Frederic Bouvier wrote:
David,
pa_tiedown.rgb comes corrupted with CVS on windows.
Could you make it binary, please ?
Done.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Hi Jim,
Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> Apparently the antitorque rotor on some of these helos (including the bo105)
> is mounted at an angle, so that there is a built in thrust that is somewhat
> analogous to a fixed rudder trim on an airplane.
Thie is in the fdm (adv. in the bo105.xml file) (with the
Maik Justus wrote:
>
> Thie is in the fdm (adv. in the bo105.xml file) (with the real angles
> for the bo)
- adv.
+ resp.
Maik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Rick Ansell wrote:
> I will see what I can do, but don't expect to much (says a MOD
> bloke).
Thanks :-)
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/lis
Maik Justus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > This makes the apparent
> > torque effect lighter, but the aircraft will still tend to crab at low
> > speeds. Is this feature incorporated into the fdm calculation for torque
effect?
>
> Sorry, I didnt find "crab" in my dictionary. But what is not simu
Hi Jim
Jim Wilson said:
>
> The term "crab" as defined in the webster dictionary is:
>
> "the angular difference between an aircraft's course and the heading necessary
> to make that course in the presence of a crosswind".
>
> The way I used it refers to the action "crab" which is flying on tha
Maik Justus writes:
> Hi,
>
> is it planned to add shadow to the world, at least the shadow of the
> aircraft?
You can actually add a shadow layer to the model directly and keep it
at ground level via various model animation directives:
http://www.flightgear.org/images/an225-departing-KSFO.j
Hi,
is it planned to add shadow to the world, at least the shadow of the
aircraft?
All the best,
Maik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Hi,
looks good. Maybe someone could add this to the bo105? (Melchior?)
Thanks,
Maik
"Curtis L. Olson" schrieb:
>
> Maik Justus writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > is it planned to add shadow to the world, at least the shadow of the
> > aircraft?
>
> You can actually add a shadow layer to the model direct
On Monday, 1 December 2003 19:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> You can actually add a shadow layer to the model directly and keep it
> at ground level via various model animation directives:
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/images/an225-departing-KSFO.jpg
>
> It's not a perfect shadow, but it's quick
I made a tilable grass texture today.
If anyone likes it and wants to use for some part of FG then let me know and
I'll e-mail it to you. 1024x1024 RGB - 3MB
I made it quite light to reflect the type of grass in my part of the world so
if someone wants darker greens let me know and I'll tweak i
Paul Surgeon writes:
> Now if I can just figure out how to change the mip mapping to not be so
> aggressive. It kills the texture detail far too close to the viewer and makes
> the screenshots look bad.
The best thing I've seen for this is to enable anisotropic texture
filtering for your card.
Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Monday, 1 December 2003 19:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > You can actually add a shadow layer to the model directly and keep it
> > at ground level via various model animation directives:
> >
> > http://www.flightgear.org/images/an225-departing-KSFO.
Paul Surgeon schrieb:
I made a tilable grass texture today.
It looks great
If anyone likes it and wants to use for some part of FG then let me know and
I'll e-mail it to you. 1024x1024 RGB - 3MB
1024x1024 is *extremly* big for such a texture!
We should try to render our terrain with multitexture
If you could define N multiple textures overtextures, you would get N^2
possible textures, which would really break up the patterns for a small
memory cost.
And while you're on the subject of "We should try", I've always wondered
about using multitextures with the top one off the ground. You c
On Monday, 1 December 2003 22:28, Christian Mayer wrote:
> 1024x1024 is *extremly* big for such a texture!
>
> We should try to render our terrain with multitextures. So we can have a
> small hi-res noisy texture for the details and a big low-res texture for
> the general appearance. Then we'd only
@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Swearing),
Do you know of any websites that I can read the will improve my
understaning of sockets? At my current level of understanding I am having
trouble making sense of the pegasus network library and how it is being
used in httpd.cxx and props.cxx due to the little doc
Josh Babcock writes:
> If you could define N multiple textures overtextures, you would get N^2
> possible textures, which would really break up the patterns for a small
> memory cost.
>
> And while you're on the subject of "We should try", I've always wondered
> about using multitextures with t
Paul Surgeon wrote:
I'm sure there will be protesters but this "polygonal" looking scenery is not
very nice in my opinion. Yes it works but it doesn't even begin to resemble
real life scenery.
Out of curiosity has anyone ever used TerraScene?
(synthetic scenery generation app for Fly! and Fly!2
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Geometry
> In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv27779
> Added Files:
> frighter.ac
Shouöld this ship frighten us ? ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Paul Surgeon wrote:
> Detail textures help but I they are not the answer.
> What is needed is new terrain rendering engine. :D
>
> I'm sure there will be protesters but this "polygonal" looking
> scenery is not very nice in my opinion. Yes it works but it doesn't
> even begin to resemble real life
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Geometry
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv27779
Added Files:
frighter.ac
Shou?ld this ship frighten us ? ;-)
Only if it's directly above you ...
Erik
___
Paul Surgeon writes:
> Detail textures help but I they are not the answer.
> What is needed is new terrain rendering engine. :D
>
> I'm sure there will be protesters but this "polygonal" looking scenery is not
> very nice in my opinion. Yes it works but it doesn't even begin to resemble
> real
On Tuesday, 2 December 2003 00:12, David Megginson wrote:
> Yes, I did use it -- it was a very well-thought out little program, but it
> had some pretty disasterous problems:
>
> 1. The generated scenery was enormous: we couldn't dream of making
> worldwide scenery available online (TerraScene scen
On Monday, 1 December 2003 23:59, Seamus Thomas Carroll wrote:
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Swearing),
>
> Do you know of any websites that I can read the will improve my
> understaning of sockets? At my current level of understanding I am having
> trouble making sense of the pegasus network library and
On Tuesday, 2 December 2003 00:16, Andy Ross wrote:
> But the answer can't possibly be to blow 4MB of card memory per
> texture. There are dozens of terrain types. Even a 256MB megacard is
> going to run short when you spend your VRAM like that that.
It would not work for the way the current sce
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:59:39 -0700
Seamus Thomas Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Swearing),
>
> Do you know of any websites that I can read the will improve my
> understaning of sockets? At my current level of understanding I am having
> trouble making sense of the peg
Paul Surgeon wrote:
> Think along the lines of about 57MB for 400 km2 with the terrain
> directly under the aircraft at 1 meter/pixel resolution and then
> gradually tappering off to 8 meters/pixel in 5 steps to a distance
> of 10 km in all directions from the aircraft.
That was my thinking when I
On Monday 01 December 2003 23:34, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> Detail textures help but I they are not the answer.
> What is needed is new terrain rendering engine. :D
>
> I'm sure there will be protesters but this "polygonal" looking scenery is
> not very nice in my opinion. Yes it works but it doesn't
> Could it be possible to create a rendering engine that allows
> us to fly from the ground up into space seamlessly?
> Many flight simulators have their limits at around 5 feet altitude
> so it would be great if we are able to fly higher in flightgear.
This would be desirable for something l
Andy Ross writes:
> That was my thinking when I started, too. But your math is a little
> off. Getting to a worst case resolution of 1 texel per screen-space
> pixel with unique texturing requires *vast* amounts of memory. The
> anisotropy kills you; far-away texels might typically be rendered a
I was shooting an approach with FG and noticed that when I pitch up the
aircraft, the VASI lights turn white. Similarly, when I pitch down the
aircraft, the VASI lights turn red. I loaded the UFO and verified the VASI
lights change color when the UFO is stationary and the pitch of the UFO
varies.
Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
> I was shooting an approach with FG and noticed that when I pitch up the
> aircraft, the VASI lights turn white. Similarly, when I pitch down the
> aircraft, the VASI lights turn red. I loaded the UFO and verified the VASI
> lights change color when the UFO is stationary
Is that ToDo list published somewhere?
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Curtis L.
Olson
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:35 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VASI question
Hoyt A. Fleming writes:
34 matches
Mail list logo
