David Megginson wrote:
Through the magic of find and grep, here are the offending aircraft
(including some of my own work):
737
T38
b52-yasim
A320
MD11
c182
c310-base.xml
p51d
hunter
hunter-2tanks
YF-23-yasim
YF-23
an225-yasim
bo105
seahawk
ComperSwift
pa28-161
fokker100
Some of these are using
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I think I have found out why the transparency is not displaying properly.
The transparency only show up when the opacity of the object is set below 99%.
This produces the side effect of being able to see through the aircraft --
not a lot, but it is noticeable if you
Alex Romosan wrote:
trying to debug why i wasn't able to run flightgear on my laptop, i
think i found a problem with SGLookupFunction. the problem is that we
call dlclose() before we return the pointer to the GL function, and,
if i understand things correctly, this invalidates the handle and the
Jim Wilson wrote:
Sorry for the dumb question: why are they offending? I'm in favor of limiting
aircraft specific key bindings to a very small number of keys (like 1 or 2),
but I'm also not clear why the input binding configuration needs to be handled
differently than it is now.
It's a layering
Erik Hofman wrote:
Alex Romosan wrote:
trying to debug why i wasn't able to run flightgear on my laptop, i
think i found a problem with SGLookupFunction. the problem is that we
call dlclose() before we return the pointer to the GL function, and,
if i understand things correctly, this
On 25 Jun 2004, at 12:36, David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Sorry for the dumb question: why are they offending? I'm in favor of
limiting
aircraft specific key bindings to a very small number of keys (like 1
or 2), but I'm also not clear why the input binding configuration
needs to be
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
I was looking at the clouds at KSFO today and noticed that the clouds were
moving towards the wind as indicated by the windsock. Windsock pointed
towards 80 deg and clouds were moving towards 260 deg.
I checked the environment subtree in the property browser, and
Christian Brunschen wrote:
What would be really good is if it were possible for the *user* to
define an arbitrary number of keyboard / joystick configurations. These
could also be named and grouped together; and there should be an easy
way to switch between these configurations, from the
David Megginson said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Sorry for the dumb question: why are they offending? I'm in favor of limiting
aircraft specific key bindings to a very small number of keys (like 1 or 2),
but I'm also not clear why the input binding configuration needs to be handled
Christian Brunschen said:
Just one personal opinion ...
What would be really good is if it were possible for the *user* to
define an arbitrary number of keyboard / joystick configurations. These
could also be named and grouped together; and there should be an easy
way to switch
On 25 Jun 2004, at 14:16, David Megginson wrote:
Christian Brunschen wrote:
What would be really good is if it were possible for the *user* to
define an arbitrary number of keyboard / joystick configurations.
These could also be named and grouped together; and there should be
an easy way to
David Megginson wrote:
Some of these are using the bindings solely to set flap detents
we should find a better system than that.
We already do, actually. Take a look at the 747 configuration,
you basically just drop in a /sim/flaps section that looks like:
flaps
setting0.000/setting
Christian Brunschen wrote:
By allowing aircraft to provide hints, we could actually include a few
different keyboard joystick configurations to match different broad
types of aircraft, or different broad capabilities (ie, sets of
instruments and controls), which could allow those keyboard
Jim Wilson wrote:
Modelers could perhaps build at the aircraft specific versions, so
that they are there, and the program would default to ignoring these. Users
who wanted the alternate versions could then deliberately enable them.
Best,
Jim
___
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately RTLD_DEFAULT isn't supported on all platforms (it isn't
supported in IRIX anyhow). I think that if what you describe is the
problem this really is a bug at your side. What happens is that the
function pointer is copied to ftpr. So dlcose()
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, if the library is really unloaded, the pointer access should be
really undefined and could lead to a segfault. Anyway, is it really
mandatory to do dlclose after getting the pointer ? It is if we do
dlopen every time we get a pointer, but the
I came up with a similar idea a few weeks ago.
The panel will have to lost focus automatically when no input is given within
a certain time.
Regards,
Ampere
On June 25, 2004 11:17 am, Josh Babcock wrote:
Whatever we do, it should be self documenting. There should be a way to
turn on
Alex Romosan wrote:
Frederic Bouvier writes:
So, if the library is really unloaded, the pointer access should be
really undefined and could lead to a segfault. Anyway, is it really
mandatory to do dlclose after getting the pointer ? It is if we do
dlopen every time we get a pointer,
Josh Babcock said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Modelers could perhaps build at the aircraft specific versions, so
that they are there, and the program would default to ignoring these. Users
who wanted the alternate versions could then deliberately enable them.
Best,
Jim
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is probably no problem of not doing dlclose at all. Standard
process exit routine should do it for us. So we could write :
static void *handle = 0;
if ( !handle )
handle = dlopen();
fct = dlsym();
return fct;
or we can call dlopen() on
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that if what you describe is the problem this really is a
bug at your side. What happens is that the function pointer is
copied to ftpr. So dlcose() should never be able to have any effects
on this copy ??
erik, maybe this test program will help
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I came up with a similar idea a few weeks ago.
The panel will have to lost focus automatically when no input is given within
a certain time.
Regards,
Ampere
On June 25, 2004 11:17 am, Josh Babcock wrote:
Whatever we do, it should be self documenting. There should be a
Erik Hofman wrote:
Unfortunately RTLD_DEFAULT isn't supported on all platforms (it isn't
supported in IRIX anyhow). I think that if what you describe is the
problem this really is a bug at your side. What happens is that the
function pointer is copied to ftpr. So dlcose() should never be able
I want to write a program that, given a lat/lon, will return the ground altitude
ASL and the slope (strike and dip). I have poked around in the simgear and
flightgear code a bit, and am having trouble finding where the tiles get loaded
to use as an example. Can someone point me in the right
Josh Babcock said:
I want to write a program that, given a lat/lon, will return the ground
altitude
ASL and the slope (strike and dip). I have poked around in the simgear and
flightgear code a bit, and am having trouble finding where the tiles get loaded
to use as an example. Can someone
On 25 Jun 2004, at 20:41, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Sorry, I should have quote this instead:
Christian Brunschen worte:
Consider an aircraft with *lots* of different things that can be
changed; including things like autopilot, radios, and so on. Rather
than having to have all possible things
I suppose I did. I'm sorry about it. =)
Regards,
Ampere
On June 25, 2004 04:16 pm, Christian Brunschen wrote:
I think you misunderstand the scenario I'm sketching at.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since the JSBSIM update some days ago the f16 model stopped working
properly for me. The elevator appears to be oscillating randomly, it's
seemingly in a different position for each frame update. This is
visible in the model animation and the aircraft is uncontrollable.
Does anyone else see
I have found another thing that is quite interesting. May be this have
something to do with the fact that the opacity of my objects is 98%, but
FlightGear seem to have trouble displaying multiple partially transparent
objects that are overlapping one another.
For example, if I have a plane
Christian Brunschen writes
I think you misunderstand the scenario I'm sketching at.
You seem to be suggesting a scenario with one 'main' configuration, and the
ability to focus briefly by selecting a certain part of the panel, with the
default panel resuming operation after the user
30 matches
Mail list logo
