Curt,
I would suggest ignoring the 3d clouds for now. They still need a lot
of TLC before they will really be useful.
I for one would regret giving up on the 3d clouds, now. They look pretty,
there already went quite an amount of work and testing into the code, and I
fear it will soon become
FWIW, the grey panel with the Radeon 7500 and the DRI drivers still
persists despite the patch to fix this behaviour with the ATI binary
drivers.
Cheers - Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Luff a écrit:
FWIW, the grey panel with the Radeon 7500 and the DRI drivers still
persists despite the patch to fix this behaviour with the ATI binary
drivers.
I jump onto this post to say that I've just see that I've got the same
problem with my new Dell Latitude C610, which have a
Dave Perry writes:
Three comments/concerns for the recent changes to the flight model:
1. The nose pitch-up when adding flaps seems extreem. If I don't
change the elevator trim a lot, the plane actually stalls. If I recall
correctly, the Piper Tri-Pacer had a slight pitch up
Curtis L. Olson writes:
I've never tried this in a real C172, but I can see that for a real
pilot, pushing forward on the yoke to hold the nose down after
applying flaps could become an almost unconcious act.
Yes, after the first couple of approaches, the newly grey hair on your
instructor
FWIW I'm also seeing a significant degree of what appears to be z-buffer
fighting with geforce2 at 24bpp. The c310-3d panel goes grey at certain angles
and the c172-3d and a4-yasim panels display a lot of instability in the
rendering (problems between layers in the instruments), although they do
David Megginson writes:
Dave Perry writes:
2. The adverse aileron yaw is too much at modrate speeds. In fact,
since these changes, the wing leveler auto pilot will cause ever
increasing aileron oscillations leading to a crash with the
c172p.
I'll look into this one.
Luke Scharf writes:
I'm new to Flightgear, so I don't know if carb heat is simulated.
Not yet. It shouldn't be a difficult addition to FGPiston in JSBSim
-- just heat up the inducted air a bit (assuming the engine is hot)
and let the model take care of the rest.
But, in the c172p-3d model,
Luke Scharf writes:
I'm new to Flightgear, so I don't know if carb heat is simulated.
Not yet. It shouldn't be a difficult addition to FGPiston in JSBSim
-- just heat up the inducted air a bit (assuming the engine is hot)
and let the model take care of the rest.
But, in the c172p-3d model,
I'm quite sure that what I'm seeing is a driver (or possibly Flightgear?)
bug rather than rendering precision problems though since the same card
renders Flightgear perfectly under Windows.
Cheers - Dave
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 12/12/02 at 1:04 PM Jim Wilson wrote:
FWIW I'm
On 12/11/02 at 1:09 PM ace project wrote:
Our (ACE/ICE) multiplayer engine is ready to draw
planes in the game now, but I cant seem to figure out
how to add them to the drawing graph in a way that I
can actually see them.
Does anyone know how to do this or know the pitfalls
why is it failing ?
Right, the polygon offsets that I thought I rememebered Andy had been
adjusting for this issue seem to have introduced some other problems though.
Best,
Jim
David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm quite sure that what I'm seeing is a driver (or possibly Flightgear?)
bug rather than rendering
--- David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/11/02 at 1:09 PM ace project wrote:
Our (ACE/ICE) multiplayer engine is ready to draw
planes in the game now, but I cant seem to figure
out
how to add them to the drawing graph in a way that
I
can actually see them.
Does anyone know how to
Fabien ILLIDE wrote:
David Luff wrote:
FWIW, the grey panel with the Radeon 7500 and the DRI drivers still
persists despite the patch to fix this behaviour with the ATI binary
drivers.
I jump onto this post to say that I've just see that I've got the same
problem with my new Dell
Jim Wilson wrote:
FWIW I'm also seeing a significant degree of what appears to be
z-buffer fighting with geforce2 at 24bpp. The c310-3d panel goes grey
at certain angles and the c172-3d and a4-yasim panels display a lot of
instability in the rendering (problems between layers in the
On 12/12/02 at 8:38 AM ace project wrote:
I got Flight Gear to show the model a hour ago, I made
some *stupid* mistake reading out a variable from a
function (which forgot to copy a variable and it
default was wrong). I fixed that bug a couple of days
ago but it came back to hunt me :(
Now I
Jim Wilson wrote:
Right, the polygon offsets that I thought I rememebered Andy had
been adjusting for this issue seem to have introduced some other
problems though.
The way it worked was that the original code I submitted used a very
high offset number (because I'm using NVidia hardware too,
Andy Ross writes:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Right, the polygon offsets that I thought I rememebered Andy had
been adjusting for this issue seem to have introduced some other
problems though.
The way it worked was that the original code I submitted used a very
high offset number (because I'm
Michael would like to add an additional default view (a third, closer tower)
to the base package preferences.xml. I'm against it since we offer the
ability to add custom views and there's already too many default views for my
taste.
That's just my opinion and others will feel differently, so I
Jim Wilson wrote:
Michael would like to add an additional default view (a third, closer
tower) to the base package preferences.xml. I'm against it since we
offer the ability to add custom views and there's already too many
default views for my taste.
I'd argue that this is a UI limitation.
At 12/12/02, Andy Ross wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Michael would like to add an additional default view (a third, closer
tower) to the base package preferences.xml. I'm against it since we
offer the ability to add custom views and there's already too many
default views for my taste.
I'd argue
It turns out that my problem resides with my ISP. It turns out that
they are moving everyone from IP_ADDR.mchsi.com to
IP_ADDR.clients.mcshi.com and don't have their DNS servers set up for
this new configuration. The result is that I fail the CVS server's
validity check (the host name gotten
On Thursday 12 December 2002 6:06 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
Michael would like to add an additional default view (a third, closer
tower) to the base package preferences.xml. I'm against it since we offer
the ability to add custom views and there's already too many default views
for my taste.
I put a patch at my webserver for the hsi and rmi on the c310, if any one
wants to try it. Maybe fix it up too. I was using fgfs version 9.1 for
this.
http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/patch9.1.tar.gz
also some screenshots of hsi on the various ac.
Martin Spott wrote:
The big problematic area ... regime is unstable and
recovery difficult.
This does not have to be as difficult as it is with the V-22. The Osprey is
designed for being stuffed into _very_ small space below a ship's deck.
If they had more space then it would have been
John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The main problem I have with our current views is that
theres no random access, you have to cycle. If they were
bound to specific key combos, I wouldn't have a problem.
Maybe we can have distant and near views grouped?
It wouldn't be a big change to make
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
FWIW the A4 panel renders 'rock solid' no hint of any Z fighting
on my Win2k box and a geforce2GTS with *latest* NVIDIA drivers
Norman
Interesting. Which depth buffer mode 16bpp or 24bpp?
Best,
Jim
___
Between YASim, JSBsim, and the U-3A 3d-model we've got three origins that
represent the approximate position of the aircraft. JSBsim is 0.2m higher
than the 3D model and YASim is 0.2m lower. It'd be nice if the two FDM's
agreed with each other, at least on the height above ground for the
28 matches
Mail list logo
