At 12/13/02, Jim Wilson wrote:
Wow, nice list. The Citation 525 is a beautiful bird...how does the model
look? Could be a nice addition to the stable. It might be cool to add the
Embraer to get some South American representation (the ERJ's are my favorite
though).
I don't have pictures of the
I have a build for MacOS X 10.2 and will try to get a 10.1 version
built tomorrow. The routine FGATCVoice::LoadVoice does not seem to
work on the Mac as it game me a runtime error while loading the voice
file. I'm not sure what isn't liked, but modifying the file to
immediately return with 'f
Is this file property-api.html still around somewhere. I am trying to find
a tutorial on how to use the property tree.
Ref:
http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt/lists/fgfs/archive-200207/msg00080.html
Thanks,
Michael
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMA
Jim Wilson writes:
>
> This same effect is less or more depending on exactly where the "origin" is.
> We could eliminate it by offseting the lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg to the
> current center of gravity for the camera, but that isn't necessary. It'll
> look good enough (you can't visually se
On 13 Dec 2002 15:22:38 -0800
Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I'm proposing is that we don't have to agree to use
the same point.
We just need to provide a way to correct for the
difference.
Ah, yes. We will need to provide another point - location
of nose tip (or whatever). In in
Tony Peden writes:
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:40, Jon S Berndt
> > >I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one
> > >coordinate system to use.
> > >
> > >Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a
> > >location that makes sense for the aircraft you a
David,
Since I am having some "minor" ISP problems, I downloaded the 0.9.1 tarballs last
night and will try to build them for both 10.1 and 10.2 this weekend. Just to verify
out build environments, what version of MacOS are you running? Also which versions of
automake and autoconf do you
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:40, Jon S Berndt wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:09:34 -0800 (PST)
> Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one
> >coordinate system to use.
> >
> >Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
> > necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
>
> The FDMs give us lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg. FlightGear then has
> to apply transformati
Quoth Curtis L. Olson:
> If 0.9.1 is too much of a hassle to get running, please feel free to
> submit changes relative to current CVS, and we can do a 0.9.2 release
> and get a good Mac build for that.
I removed the clouds3d code per a post of Curt's, and changed the tests
in configure per a pre
On Friday 13 December 2002 2:26 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:42:20 -0600,
> Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and "Captain Slug":
> >
> > I (we) have obtained permission from them to use
On Friday 13 December 2002 1:42 pm, Michael Selig wrote:
> Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and "Captain Slug":
>
> I (we) have obtained permission from them to use their 3D external models
> under the GNU GPL. All of these models will work with FlightGear. I have
> the zip files. T
On Thursday 12 December 2002 11:01 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
> 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
On Thursday 12 December 2002 4:45 pm, paul mccann wrote:
> 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
>
This looks good. Do we
David Megginson writes:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
> > necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
>
> The FDMs give us lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg. FlightGear then has
> to apply transformations to make the mo
Tony Peden writes:
> Since this makes the 3D modeler's choice independent of the FDM
> modeler's choice, it seems the most sensible to me.
That wasn't my intention -- you'd still need the same origin for this
to work. It's just a way for the 3D engine to know what point to
pivot the model ar
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:56:39 -0500
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
> Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
> necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
If you are rotating the model in the same order as the
FDM, then t
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one
coordinate system to use.
Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a
location that makes sense for the aircraft you are workin
FYI
There are a few texture related 'problems' with the original
Win32-0.9.1 binary
There is new zip file at FlightGear.org and should be on the
mirrors shortly
ftp://ftp.flightgear.org/pub/fgfs/Win32/fgfs-win32-bin-0.9.1c.zip
NOTE:
If you aren't experiencing any problems you probably don't wan
--- Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Megginson writes:
>
> > Jim Wilson writes:
> >
> > > 2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between
> the
> > > wings the external model views that follow along with the
> aircraft
> > > (e.g. chase view) will not look correc
--- Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:45:11 -0500
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >OK, finally I understand the problem. What we need to do, then, is
> >apply the euler angles to the CG rather than the origin when
> rotating
> >the 3D model. We
--- David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > 2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between
> the
> > wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
> > (e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to
> the
> >
I always wanted to fly the BatWing! Just need tech data now:-)
Chris
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 18:42, Michael Selig wrote:
> Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and "Captain Slug":
>
> I (we) have obtained permission from them to use their 3D external models
> under the GNU GPL. All of
Wow, nice list. The Citation 525 is a beautiful bird...how does the model
look? Could be a nice addition to the stable. It might be cool to add the
Embraer to get some South American representation (the ERJ's are my favorite
though).
Best,
Jim
Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some g
Jim Wilson writes:
> Actually, no, well yes this is a good idea. But I don't think it is
> necessary. AFAIK the model rotates correctly already.
The FDMs give us lon/lat/alt and roll/pitch/hdg. FlightGear then has
to apply transformations to make the model appear in the right place
and with
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:42:20 -0600,
Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and "Captain Slug":
>
> I (we) have obtained permission from them to use their 3D external
> models under the GNU GPL. All of these models
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:45:11 -0500
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, finally I understand the problem. What we need to do, then, is
apply the euler angles to the CG rather than the origin when rotating
the 3D model. We need only two steps:
1. have the FDMs report the current CG r
David Megginson writes:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > 2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between the
> > wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
> > (e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to the
> > origin. If the origin is a
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > 2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between the
> > wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
> > (e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to the
> > origin.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:42:20 -0600
Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and
"Captain Slug":
Yee-haw!
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/f
Jim Wilson writes:
> 2). On a fixed wing aircraft, if origin is anywhere but between the
> wings the external model views that follow along with the aircraft
> (e.g. chase view) will not look correct. The camera is tied to the
> origin. If the origin is at the nose or tail then the plane
>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:09:06 -0800
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whatever convention we pick should be an easily explainable and
identifiable from the *shape* of the airframe only. Not everyone has
a POH handy, very few people have W&B or C.G. numbers, and even things
like the centerline
Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and "Captain Slug":
I (we) have obtained permission from them to use their 3D external models
under the GNU GPL. All of these models will work with FlightGear. I have
the zip files. To fly, all they need are flight models (aero, propulsion,
gear,
Andy Ross writes:
> Whatever convention we pick should be an easily explainable and
> identifiable from the *shape* of the airframe only. Not everyone
> has a POH handy, very few people have W&B or C.G. numbers, and even
> things like the centerline are subject to argument on some
> aircraft
This brings back the discussion a couple weeks ago on the 747 origin. The
following is what I got from that thread:
1). The reported "origin" is arbitrary in relation to the FDM's internal
workings...ie how pitch/roll/yaw is calculated. The exact position of the 3D
model origin can be calculated
David Megginson wrote:
> 1. Put the X axis origin at the published weight-and-balance reference
>datum.
> 2. Put the Y axis origin at the centreline of the plane.
> 3. Put the Z axis origin [where? the ground?].
I'll just state my opinion again, and then keep my head down until
someone tells m
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:34:00 -0500,
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jon Berndt writes:
>
> > > 1. Put the X axis origin at the published weight-and-balance
> > > reference datum.
> >
> > 1) Respect the manufacturer's structural coordinates, if known.
Jon Berndt writes:
> > 1. Put the X axis origin at the published weight-and-balance reference
> >datum.
>
> 1) Respect the manufacturer's structural coordinates, if known. If not,
> place the X axis origin at the published weight and balance reference
> datum. If not known, place the X
> That's the hard part. The POH and the TCDS give the standard origin
> on the X axis (the weight and balance reference datum), and the origin
> on the Y axis can be assumed to be the centreline of the plane, but
> where do you put the Z origin? For a single, the thrustline of the
> propeller mig
Danie Heath writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I've noticed that there's quite a performance knock in the virtual cockpit
> view ... won't it be better if we just decrease the update rate of the
> gauges a little bit ...
Because of the nature of 3d graphics we need to re-draw the panel
every frame. Besides,
Danie Heath writes:
> I've noticed that there's quite a performance knock in the virtual cockpit
> view ... won't it be better if we just decrease the update rate of the
> gauges a little bit ...
Nothing noticeable: the performance knock comes mainly from all the
texture work, which has to be
Jim Wilson writes:
> 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 h
Jim Wilson
> 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
> >
> Interesting. Which depth buffer mode 16bpp or 24bpp?
24bpp
Norman
_
Hi all,
I've noticed that there's quite a performance knock in the virtual cockpit
view ... won't it be better if we just decrease the update rate of the
gauges a little bit ...
Regards
Danie Heath
if (Game.Crash()) {
Fault = NotMine;
}
_
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael
> Basler
Please ignore that message sent in error to the announce list. Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Basler, Jena, Germany
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/
___
45 matches
Mail list logo
