Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Thursday 29 November 2007 16:34, Torsten Dreyer wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 14:44 schrieb Hans Fugal: > > Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib > > version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0 > > and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a > > simple fix, and that there's really no excuse not to do it. Unless, of > > course, there is a real excuse... > > This should do the trick: Instead of doing nothing when setting a new value > to zero, the resolution and cacheSize is set to it's default value when > trying to set it to zero. > > It works on my copy, but maybe one of the screnegraph experts should > comment this. > > Torsten > I decided to go ahead and commit this, even though I haven't seen any further comment from a scenegraph expert. The patch seems simple enough, and preventing program crashes would make it worthwhile. If there is breakage, it seems easy enough to revert. :-) Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Jeez, Bill, 2.718281828459 makes a lot more sense. Lee Bill Galbraith wrote: *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Lee Duke *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:14 AM *To:* FlightGear developers discussions *Subject:* Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone can just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than filling my in box with discussions of which number comes after/ z/. Lee Okay, then I'm calling my version 0.3.14, because who doesn't love Pi? Bill - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Anything other than 0.9.11 means both the terrorists and the tunnel vision of the USAians have triumphed. And BTW as far as most of Europe is concerned a serious terrorist outrage occured 11-9-2001 and 9-11 is just a set of numbers. This is not the place for politics however (which I am happy to debate with anyone off list) so to stop everybody getting their knickers in a twist, lets go with Bill and call it 0.3.14-pecan. When we get landing lights and all the other good stuff, then it will be worthy of being called 0.3.14-mutton. --- Best Regards Willie Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
_ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Duke Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:14 AM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults How about 0.x.y where x and y can be variables and everyone can just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than filling my in box with discussions of which number comes after z. Lee Okay, then I'm calling my version 0.3.14, because who doesn't love Pi? Bill - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone can just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than filling my in box with discussions of which number comes after/ z/. Lee P.S. The correct answer is /z + 1/. Richard Bytheway wrote: It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are in danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a vote? We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the rest of the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is worth fighting. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d What about 0.10.0? Richard - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Nov 30, 2007 7:11 AM, AnMaster <> wrote: > As timore said on IRC: > "If we skip 0.9.11, then the terrorists have won" Wow, I didn't realize the terrorists had such strong feelings about our next version number! :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Curtis Olson wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote: > >> The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you >> make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it >> will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek, >> instead of an "I will make the next release 1.0, because ... (And while >> you can, of course, discuss it, it's already decided."). It's only >> in private messages where one gets some more info. > > > I'm just a little surpised that the version number is such a contentious > issue. It seems like there are more important battles to fight. How about > we at least agree to skip 0.9.11 out of sensitivity to a very large group of > people. > As timore said on IRC: "If we skip 0.9.11, then the terrorists have won" I can't agree more... It is just a number and they should in my experience follow some logic: 0.9.10 -> 0.10 = Ok 0.9.10 -> 0.11 = Not Ok 0.9.10 -> 0.9.10.1 = Ok 0.9.10 -> 0.9.10.2 = Not Ok 0.9.10 -> 0.9.11= Ok 0.9.10 -> 1.0 = Ok (but other issues as mfranz pointed out, I agree with him about landing lights) In other words: Either: Add one to any part and reset all parts after it to 0 Or: Add an extra part, with a 0 or 1. Never : Add 2 or anything else. Regards, AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUAvsWmK6ng/aMNkRCiYfAKCaCQTeKW/PUEXUU0/6v4ZscpY1vwCfc4cY RsDGp9dtijDdUq97hOVW4QE= =aCfd -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
> It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are in danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a vote? We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the rest of the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is worth fighting. > > > Regards, > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d What about 0.10.0? Richard - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
_ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Olson Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:52 AM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults I'm just a little surpised that the version number is such a contentious issue. It seems like there are more important battles to fight. How about we at least agree to skip 0.9.11 out of sensitivity to a very large group of people. Okay, so are we going to 0.10.1 ??? Geeze, it's just a number. Bill - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote:
> The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
> make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
> will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek,
> instead of an "I will make the next release 1.0, because ... (And while
> you can, of course, discuss it, it's already decided."). It's only
> in private messages where one gets some more info.
I'm just a little surpised that the version number is such a contentious
issue. It seems like there are more important battles to fight. How about
we at least agree to skip 0.9.11 out of sensitivity to a very large group of
people.
I have no problems whatsoever with commercial use (as you know from
> my private mails), or that it occasionally brings you projects and money.
> On the contrary. I welcome that. And I would understand if this is
> involved in the decisions to name the release 1.0. ("The companies
> don't like it much that the version number implies that fgfs is still
> immature beta quality software.") I'd just like to know that/when
> this is the reason. Don't forget: this is *our* collective work, not
> only yours. And I think we deserve some basic information.
The company I work with has no idea what the version number of flightgear is
... they leave all that to me and do not care. This company's customers
want an FAA certified sim. They also do not care what the version number
string of FlightGear is. You have constructed a problem in your imagination
and then are upset with me for not coming clean on it.
No. I don't even care that much, even if is seems so. For me a version
> 1.0 means that the software is basically feature complete. Of course it
> will never be finished (this would be sad -- we could all go home).
> And I think that lights are missing. But well, let's release it as 1.0
> without lights. Fine with me. (Maybe we'd end up with 0.9.23 if we
> really wait for lights. Waiting for something doesn't get anything
> done, anyway. ;-)
Well that's maybe the point. I'll be 80 years old and we'll still be at
0.9.xxx, and maybe we'll have your landing lights by then, or maybe we
won't.
To me a < 1.0 version number means something that's not quite ready for
general consumption, or we think there are major holes or major problems and
are holding back. Sure we haven't finished every feature in the flight sim
play book, but let's let the world know that we have something serious here.
See first paragraph: I hate that we *don't* have such discussions.
> Or such information. Now we know at least[1]: the next release will
> be 1.0, and it's because you think it's high time after such a long
> time. OK, all questions answered. Thanks. No surprises when the
> release comes out. (Developers should never be surprised by the
> release of their own work. :-)
It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are in
danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a vote?
We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the rest of
the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is worth
fighting.
Regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Curtis Olson -- Friday 30 November 2007:
[...]
> So if you have a problem, please state it clearly
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek,
instead of an "I will make the next release 1.0, because ... (And while
you can, of course, discuss it, it's already decided."). It's only
in private messages where one gets some more info.
I have no problems whatsoever with commercial use (as you know from
my private mails), or that it occasionally brings you projects and money.
On the contrary. I welcome that. And I would understand if this is
involved in the decisions to name the release 1.0. ("The companies
don't like it much that the version number implies that fgfs is still
immature beta quality software.") I'd just like to know that/when
this is the reason. Don't forget: this is *our* collective work, not
only yours. And I think we deserve some basic information.
> And are you suggesting that a 10 year old mature software product
> can't be allowed a v1.0 version number?
No. I don't even care that much, even if is seems so. For me a version
1.0 means that the software is basically feature complete. Of course it
will never be finished (this would be sad -- we could all go home).
And I think that lights are missing. But well, let's release it as 1.0
without lights. Fine with me. (Maybe we'd end up with 0.9.23 if we
really wait for lights. Waiting for something doesn't get anything
done, anyway. ;-)
> we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
See first paragraph: I hate that we *don't* have such discussions.
Or such information. Now we know at least[1]: the next release will
be 1.0, and it's because you think it's high time after such a long
time. OK, all questions answered. Thanks. No surprises when the
release comes out. (Developers should never be surprised by the
release of their own work. :-)
m.
[1] Well, I know it from Curt since a week.
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Thursday 29 November 2007 23:25, Curtis Olson wrote: [snip...] > How about I say it this way ... our version number system has become > too tedious and ponderous. And are you suggesting that a 10 year old > mature software product can't be allowed a v1.0 version number? It's > never going to be perfect, and never going to have every feature that > everyone wants. If I would have been smart, I would have called the > very first release v1.0which is what I do now with all my other > projects, and we wouldn't even be > having this discussion. Let's move forward, full speed ahead! > > Curt. Almost Just a tongue-in-cheek suggestion... why not go against the flow and accept that there will never be a fault-free 'perfect' version of FG and deliberately never release a V1.00 version:) Instead, we could just start adding another version sub-subfix:) In effect, and by other s/w producers standards we would already be somewhere between versions 5 and 20, so 0.9.12.00 would be cool. Infact, I think it would be both amusing and publicity-worth to make a point of it because in reality it's true:) I think it would be a statement that most development people would recognise and appreciate and atm they are the most significant users of FG:) LeeE - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Georg Vollnhals schrieb: > Melchior FRANZ schrieb: > >> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: >> >> >>> First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set >>> the wind with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Then I tried to make it easier from the >>> startup and switch the property on with >>> "--prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". >>> >>> >> Err ... with METAR wind, then? Yes, that might come too late. Just >> increase the settimer() interval. We don't need/want the tunnel right >> at startup, anyway. After 30 seconds or a minute would be early enough. >> Need to check ... >> >> >> >> >> > Sorry, I think I was not clear enough. The "tunnel" is not true up when > I set both, wind and tunnel-prop: > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED] --prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". > > I did not test METAR wind with the NEW gs-tunnel.nas but will do now. > > Georg > > > Ok, I did it with several Airports and setting "--enable-real-weather-fetch --prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". Most (German) airports worked well. LFBO METAR was ... VRB01KT ... so it was pretty understandable for me that the "runway selector" and the "tunnel placer" decided different. LOAN METAR was ... 09006KT and I found the Cessna on RW 10 and the tunnel vice versa (RW 28) Starting once again only with "--enable-real-weather-fetch" and activating the tunnel-prop through the FG property manager when the sim was running placed the tunnel the right way, both Cessna and tunnel RW 10. Now it is too late to increase the INTERVAL var in gs-tunnel.nas, ie. from 5 to 20 (?) and do some further tests. Will do it this late evening. Regards Georg - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Melchior FRANZ schrieb: > > * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > >> First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set >> the wind with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Then I tried to make it easier from the >> startup and switch the property on with >> "--prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". >> > > Err ... with METAR wind, then? Yes, that might come too late. Just > increase the settimer() interval. We don't need/want the tunnel right > at startup, anyway. After 30 seconds or a minute would be early enough. > Need to check ... > > > > Sorry, I think I was not clear enough. The "tunnel" is not true up when I set both, wind and tunnel-prop: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] --prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". I did not test METAR wind with the NEW gs-tunnel.nas but will do now. Georg - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Nov 29, 2007 4:13 PM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote: > No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was > clear that people consider a sane version number more important > than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of the incident. I think your message at least confirms my point that there is substantial and heartfelt disagreement on something as trivial as version numbers. Is it your commercial interests in fgfs that make you want it > be called 1.0? Did someone complain? Those who use fgfs in > their FAA certified simulator? We would understand it. You are taking a subtle shot at me here which I could choose to resent or choose ignore and I'll go with the latter approach. :-) There are a large and growing number of people in the world that use FlightGear for one purpose or another. If they didn't use FlightGear, they would have to purchase something else or spend time & money developing something else. Do they have a commercial interest in FlightGear? It's no secret that I work with a flight simulator company (ATC Flight Sims) and help them leverage FlightGear as part of their FAA certified pilot training systems. But I see this as a huge win for everyone. And I know of *many* other companies that I am not involved with that use FlightGear, again for everyone's benefit. So if you have a problem, please state it clearly and maybe take it up with me offline with your first attempt. If you are just taking a shot at me, then I'll ignore it. :-) > Here's again what I consider sorely missing for a release 1.0: > landing/taxi-lights. It's weird to call a simulator 1.0 if you > have to let your aircraft parked in the middle of a runway > after having landed at night, because you don't see anything > but a few dim light points. A daylight-only simulator doesn't > deserve the 1.0. :-P How about I say it this way ... our version number system has become too tedious and ponderous. And are you suggesting that a 10 year old mature software product can't be allowed a v1.0 version number? It's never going to be perfect, and never going to have every feature that everyone wants. If I would have been smart, I would have called the very first release v1.0which is what I do now with all my other projects, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Let's move forward, full speed ahead! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Thursday 29 November 2007 21:54:05 Curtis Olson wrote: > But then most people seem to also follow that up with very strongly held > opinions about what the version number should be. As we've seen from just > a few postings in this thread, there is a variety incompatible, yet > strongly held opinions on the subject. Most of us were merely going on the version number ALREADY set by our fickle^w honourable dict^w "executive" ;-) AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > gerard robin schrieb: > > It is not Autopilot, however it is an help to pilot, it could > > be in the autopilot item Yes, maybe. * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set > the wind with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Then I tried to make it easier from the > startup and switch the property on with > "--prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". Err ... with METAR wind, then? Yes, that might come too late. Just increase the settimer() interval. We don't need/want the tunnel right at startup, anyway. After 30 seconds or a minute would be early enough. Need to check ... > So I would ask to put a menu-entry anywhere where it fits, that might be > the suggestion of Gérard or even the rendering menu-window [...] Will think about it. m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > * Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > > Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are > an arbitrary > > set of numbers [...] > > No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread > it was > clear that people consider a sane version number > more important > than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of > the incident. > Is it your commercial interests in fgfs that make > you want it > be called 1.0? Did someone complain? Those who use > fgfs in > their FAA certified simulator? We would understand > it. > > Here's again what I consider sorely missing for a > release 1.0: > landing/taxi-lights. It's weird to call a simulator > 1.0 if you > have to let your aircraft parked in the middle of a > runway > after having landed at night, because you don't see > anything > but a few dim light points. A daylight-only > simulator doesn't > deserve the 1.0. :-P > > m. > Hmm... How possible it is, that we have landinglights with the release after this one? Compared to x-Plane we sure other v 1.0, but with OSG there are some differences HHS Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
gerard robin schrieb: > On jeu 29 novembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > >> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: >> >>> Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the >>> upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or >>> something like that? >>> >> Better fix the problems that can be fixed and put it as regular file. :-) >> I made the script switchable (/sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel for now), >> and changed it to choose the best runway according to the wind direction >> and not the smallest deviation from the course. This should also >> better match what ATC says. Not that many use ATC, anyway. The >> remaining problem will hopefully go away after the next round of >> scenery generation. >> >> http://members.aon.at/mfranz/gstunnel.nas [2.8 kB] >> >> I just don't know where to put this in the gui. The View/Rendering Options >> is not the right place, as this isn't about how rendering should be done, >> but just about one extra feature. We don't really have a place for such >> settings yet. >> >> m. >> >> > It is not Autopilot, however it is an help to pilot, it could be in the > autopilot item > > Regards > > Hi Melchior, hi Gérard! First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set the wind with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Then I tried to make it easier from the startup and switch the property on with "--prop:sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel=true". The sim starts with the tunnel visible but not the right wind direction. It seems that the early activating makes the script not seeing the winddirection. So I would ask to put a menu-entry anywhere where it fits, that might be the suggestion of Gérard or even the rendering menu-window - I think the normal user will not classify this wrong :-) Anyway, nice add-on. Georg - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are an arbitrary > set of numbers [...] No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was clear that people consider a sane version number more important than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of the incident. Is it your commercial interests in fgfs that make you want it be called 1.0? Did someone complain? Those who use fgfs in their FAA certified simulator? We would understand it. Here's again what I consider sorely missing for a release 1.0: landing/taxi-lights. It's weird to call a simulator 1.0 if you have to let your aircraft parked in the middle of a runway after having landed at night, because you don't see anything but a few dim light points. A daylight-only simulator doesn't deserve the 1.0. :-P m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Nov 29, 2007 2:56 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote: > I would strongly disagree with that - with every respect for those who > were > affected by the events you mention, it's only a set of numbers (not even a > date, in any recognisable format), and since 0.9.11 comes right after > 0.9.10, > it's only logical to use them. If we start being ridiculously > over-sensitive > to particular numbers we'll end up with a very odd version history > indeed... Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are an arbitrary set of numbers and the only really important thing is that each subsequent version has a higher number than all the previous versions in a branch. But then most people seem to also follow that up with very strongly held opinions about what the version number should be. As we've seen from just a few postings in this thread, there is a variety incompatible, yet strongly held opinions on the subject. I may jump in and make an executive decision on this one, and it shouldn't be a big deal because it's just an arbitrary number that is higher than the previous release. And I may attempt to piss everyone off, just to keep it fair. :-) Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On jeu 29 novembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > > Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the > > upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or > > something like that? > > Better fix the problems that can be fixed and put it as regular file. :-) > I made the script switchable (/sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel for now), > and changed it to choose the best runway according to the wind direction > and not the smallest deviation from the course. This should also > better match what ATC says. Not that many use ATC, anyway. The > remaining problem will hopefully go away after the next round of > scenery generation. > > http://members.aon.at/mfranz/gstunnel.nas [2.8 kB] > > I just don't know where to put this in the gui. The View/Rendering Options > is not the right place, as this isn't about how rendering should be done, > but just about one extra feature. We don't really have a place for such > settings yet. > > m. > It is not Autopilot, however it is an help to pilot, it could be in the autopilot item Regards -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the > upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or > something like that? Better fix the problems that can be fixed and put it as regular file. :-) I made the script switchable (/sim/rendering/glide-slope-tunnel for now), and changed it to choose the best runway according to the wind direction and not the smallest deviation from the course. This should also better match what ATC says. Not that many use ATC, anyway. The remaining problem will hopefully go away after the next round of scenery generation. http://members.aon.at/mfranz/gstunnel.nas [2.8 kB] I just don't know where to put this in the gui. The View/Rendering Options is not the right place, as this isn't about how rendering should be done, but just about one extra feature. We don't really have a place for such settings yet. m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
--- AJ MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz > wrote: > > There are some things I noticed and two > suggestion: > > -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear. > > I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or > to > > reset FGF for viewing the fps > Are you sure you're using the exact --geometry > setting you require, and/or > hiding the taskbar? If there's a taskbar on the > screen for example, the > bottom part of the window (with the fps display) > will likely be cut off. > Maybe the fullscreen option, or the "game mode" > might help there (I'm not on > Windows to check myself, but I've seen a similar > thing happen on Linux > desktops). > > > Suggestions: > > -Because we have a wide range of aircrafts which > only > > can fully used with OSG we should give an option > for > > using the OSG version with the release. With MS it > is > > easy ( download option for OSG-Binary and just > > changing the root), for other platforms maybe a > little > > bit more difficult. It also brings a little > preview > > about the features and abilities of the new > scenegraph > I also think that at least the two versions should > be made to run happily > together (i.e. by sorting the aforementioned 3d > clouds / autosaved setting > bug) An optional "official" (i.e. nicely packaged) > download of FG-OSG 0.9.11 > for more adventurous Windows users would be nice. > > > - can we change the name of the new release from > > 0.9.11 to 0.9.12? I'm not superstitious, but it > looks > > a little bit funny on a FLIGHTsimulation ( > remember > > the 11. september 2001 - and the aftereffect to > the > > aircraft industry) > > I would strongly disagree with that - with every > respect for those who were > affected by the events you mention, it's only a set > of numbers (not even a > date, in any recognisable format), and since 0.9.11 > comes right after 0.9.10, > it's only logical to use them. If we start being > ridiculously over-sensitive > to particular numbers we'll end up with a very odd > version history indeed... > > Cheers, > > AJ > > - > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > Hi, I did use 800x600 - so no taskbar or anything cuts here. A optional package would be nice - with the aircrafts made for OSG. Regards HHS Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
I did not use any shadows- still haveing a to weak pc I remember something heard about that the cause lies into the collision detect for the ground Hopefully Tim well be soon ready- can't wait to see it! :-) regards HHS --- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > * Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > > - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- > lifting > > up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the > heli > > is in the air the stutters disappear [...] > > Sounds like the effect that volumetric shadows have, > on any > complex aircraft near ground, not just helicopters. > Tim will > implement a much faster method. :-) > > m. > > - > SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux > Business White Paper > from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, > Linux is going > mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. > http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Melchior FRANZ wrote: > * Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007: >> - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting >> up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli >> is in the air the stutters disappear [...] > > Sounds like the effect that volumetric shadows have, on any > complex aircraft near ground, not just helicopters. Tim will > implement a much faster method. :-) That is another problem, check shadow of for example lightning in plib. The shadow is quite bad, like half of the aircraft didn't exist. The lightning is the worst example but many other exists. Best way to see lightning problems is to fly on the side and look out through side cockpit window at ground with sun almost right over head. I can make a screenshot if you want later. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTyuQWmK6ng/aMNkRCji4AJ4yJ+X7DTC7Vm6XTBbBtgdm2ltydgCgpYT6 epJoJMkbioxTv0m8jBv3Ob0= =Fc0N -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
AnMaster wrote: > No comments but I think that would be silly, it depends on your date order > anyway... With the Swedish format for date (dd/mm -) it is the other way > around... No one would comment on a possible future 0.11.9 I bet... I pretty much hope we're at 1.x before it comes to that ;-) Cheers, Ralf - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting > up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli > is in the air the stutters disappear [...] Sounds like the effect that volumetric shadows have, on any complex aircraft near ground, not just helicopters. Tim will implement a much faster method. :-) m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Heiko Schulz wrote: > Hi, > > There are some things I noticed and two suggestion: > > -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear. > I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to > reset FGF for viewing the fps FPS counter show nice here but I changed preferences.xml to give me maximized window by default. > > - stepping clouds at certain weather What do you mean? > > -3D-clouds crashing - I hope we will get the sugested > solution > > - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting > up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli > is in the air the stutters disappear and it flys > smooth. I did not noticed yet on plib since some > months ago, before it was only with OSG-version and it > was a known bug. Yes stutters near ground with fg/plib at KSFO airport I often noticed in many aircrafts. Effect not as marked for simpler airports. > > Suggestions: > -Because we have a wide range of aircrafts which only > can fully used with OSG we should give an option for > using the OSG version with the release. With MS it is > easy ( download option for OSG-Binary and just > changing the root), for other platforms maybe a little > bit more difficult. It also brings a little preview > about the features and abilities of the new scenegraph Even worse, some crash plib if they exist, even over mp. For example if you use plib and anyone connects near you with B-1B and you have B-1B in your aircraft folder, your fg will segfault. This I consider a release-blocking bug. FG/plib should ignore the aircraft instead of segfault on it. > > - can we change the name of the new release from > 0.9.11 to 0.9.12? I'm not superstitious, but it looks > a little bit funny on a FLIGHTsimulation ( remember > the 11. september 2001 - and the aftereffect to the > aircraft industry) No comments but I think that would be silly, it depends on your date order anyway... With the Swedish format for date (dd/mm -) it is the other way around... No one would comment on a possible future 0.11.9 I bet... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTylSWmK6ng/aMNkRCpWFAKCegEwqQ91hxkspYdYB0jTwWoQuqACfaiZC RyLzDNqjt7w1McOexvoE+k0= =Tqv4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz wrote: > There are some things I noticed and two suggestion: > -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear. > I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to > reset FGF for viewing the fps Are you sure you're using the exact --geometry setting you require, and/or hiding the taskbar? If there's a taskbar on the screen for example, the bottom part of the window (with the fps display) will likely be cut off. Maybe the fullscreen option, or the "game mode" might help there (I'm not on Windows to check myself, but I've seen a similar thing happen on Linux desktops). > Suggestions: > -Because we have a wide range of aircrafts which only > can fully used with OSG we should give an option for > using the OSG version with the release. With MS it is > easy ( download option for OSG-Binary and just > changing the root), for other platforms maybe a little > bit more difficult. It also brings a little preview > about the features and abilities of the new scenegraph I also think that at least the two versions should be made to run happily together (i.e. by sorting the aforementioned 3d clouds / autosaved setting bug) An optional "official" (i.e. nicely packaged) download of FG-OSG 0.9.11 for more adventurous Windows users would be nice. > - can we change the name of the new release from > 0.9.11 to 0.9.12? I'm not superstitious, but it looks > a little bit funny on a FLIGHTsimulation ( remember > the 11. september 2001 - and the aftereffect to the > aircraft industry) I would strongly disagree with that - with every respect for those who were affected by the events you mention, it's only a set of numbers (not even a date, in any recognisable format), and since 0.9.11 comes right after 0.9.10, it's only logical to use them. If we start being ridiculously over-sensitive to particular numbers we'll end up with a very odd version history indeed... Cheers, AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Hi, There are some things I noticed and two suggestion: -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear. I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to reset FGF for viewing the fps - stepping clouds at certain weather -3D-clouds crashing - I hope we will get the sugested solution - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli is in the air the stutters disappear and it flys smooth. I did not noticed yet on plib since some months ago, before it was only with OSG-version and it was a known bug. Suggestions: -Because we have a wide range of aircrafts which only can fully used with OSG we should give an option for using the OSG version with the release. With MS it is easy ( download option for OSG-Binary and just changing the root), for other platforms maybe a little bit more difficult. It also brings a little preview about the features and abilities of the new scenegraph - can we change the name of the new release from 0.9.11 to 0.9.12? I'm not superstitious, but it looks a little bit funny on a FLIGHTsimulation ( remember the 11. september 2001 - and the aftereffect to the aircraft industry) Regards HHS __ Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen Eltern. www.yahoo.de/clever - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Melchior FRANZ schrieb: > * Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > >> That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it >> has some problems: >> > > Oh, and it doesn't respect the true glide slope angle. It always > uses 3 degree, although some have 3.5. (But then again, I'm not > sure if fgfs makes a difference, so this could be consistently > wrong. ;-) > > m. > > Hi Melchior, I respect your arguments. Some of them I did not notice as I just was lucky when testing it, it altway matched runway and wind-direction. And I did not see it like a command flightpath display but just as a training device for people who really have no idea how to get their (bigger) aircraft landed in some realistic way. Ok, one could just use the approach lighting system to have a simple help, but these big read sqares of your "gstunnel" are a lot easier to use. Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or something like that? I would like to present this help in the German FlightGear Forum after the 0.9.11 is out and it would only be a little step for the user to rename this file and then use this option - if wanted. Regards Georg - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it > has some problems: Oh, and it doesn't respect the true glide slope angle. It always uses 3 degree, although some have 3.5. (But then again, I'm not sure if fgfs makes a difference, so this could be consistently wrong. ;-) m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > 3. Winter textures (partially) broken (same for OSG version) That was IIRC caused by Erik's texture cache, which saved several megabytes formerly wasted texture memory, which is an important improvement. He knows about the breakage of his season feature, and I assume he just hasn't had time to fix it. :-) > 4. Please make "gstunnel" menu switchable That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it has some problems: on several runways the apt.dat runways don't match the rendered airports, and it's a bit embarrassing if the glide slope tunnel doesn't end on the runway. Also, it doesn't consider wind when choosing a runway, nor does it respect ATC's choice. The latter two problems wouldn't be hard to fix, but the former is. So I'm not sure if this should be made available. m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 14:44 schrieb Hans Fugal:
> Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
> version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
> and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a
> simple fix, and that there's really no excuse not to do it. Unless, of
> course, there is a real excuse...
This should do the trick: Instead of doing nothing when setting a new value to
zero, the resolution and cacheSize is set to it's default value when trying
to set it to zero.
It works on my copy, but maybe one of the screnegraph experts should comment
this.
Torsten
Index: cloudfield.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/SimGear-0.3/source/simgear/scene/sky/cloudfield.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.14.2.1
diff -u -p -r1.14.2.1 cloudfield.cxx
--- cloudfield.cxx 31 Jul 2007 01:19:11 - 1.14.2.1
+++ cloudfield.cxx 29 Nov 2007 15:18:13 -
@@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ int SGCloudField::get_CacheResolution(vo
}
void SGCloudField::set_CacheResolution(int resolutionPixels) {
+ if( resolutionPixels == 0 )
+ resolutionPixels = 64;
if(cacheResolution == resolutionPixels)
return;
cacheResolution = resolutionPixels;
@@ -97,10 +99,10 @@ int SGCloudField::get_CacheSize(void) {
void SGCloudField::set_CacheSize(int sizeKb) {
// apply in rendering option dialog
+ if( sizeKb == 0 )
+ sizeKb = 1024;
if(last_cache_size == sizeKb)
return;
- if(sizeKb == 0)
- return;
if(sizeKb)
last_cache_size = sizeKb;
if(enable3D) {
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Hans Fugal schrieb: >> > > Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib > version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0 > and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a > simple fix, and that there's really no excuse not to do it. Unless, of > course, there is a real excuse... > > Hi Anders, Anmaster and Hans, thank you for your anwers. First, setting the texture resolution > 0 did the trick. It really would be a great idea like Hans proposed to check for zero and if true, set the lowest value to avoid this ugly crash. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who did not realize that crash was caused by invalid values. This would hinder many questions in the FG forums after the new release. @Anders: The gstunnel is a visualization of the glidepath. Here is a picture: http://home.arcor.de/vollnhals-bremen/gstunnel/fgfs-screen-080.jpg Regards Georg - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Nov 29, 2007 4:35 AM, Anders Gidenstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote: > > > 4. 3D clouds crash > > Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after > > closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not > > run. > > Do I remember right that this is an older problem and depending on the > > video-driver/card of the user system??? > > Hi, > > Check that cloud resolution and cloud cache size isn't 0 in the rendering > dialogue. These are stored in autosave.xml and FG/OSG sets one of them to > zero - causing FG/plib to crash when enabling 3d clouds unless one adjusts > the parameter first. > Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0 and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a simple fix, and that there's really no excuse not to do it. Unless, of course, there is a real excuse... -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Georg Vollnhals wrote: [...] > 2. Triangle distorted sky also with Anthrax GUI > Although using the Anthrax-GUI, the sky gets "triangulated" when using a > submenu with (orange???) input-fields. This "triangle" distortion > disappears immediatly after leaving the input field. Did the nVidia driver settings workaround help? (Quote from earlier mail on -devel): "I brought this up in IRC and it was mentioned that this may be an NVidia. I followed AnMaster's recommendation that I enable NVidia's anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering for all apps and that does seem to have solved the issue. The default settings for these was "Application Controlled"." > 3. Winter textures (partially) broken (same for OSG version) > As we had the first snow here the last days I wanted to use the > winter-textures for a flight (--season=winter) but was disappointed as > it seams to be broken. Some of the winter textures display right, other > are only visible from a specific small view-angle. With another > view-angle the ground has some sort of brown colour, no real texture. > (It is also broken with FG/OSG CVS, here most of the textures won't > display, only one or two). > Is this specific to my system? Or is it broken on your system, too? Known broken, for a long time. [...] > 4. Please make "gstunnel" menu switchable > Melchiors gstunnel.nas works with the Prerelease version. This could be a > very nice new feature for the new FG version if Melchior could make it > switchable (on/off) by a menu entry. > I remember that it helped me a lot a long, long time ago with the > flightsim of those days ... What is this "gstunnel" thing? /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTriYWmK6ng/aMNkRCl29AKCh3bU1lWPmY4IswVc+/AcJmX7oJgCgq9I/ O/wYlS7YmN3jn2eZ5a2Jhqk= =oZYl -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Anders Gidenstam wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote: > >> 4. 3D clouds crash >> Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after >> closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not >> run. >> Do I remember right that this is an older problem and depending on the >> video-driver/card of the user system??? > > Hi, > > Check that cloud resolution and cloud cache size isn't 0 in the rendering > dialogue. These are stored in autosave.xml and FG/OSG sets one of them to > zero - causing FG/plib to crash when enabling 3d clouds unless one adjusts > the parameter first. Why not have autosave-osg.xml and autosave-plib.xml, I changed to use that locally because of how annoying this was. IMO something like that would make sense in cvs too. At least until FG/OSG support all those values. Or simply make FG/OSG ignore the values, not overwrite them? /AnMaster > > Cheers, > > Anders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTrdBWmK6ng/aMNkRCnTBAJ9+4elQyYLKEw8T6TapQslmPEfbsQCgsnfd /5d/30R3Xo1aUPUp5LgEi4Y= =hADr -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote: > 4. 3D clouds crash > Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after > closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not > run. > Do I remember right that this is an older problem and depending on the > video-driver/card of the user system??? Hi, Check that cloud resolution and cloud cache size isn't 0 in the rendering dialogue. These are stored in autosave.xml and FG/OSG sets one of them to zero - causing FG/plib to crash when enabling 3d clouds unless one adjusts the parameter first. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/JSBSim-LTA/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some testresults
Hi,
during the last days I tested FG 0.9.11 Pre using several different
scenarios, of course related to my personal interests and therefore only
a subset of FG's possibilities.
Generally spoken, this is a very stable running version on my system
(OpenSUSE 10.2). I could not see any big problems, only "smaller" ones
(see further text).
Coming from the latest FG OSG CVS I enjoyed the higher framerates and a
little nicer colours. Compared to the Pre-Pre-Versions with the
stuttering problems, this version runs very smooth with "normal"
sceneries (only at higher object density level there are some loading
stutters).
>From my point of view, this is the best release version of FlightGear
ever, from the technical side.
There are only some remarks I want to make, not sure what is already
known or not:
1. Placing aircraft (gliders) on undulating landscape not possible
I use this to place the Bocian glider at the Menden-Barge gliderfield
("Arnsberg scenery") to make a winch-start and it works perfectly with
FG OSG/CVS:
"--lon=7.841730 --lat=51.461965 --heading=236". This is only one
example, I tested it with several places.
With FG 0.9.11 Pre it works on "flat" landscape but if there is a rising
surface not only the Bocian but every tested aircraft is stuck into the
ground (and visually damaged, like the Bo105)·
2. Triangle distorted sky also with Anthrax GUI
Although using the Anthrax-GUI, the sky gets "triangulated" when using a
submenu with (orange???) input-fields. This "triangle" distortion
disappears immediatly after leaving the input field.
3. Winter textures (partially) broken (same for OSG version)
As we had the first snow here the last days I wanted to use the
winter-textures for a flight (--season=winter) but was disappointed as
it seams to be broken. Some of the winter textures display right, other
are only visible from a specific small view-angle. With another
view-angle the ground has some sort of brown colour, no real texture.
(It is also broken with FG/OSG CVS, here most of the textures won't
display, only one or two).
Is this specific to my system? Or is it broken on your system, too?
4. 3D clouds crash
Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after
closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not
run.
Do I remember right that this is an older problem and depending on the
video-driver/card of the user system???
4. Please make "gstunnel" menu switchable
Melchiors gstunnel.nas works with the Prerelease version. This could be a
very nice new feature for the new FG version if Melchior could make it
switchable (on/off) by a menu entry.
I remember that it helped me a lot a long, long time ago with the
flightsim of those days ...
Regards
Georg EDDW
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
