help with that. i have 8.40 working with an ATI card, though i had to make some tweaks to get it to work, but it does work. Andras Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
On 6/13/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the earth can be different between sims. Ok, this is obvious and in fact is an issue of scenery fidelity, but it is not a problem that could be resolved by any reference point, as suspected in the beginning, is this an issue of having a reference point, or is it an issue of knowing how *your* simulation is non-standard from an agreed upon standard, and having the simulation specific client to the open MP server do translations of inbound/outbound data as required. Martin. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
On 6/13/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony Pelton wrote: Read Curt's posting, i did ... and i think i _do_ understand the basics of the issue ... he simply assumes that the ground elevation at a specific location differs between two sims. Different sims have their scenery created in different ways, probably even from different elevation data so I think Curt's assumption is very likely to be true, well, it is possibly true that a given lat/lon might have a different elevations between the two sims, because of at least two reasons 1) different world models, and 2) different terrain rendering. in either case though, each sim will know its own AGL, based on its own world and terrain, ... and i think AGL is unambigous ? by sending a lat/lon/AGL to the other peers, it seems to me that it can then be left up to each receiving client to place the rendition of the remote aircraft at an AGL, in _its_ terrain/world model, at the same AGL ? and answering my own question, i know that x-plane _cant_ currently do this, because currently, you cant query the simulation to find the terrain height at a given lat/lon, you can only query the sim to find out what your _own_ AGL is. but this is probably solvable on the x-plane side by implementing some code to query the terrain data installed, so that an interpretation of what a remote AGL means in the local context. not sure how this might work on the FG side, though i thought i saw some code in the code base that made it appear like it is possible to query height of terrain, assuming the tile is loaded ... Martin. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
On 6/12/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin Smithies wrote: On the other hand I was told that certain people didn't care about licensing and hacked the VATSIM authentication protocol for reference ... http://news.com.com/Blizzard+wins+lawsuit+on+video+game+hacking/2100-1047_3-5845905.html is VATSIM gonna sue flightgear.org for reverse engineeing a *protocol* ? in this case, it certainly isn't an issue of preventing piracy. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat changes ?
On 6/10/06, dene maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know from my experience with FGTools, FGFS and TaxiDraw that parsing the APT file is not trivial ...the downside is of course the need for a SpecialAPT.DAT to cater for this and the inherent support and maintenance needed. it's interesting that you would say this. i had the same experience when i was doing some work for an x-plane plugin, that parsing those files was tedious and so ... 1980's ... when Ben put the word out about changes to apt.data, as an RFC to the x-plane scenery list, i tried to advocate for an XML solution. i was shot down immediately, and _one_ of the reasons was that it was deemed that the current format is simple, and an XML format is more difficult, which i found to be the oppossite of my own thinking. it's nice to hear someone else say the current format is a pain too. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat changes ?
On 6/10/06, Ralf Gerlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing a parser is always work we rather wouldn't be doing as we'd rather devote ourselves to working with the data than to reading or writing it from or to file. yes. using XML, any number of parsers are available, AND they can do well formedness checks for you, AND XML is inherently more self documenting than record/delimeter based formats. The reason why parsing apt.dat is a PITA is the lots of data to be parsed and interpreted for runways and taxiways (lighting, material, stopways, etc.). This data doesn't get less with XML and it certainly won't get less with the new format. well, for me, it had nothing to do with the volume. it had to do with having to write lots of brittle code to parse the data. i mean seriously, a format that relies on having to understand the first field for any given record, as defining its type ... and having to do stuff like skip the first N lines ... and having an end of file record ? and to be advocating for expanding it ... in 2006 ? i was trying to advocate for XML, as i could have then brought XSLT and XPath tools to the table, in addition to having the parsing done for free, which would have made the data easier to use. i was also trying to point out that, ime, XML formats are much easier to mutate and keep compatible over the longer term, and XSLT is a great way for migrating older formats to newer formats. ultimately though, it looks like the decision will be more of the same ... Cheers, Ralf Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] cvs commit e-mail
hi all, i'm new around here. is there a list i can join, or someone i can ask, such that i could get e-mail from the CVS server when someone commits to the codebase ? i'm slowly trying to get up to speed on the codebase, and seeing what things people are working on, by seeing what code they are committing would really help i think. any help for me ? tia, Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] apt.dat changes ?
not sure if folks on this list care, or are aware ... but Ben Supnik has made a couple of RFC type posts to one of the x-plane lists, talking about a new design for the airport data coming from Robin Peel. This is apparently the spec that is emerging from those conversations. http://www.x-plane.org/home/robinp/Apt850.htm fwiw. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
