Jonathan Polley wrote:
Oh, and it will not link because of the following missing symbols:
These are symbold from NetworkOLK. Did you rerun autogen.sh and configure?
Erik
BTW. The fixes are in CVS now.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Jonathan Polley wrote:
Oh, and it will not link because of the following missing symbols:
You will either have to do a "make clean" or remove the following files
by hand:
Cockpit/hud.o
GUI/gui.o
GUI/gui_funcs.o
Main/main.o
Main/options.o
Main/util.o
Erik
_
Hello Dev team,
Are there projects using FlightGear as the ``engine'' of a simulator
with cockpit mockup, multiple projectors, head down display and and
possibly a motion platform?
This would imply the need for
- multiple out-the-window views, most likely driven by multiple
rendering machines,
Gerhard Wesp wrote:
Hello Dev team,
Are there projects using FlightGear as the ``engine'' of a simulator
with cockpit mockup, multiple projectors, head down display and and
possibly a motion platform?
http://flightgear.org/Projects/RayChair/raychair.html
http://flightgear.org/Projects/
This would
Erik Hofman writes:
> We have three FDM's of which two of them use windtunnel/flight-test
> data and one is based on physical dimensions of the aircraft. The
> latter is a bit less accurate but is easier to design a working
> aircraft for.
To be fair, YASim is not necessarily less accurate, t
Hi guys!
I'm implementing light lobes to flightgear using
per-pixel attenuation
I modified viewer.cxx in plib distribution and this
works fine but there are some problems for me here I totally confused model view
matrixes and plib so I need help
If someone intersted in I can send my
sources
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
> We have three FDM's of which two of them use windtunnel/flight-test
> data and one is based on physical dimensions of the aircraft. The
> latter is a bit less accurate but is easier to design a working
> aircraft for.
To be fair, YASim is not necess
> http://flightgear.org/Projects/RayChair/raychair.html
> http://flightgear.org/Projects/
Oops. Should have looked more closely on your homepage. Thanks!
> We are a bit behind on this part. There is a project called OpenGC that
> has been working with FlightGear, but I don't know the current s
> Yeah, but the windtunnel or flight-test data woudl include the
> individual coefficients in one single value. This means that if there is
> data for -180 ... +180 degree AOA and Yaw JSBSim (and UIUC) woudl be
> more accurate compared to YASim.
>
> That said, YASim is realy a good alternative for
Gerhard Wesp wrote:
http://flightgear.org/Projects/RayChair/raychair.html
http://flightgear.org/Projects/
Oops. Should have looked more closely on your homepage. Thanks!
We are a bit behind on this part. There is a project called OpenGC that
has been working with FlightGear, but I don't know th
Erik Hofman writes:
> Yeah, but the windtunnel or flight-test data woudl include the
> individual coefficients in one single value. This means that if there is
> data for -180 ... +180 degree AOA and Yaw JSBSim (and UIUC) woudl be
> more accurate compared to YASim.
Not really, because ther
Gerhard Wesp writes:
> Does jsbsim also take yaw angle into account (fuselage drag)? I.e., is
> it possible to perform a slip (haven't had a real chance to try yet due
> to lack of pedals). For yasim I take it it is possible.
Yes. The sideslip angle is called "beta", and several coefficient
Jon Berndt writes:
> I can think of a couple of situations where YASim would have advantages -
> *at*present*:
>
> - Calculating any force or moment that is a result of rotational motion
> while the aircraft is at zero translational velocity.
>
> - Clearly, any condition that is not cover
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 04:23, Gerhard Wesp wrote:
> > http://flightgear.org/Projects/RayChair/raychair.html
> > http://flightgear.org/Projects/
>
> Oops. Should have looked more closely on your homepage. Thanks!
>
> > We are a bit behind on this part. There is a project called OpenGC that
> > h
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 03:22, David Megginson wrote:
> Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > We have three FDM's of which two of them use windtunnel/flight-test
> > data and one is based on physical dimensions of the aircraft. The
> > latter is a bit less accurate but is easier to design a working
> > airc
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 04:35, David Megginson wrote:
> Jon Berndt writes:
>
> > I can think of a couple of situations where YASim would have advantages -
> > *at*present*:
> >
> > - Calculating any force or moment that is a result of rotational motion
> > while the aircraft is at zero transla
> Note that JSBSim would get all of this for free simply by allowing
> coefficients to be (optionally) specified for individual surfaces,
> each with its own orientation. All JSBSim would have to do is sum up
> the moments and forces (mostly forces) for the collection of surfaces.
I think we all
Gerhard Wesp wrote:
http://flightgear.org/Projects/RayChair/raychair.html
http://flightgear.org/Projects/
Oops. Should have looked more closely on your homepage. Thanks!
This is actually the first time I've looked at this video, but it is
quite nice to see FlightGear in action this way:
http:
I am working an update to the multiplayer code. The changes are to tidy up
the loading/unloading of models as players come and go, as well as some other
minor corrections. I will post the changes within the next couple of days.
Duncan McCreanor.
___
F
Duncan McCreanor wrote:
I am working an update to the multiplayer code. The changes are to tidy up
the loading/unloading of models as players come and go, as well as some other
minor corrections. I will post the changes within the next couple of days.
Good to see there is still active development
Tony Peden writes:
> How would we specify the characteristics of each of those surfaces?
Do you mean the position/orientation, the shape, or the aerodynamic
behaviour?
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/
Jon Berndt writes:
> There are some nuances to that approach. For example, does it work *with*
> the existing approach, or would it be an entirely new and separate way to
> define the aero characteristics of an aircraft? If it was to augment the
> current way of doing things, would it provide
I need to at least 31 control nodes in FGControls in order to handle turbines,
and I see that it already contains 72 nodes. I can see the number growing to
200 or more. It might be time to organize with sub-nodes:
/controls/flight
/controls/gear
/controls/engine
/controls/engine/piston
/contro
David Culp writes:
> I need to at least 31 control nodes in FGControls in order to
> handle turbines, and I see that it already contains 72 nodes. I
> can see the number growing to 200 or more. It might be time to
> organize with sub-nodes:
>
> /controls/flight
> /controls/gear
> /contr
Erik Hofman wrote:
1. 3D HUD code, written by Andy Ross and modified by Norman Vine.
I realy like this patch, but it requires aircraft to be repositioned. As
far as I know only the F-16 doesn't use a full-screen HUD, but I'm not sure.
Does any object or can I go ahead?
Erik
___
Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > 1. 3D HUD code, written by Andy Ross and modified by Norman Vine.
>
> I realy like this patch, but it requires aircraft to be repositioned. As
> far as I know only the F-16 doesn't use a full-screen HUD, but
> I'm not sure.
>
> Does any object or can I go ahead?
Plea
The new scenery code is still rough, and some tiles fail to build at
all, but I am extremely impressed with Curt's recent work on TerraGear
combined with the better Canadian elevation data available through the
SRTM. Here is a picture taken from the surface of the Gatineau River
just north of Otta
David Megginson writes:
> The new scenery code is still rough, and some tiles fail to build at
> all, but I am extremely impressed with Curt's recent work on TerraGear
> combined with the better Canadian elevation data available through the
> SRTM.
David,
Thanks for the kind words. Yes there is
David Megginson writes:
>
> The new scenery code is still rough, and some tiles fail to build at
> all, but I am extremely impressed with Curt's recent work on TerraGear
> combined with the better Canadian elevation data available through the
> SRTM.
Yup Open Source 'collaboration' yields wonder
This looks great! Is the bay area ready for the base package yet?
Best,
Jim
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thanks for the kind words. Yes there is a few rough edges (so to
> speak.) I see at least one bug in tile edge matching has crept in
> along the way somehow. I need to l
I just want to make a very brief statement with respect to what going
on in the world right now.
I don't think we should trivialize current world events here in the
FlightGear forums by pretending they aren't happening. I'm certain
that most of us have strong feelings and are very concerned about
Jim Wilson writes:
> This looks great! Is the bay area ready for the base package yet?
There are a couple open issues.
1. I'm using the 1km raster land use/land cover data set rather than
vmap0 land use.
2. I have yet built in roads, railroads, or streams.
3. There are some tile boundary is
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> I'm also pretty happy with the quality of the SRTM data. If/when 3 or
> 1 arcsec terrain data is released for the entire word, I'll need a 1
> gazillion terrabyte HD to do all the processing and a 256 node super
> computer cluster also wouldn't hurt. :-)
In the mean
> I'm also pretty happy with the quality of the SRTM data. If/when 3 or
> 1 arcsec terrain data is released for the entire word, I'll need a 1
> gazillion terrabyte HD to do all the processing and a 256 node super
> computer cluster also wouldn't hurt. :-)
>
flightgear.distributed.net. :)
g.
_
David Megginson writes:
> In the meantime, there is 3 arcsec SRTM data for Canada and Mexico, so
> we can join the club.
Really? Where can I fetch it?
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curt, this is awesome.
> I'm also pretty happy with the quality of the SRTM data. If/when 3 or
> 1 arcsec terrain data is released for the entire word, I'll need a 1
> gazillion terrabyte HD to do all the processing and a 256 node super
> computer cluster also wouldn't hurt. :-)
I might be able
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:14:19 -0600
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just want to make a very brief statement with respect
to what going on in the world right now.
That wasn't brief. ;-)
Was this in reponse to anything in particular, or a
preemptive strike to head off any political
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> > In the meantime, there is 3 arcsec SRTM data for Canada and Mexico, so
> > we can join the club.
>
> Really? Where can I fetch it?
The same place as the U.S. data:
ftp://edcsgs9.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/North_America/3arcsec/
The 1 arcsec data covers only th
Gene Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> flightgear.distributed.net. :)
If someone provides a portable distribution mechanism for distributed
scenery generation, then I think I can provide some horsepower for this,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also pretty happy with the quality of the SRTM data. If/when 3 or
> 1 arcsec terrain data is released for the entire word, I'll need a 1
> gazillion terrabyte HD to do all the processing and a 256 node super
> computer cluster also wouldn't hurt.
Excellent answers already!
Dave, you did not say what you want to fly?
I plan on doing a flight in the UK in summer as well, probably with a
Tiger Moth. You can do this without any flying license. If you search
for "Tiger Moth" and lesson or similar words, you will find several
operators offering
Has this project already be mentioned on this list ? Unfortunately it
appears to compile with certain compilers only:
http://www.opensg.org/
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Martin Spott writes:
> Gene Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > flightgear.distributed.net. :)
>
> If someone provides a portable distribution mechanism for distributed
> scenery generation, then I think I can provide some horsepower for this,
The big problem is that scenery building is much
ok, i am not sure if this is correct but this way compiles cvs version of
Flightgear
--- src/Main/fg_init.cxx2003-03-20 14:33:11.0 +0200
+++ src/Main/fg_init.new.cxx2003-03-20 14:32:58.0 +0200
@@ -740,5 +740,5 @@
SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO,
"At
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For scenery building I'd love to have at least an 8-16 node cluster
> with really high bandwidth/ low latency net between them, a terrabyte
> of scsi disk space, [...]
A terabyte of disk space is quite affordable these days. When the necessity
become
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The big problem is that scenery building is much more slanted towards
> data shuffling (i.e. reading and writing files is typically the
> largest component of the task.) There is a computational component
> but it is generally small in comparison. Wh
> Locally I have about 220Gb of HD space dedicated towards storing the
> original raw data. The intermediate preprocessed form of the data.
> The shared edge data. And the final scenery.
Oh. I didn't expect it to be that much...
> If we get SRTM data for the whole world, that will have to jump
>
> I don't know that network-olk ever really worked, so if this new
> multiplayer code has any sort of basic functionality we could probably
> just remove the olk code. If any one needs it for anything, it will
> always be available in past versions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Curt.
We actually did man
Martin Spott writes:
> Has this project already be mentioned on this list ? Unfortunately it
> appears to compile with certain compilers only:
>
> http://www.opensg.org/
I can't say if it's been mentioned here or not, but I'm aware of it.
If people are starting new projects from scratch it defini
Hello, today I encountered linker errors on SuSE-8.1/i386. As I understand
this does not depend on the tool chain:
make[2]: Wechsel in das Verzeichnis »/usr/local/src/FlightGear/src/Main«
g++ -DPKGLIBDIR=\"/usr/local/FlightGear/lib/FlightGear\" -O3 -D_REENTRANT
-L/usr/local/lib -L/opt/gnu/lib -s
Major A writes:
> > Locally I have about 220Gb of HD space dedicated towards storing the
> > original raw data. The intermediate preprocessed form of the data.
> > The shared edge data. And the final scenery.
>
> Oh. I didn't expect it to be that much...
I'm not maxed out yet, and occaisonally
Wolfram Kuss writes:
> Excellent answers already!
>
> Dave, you did not say what you want to fly?
Well, so far I have experience only in the C150, C172, C177, and
PA-28. I wouldn't mind adding to that list, but I don't need to do
that in the same trip.
> I plan on doing a flight in the UK
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> Martin Spott writes:
> > Has this project already be mentioned on this list ? Unfortunately it
> > appears to compile with certain compilers only:
> >
> > http://www.opensg.org/
> In terms of fancy new whiz-bang cool features, OSG tends to try to
> track and support t
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Curt Olson) [2003.03.20 14:40]:
> Martin Spott writes:
> > Gene Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > flightgear.distributed.net. :)
> > If someone provides a portable distribution mechanism for distributed
> > scenery generation, then I think I can provide some horsepower fo
Norman Vine wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
1. 3D HUD code, written by Andy Ross and modified by Norman Vine.
I realy like this patch, but it requires aircraft to be repositioned. As
far as I know only the F-16 doesn't use a full-screen HUD, but
I'm not sure.
Does any object or can I go ahead?
Pleas
David Megginson writes:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > > In the meantime, there is 3 arcsec SRTM data for Canada and Mexico, so
> > > we can join the club.
> >
> > Really? Where can I fetch it?
>
> The same place as the U.S. data:
>
> ftp://edcsgs9.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/North_Americ
Ironhell3 . wrote:
ok, i am not sure if this is correct but this way compiles cvs version
of Flightgear
Shoot. You are right.
Funny I didn't catch that one.
Thanks.
Erik
--- src/Main/fg_init.cxx2003-03-20 14:33:11.0 +0200
+++ src/Main/fg_init.new.cxx2003-03-20 14:32:58.00
Martin Spott wrote:
Hello, today I encountered linker errors on SuSE-8.1/i386. As I understand
this does not depend on the tool chain:
Did you already try this:
You will either have to do a "make clean" or remove the following files by hand:
Cockpit/hud.o
GUI/gui.o
GUI/gui_funcs.o
Main/main.o
Mai
> > Just an idea: how about using the HP TestDrive farm? They have some
> > nice computers there such as a quad 1GHz Alpha. It would be
> > necessary to ask for their permission first, but this being an
> > open-source project, I wouldn't think this would be a problem. We
> > can then give credit
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:34:24 -0600,
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Major A writes:
> > > Locally I have about 220Gb of HD space dedicated towards storing
> > > the original raw data. The intermediate preprocessed form of the
> > > data. The shared
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:05:26 -0600,
Cameron Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> PPS - I forget the company, but there's a back-cover ad in the most
> recent Linux Journals where you can enter to receive a $50K research
> grant by applying in this company's contest.
Major A writes:
> I've just checked, the central file space is 160GB, which is about 50%
> full right now. It's shared via NFS, unfortunately, so it's not that
> good really. They still have impressive computing power, I've just
> checked that they have a 4x800MHz Itanium and a 4x1GHz Alpha. The
>
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>> Hello, today I encountered linker errors on SuSE-8.1/i386. As I understand
>> this does not depend on the tool chain:
>
> Did you already try this:
>
>> You will either have to do a "make clean" or remove the following
>> files by ha
David wrote:
> > I plan on doing a flight in the UK in summer as well, probably with a
> > Tiger Moth. You can do this without any flying license.
>
>Really? In Canada, you need a license even for an ultralight or a
>glider.
I probably formulated that very badly - it is like the introductory
fli
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> But, to answer your question CPU speed does definitely help.
> Generally I'm never memory bound on a 256 machine except for the one
> time task of splitting up the world land mass data set into
> tiles... it would have been nice to have 1Gb RAM for that.
Note that th
Erik Hofman writes:
>
> Norman Vine wrote:
> > Erik Hofman writes:
> >
> >>>1. 3D HUD code, written by Andy Ross and modified by Norman Vine.
> >>
> >>I realy like this patch, but it requires aircraft to be repositioned.
As
> >>far as I know only the F-16 doesn't use a full-screen HUD, but
> >>I'm
Hello Erik,
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>> Hello, today I encountered linker errors on SuSE-8.1/i386. As I understand
>> this does not depend on the tool chain:
> Did you already try this:
>>
>> You will either have to do a "make clean" or remove the following f
> After a bit of experimentation, I see little benefit in the 1arcsec
> data for our needs. We can't even come any where close to rendering
> the full 3arcsec data. We are talking about preserving the top 1%
> most important data points from the 3 arcsec data. For the 1arcsec
> data we'd only be
Gene Buckle writes:
> > After a bit of experimentation, I see little benefit in the 1arcsec
> > data for our needs. We can't even come any where close to rendering
> > the full 3arcsec data. We are talking about preserving the top 1%
> > most important data points from the 3 arcsec data. For the
> Sorry for the lame question, but how far are the sample points apart from
> each other in feet with the 3 arc second data? How far is it for the 1?
24 arc hours = 44000km (roughly the perimeter of the earth)
1 arc hour = 1833km
1 arc minute = 30.55km
1 arc second = 0.51km
So 1 arc second is a
From: "Major A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Sorry for the lame question, but how far are the sample points apart
from
> > each other in feet with the 3 arc second data? How far is it for the 1?
>
> 24 arc hours = 44000km (roughly the perimeter of the earth)
> 1 arc hour = 1833km
> 1 arc minute = 30.
> 1 arcsec = approximately 30 meters = approximately 100 feet.
> 3 arcsec = approximately 90 meters = approximately 300 feet.
>
> The points are on the lat/lon grid lines so the horizontal spacing
> becomes smaller as you get further away from the equator.
Ahhh, damn, I should have thought a lit
Hi all,
I am trying to draw an OpenGL quad at the very end of fgRenderFrame in
main.cxx, just before the glutSwapBuffers by doing:
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glPushMatrix();
glLoadIdentity();
glDisable( GL_FOG );
glDisable( GL_DEPTH_TEST );
glDisab
> Hmmm, are you sure ?
>
> from my understanding :
>
> 360 degres = 44000km
> 1 degre = 122.22km
> 1 minute = 2.037km
> 1 second = 0.033km
That's what I just realized. I think it's bedtime.
Andras
===
Major Andras
e
Hello Curt,
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, to answer your question CPU speed does definitely help.
> Generally I'm never memory bound on a 256 machine except for the one
> time task of splitting up the world land mass data set into
> tiles... it would have been nice to have 1
Richard Airlie wrote:
> I am trying to draw an OpenGL quad at the very end of fgRenderFrame in
> main.cxx, just before the glutSwapBuffers by doing:
>glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
>glPushMatrix();
>glLoadIdentity();
> [...]
> This has worked on a few occasions, but not all the time.
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 05:30, David Megginson wrote:
> Tony Peden writes:
>
> > How would we specify the characteristics of each of those surfaces?
>
> Do you mean the position/orientation, the shape, or the aerodynamic
> behaviour?
The aero behavior. Coefficients are generally apply only to th
In my case, I don't want any of the multi-pilot code in my build. For
some reason, as of yesterday, src/MultiPlayer is required for the build
(--with-network is defaulted to yes). If it requires that I build with
--with-network-olk then this is a very bad thing (IMHO) because I don't
beli
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Here are some more pictures taken in and around the Bay area:
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/Gallery/Source/terrain1.jpg
> http://www.flightgear.org/Gallery/Source/terrain2.jpg
> http://www.flightgear.org/Gallery/Source/terrain3.jpg
> ht
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Gene Buckle wrote:
> > I'm also pretty happy with the quality of the SRTM data. If/when 3 or
> > 1 arcsec terrain data is released for the entire word, I'll need a 1
> > gazillion terrabyte HD to do all the processing and a 256 node super
> > computer cluster also wouldn't hu
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:32:57PM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
>
> If you want to draw into screen space, you'll need to push the
> identity matrix onto the *projection* stack as well. Otherwise the
> coordinates you are using will end up drawing a 1m x 1m square
> parallel to the equatorial plane at
Frederic Bouvier writes:
> from my understanding :
>
> 360 degres = 44000km
> 1 degre = 122.22km
> 1 minute = 2.037km
> 1 second = 0.033km
Let's keep it simple. 1 minute of latitude is one nautical mile --
that's its definition.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECT
Tony Peden writes:
> The aero behavior. Coefficients are generally apply only to the whole
> and complete aircraft (with the exception of a tail-off model). This
> means its very hard to split them up arbitrarily.
I agree that the information is harder to find, and will require a
fair bit
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:36:13 -0500,
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Frederic Bouvier writes:
>
> > from my understanding :
> >
> > 360 degres = 44000km
> > 1 degre = 122.22km
> > 1 minute = 2.037km
> > 1 second = 0.033km
>
> Let's keep it simp
> > Sorry for the lame question, but how far are the sample points apart from
> > each other in feet with the 3 arc second data? How far is it for the 1?
>
> 1 arcsec = approximately 30 meters = approximately 100 feet.
> 3 arcsec = approximately 90 meters = approximately 300 feet.
>
> The points a
Gene Buckle writes:
>
> > > Sorry for the lame question, but how far are the sample
> points apart from
> > > each other in feet with the 3 arc second data? How far is it
> for the 1?
> >
> > 1 arcsec = approximately 30 meters = approximately 100 feet.
> > 3 arcsec = approximately 90 meters = appr
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:36:13 -0500,
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Frederic Bouvier writes:
> >
> > > from my understanding :
> > >
> > > 360 degres = 44000km
> > > 1 degre = 122.22km
> > > 1 m
87 matches
Mail list logo
