David Megginson wrote:
> 1. Can you post a copy of your modified base-package files
>(a4-yasim-set.xml and a4-blue.xml)?
The -set files don't require any significant changes -- just remove
the entries and that's it. The model files for the A-4 and
172 are attached. All they needed is a en
Jim Wilson writes:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It seems strange that everything else in the cockpit and 3d model of
> > the aircraft is perfectly stable and only this one instrument is
> > jittery.
> >
> That's an optical illusion. Turn off the panel and you'll see that
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> It seems strange that everything else in the cockpit and 3d model of
> the aircraft is perfectly stable and only this one instrument is
> jittery.
Actually, the whole cockpit is jittering. The ball just has more
high-frequency information to catch your eye.
The panel do
Jim Wilson wrote:
> On further investigation, it appears that this is almost certainly due to
> normal variation in fdm position and orientation output.
This theory doesn't work though. Think about it: in cockpit mode, the
orientation of the aircraft is "bolted" to the FDM orientation. If
the F
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems strange that everything else in the cockpit and 3d model of
> the aircraft is perfectly stable and only this one instrument is
> jittery.
>
That's an optical illusion. Turn off the panel and you'll see that the whole
cockpit jitters in unis
Jim Wilson writes:
> On further investigation, it appears that this is almost certainly due to
> normal variation in fdm position and orientation output. The variations are
> probably correct, but the way 3D rendering works you get what appears to be a
> jump when a pixel boundry is crossed. Thi
ace project writes:
> In my previous mail ("Multplayer efforts ?") We asked
> for the status on multiplayer-capabilities. We
> received responses that suggested that such an engine
> was not maintained for a while.
>
> We ourselves could use the engine for adding NPC to
> the project, but thats
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> This tells me the problem is most likely in plib, or at least plib
> is where we send these numbers.
>
On further investigation, it appears that this is almost certainly due to
normal variation in fdm position and orientation output. The variations are
Jim Wilson writes:
> Setting all the view offsets to 0 I was able to prove that the
> position/rotation matrices generated on the model and the camera are
> numerically identical. Here's a sample from the dump:
>
> POS Aircraft
> 0.823776 -0.150286 -0.546632 0.00
> 0.468893 0.722572 0.507965
Setting all the view offsets to 0 I was able to prove that the
position/rotation matrices generated on the model and the camera are
numerically identical. Here's a sample from the dump:
POS Aircraft
0.823776 -0.150286 -0.546632 0.00
0.468893 0.722572 0.507965 0.00
0.318641 -0.674762 0.66
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 15:15, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 14:08, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > > The helio courier also has this feature. The leading edge slats are
> > > split so you have two per wing ... four total acting independently of
> > > each other. Depending on a varie
> Two per wing, all independent? Sounds like a lot of potential for
> lateral control hell
>
Not really. The slats slide along tracks and their weight keeps them in the
extended position. Part
of the walk-around is to push up on the slats and note free and easy
movement. Air pressure against
Ryan Larson writes:
> I can get hires photos of a Warrior, Archer, Arrow, Grumman Tiger,
> Beechcraft Sierra, C182, C172R, C172RG, Mooney 201, Saratoga II and possibly
> an Aztec F.
>
> I love my new flying club!
>
> What do we have and what do we need? Would it also be helpful to get hires
> p
> On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 14:08, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > The helio courier also has this feature. The leading edge slats are
> > split so you have two per wing ... four total acting independently of
> > each other. Depending on a variety of factors, each of the four could
> > deploy/retract at
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 14:08, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Andy Ross writes:
> > * For safety. The A-4 had automatic slats that were retracted by
> > aerodynamic force -- they dropped automatically at low airspeeds and
> > high AoA's. On the ground, they just hung open. This was a great
> > id
Andy Ross writes:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > Andy Ross writes:
> > > + It's so close to the near clip plane that the precision errors cause
> > > nasty jittering; this happens to the rest of the cockpit geometry
> > > too. Honestly, I think this is probably unavoidable. We should
> > > really
Andy Ross writes:
> I should explain the problem a little better. What's happening is
> that there is no place to put a normal vector in the .ac file. The
> plib loader thus has to generate its own normals by averaging the
> normals of each polygon attached to a vertex. For vertices that are
>
> that is simple and effective. I've always thought it would be kind of
> fun to impliment something like this on an R/C model, not that the
> typical R/C model would need them ...
>
I once saw an F-4 with controllable slats - they weren't automagic though.
The Bf-109 and Me-110 has aerodynamic
Andy Ross writes:
> * For safety. The A-4 had automatic slats that were retracted by
> aerodynamic force -- they dropped automatically at low airspeeds and
> high AoA's. On the ground, they just hung open. This was a great
> idea for maintenance purposes, but left open the possibility tha
Cameron Moore writes:
> Personally, I agree with Fred. The number of people who will actually
> be using a custom cvsignore will be far fewer than those of us who will
> not.
That seems to be the consensus -- I won't remove them.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED
Personally, I agree with Fred. The number of people who will actually
be using a custom cvsignore will be far fewer than those of us who will
not.
Can you make your custom cvsignore read-only so cvs can't stomp on it?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frederic BOUVIER) [2002.06.26 07:09]:
> Yes, but people
> FYI
> the FlightGear 'configure' is designed to be able to be run in
> a directory other then then the CVS source tree.
That sounds well worth a try. Thanks.
> This has several advantages amongst them keeping the source
> tree MUCH cleaner :-)
And being able to keep a debug build and a relea
Yes, but people can always modify their own version,
even if they are already in CVS.
I still don't see the benefit of having all those ?
lines. If you want to remove the burden
of maintaining per-directory .cvsignore, put one
in /CVSROOT and you're set for the whole tree.
Cheers,
-Fred
>Mess
Frederic Bouvier writes:
> What is the rational of doing that ?
To let people create their own, local, customized .cvsignore files
instead (those who care, that is).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wwrites:
>
>I have found it generally useful to have them provided, and
>have wished the plib would do the same (for .deps directories,
>in particular).
FYI
the FlightGear 'configure' is designed to be able to be run in
a directory other then then the CVS source tree.
This has
I don't mind either way.
I have found it generally useful to have them provided, and have wished the plib would
do the same (for .deps directories, in particular).
However, I have only ever worked on small patches, never adding files, so I have never
needed to take note of the "?" and "unknown
Andy Ross writes:
>
>Norman Vine wrote:
>> I think that you will find that inorder to get 'high quality' fonts
>> one needs to use a vector based font directly. The only problem in
>> doing this is that the polygon count goes up considerably.
>
>Have you tried the antialiased fonts in KDE, WinXP
* David Megginson -- Wednesday 26 June 2002 03:10:
> I now think that was a mistake, since people probably want
> their own, local, customized .cvsignore files if they want any at
> all.
Huh?? You think that everybody should maintain his own .cvsignore
files now? They are supposed to list all fi
28 matches
Mail list logo
