On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:51:31PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
Yes, I agree that bug-swatting is also important. We should aim to
have 0.8 build clean with -Wall (under G++), and run clean with all
Is someone working on the warning cleanups? If not, I'll have a try at
it.
Petru
Jonathan Polley writes:
I tried halving the fog values and got something that looked more
realistic, for the long distance visibilities at least. Would it be
possible to change the fog equations along with the visibility? This
would be for post-0.8.0.
You can choose between linear, exp,
I tried halving the fog values and got something that looked more
realistic, for the long distance visibilities at least. Would it be
possible to change the fog equations along with the visibility? This
would be for post-0.8.0.
Jonathan Polley
On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 09:13 PM,
Jonathan Polley writes:
I am trying to get a handle on what a KC-135 pilot would experience (out
sample flights are about 0.5-0.7 mach). What I will probably do, for
now, is set the visibility for 50 statute miles, since more than that
gives me the next step down in performance. Right
So, what you are saying is that my having set the visibility to 90
statute miles was not a good thing? ;) Any ideas as to what I should
expect for a worst-case visibility? The reason I chose such a large
visibility is because the fog effect looked, to me, more like fog and
less like
Jonathan Polley wrote:
If I can put in my $0.02, I would like to see an effort de-couple the tasks that
take place as a part of the IDLE loop. The process of loading tiles tends to slow
down the frame rate quite considerably (by over 50%). Since I tend to try to stress
the system, I do my
Not
being a pilot, I am sure that may visibility range is set too high
If you want realistic numbers to try (for the US pacific coast) ...
* Set the time to 3pm local and visisility to 6 statute miles.
* Or 9am and 20 statute miles.
* If you want to pretend it's a cold clear sunny day after
Roman,
If you know the light posns in runway (object) coords all you need to know
is the lat, lon and alt of the centre/corner (0,0,0) of the runway.
Construct transformation matrix as is done for dynamic objects in main.cxx.
Rotate first for lat, lon and translate by Objtrans (see below).
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look great), landing at night is too hard
Does this include
BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) writes:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look great),
- Original Message -
From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities
BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) writes:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think
BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) writes:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look
If I can put in my $0.02, I would like to see an effort de-couple the tasks that take place as a part of the IDLE loop. The process of loading tiles tends to slow down the frame rate quite considerably (by over 50%). Since I tend to try to stress the system, I do my test flights out of KSEA and
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look great), landing at night is too hard
right now. All of us
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:44, you wrote:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look great), landing at
On Thursday 31 January 2002 09:02 pm, you wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:44, you wrote:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt that version. Then release 0.8pre1 and have everyone
look for
John Check writes:
Okay heres a bug. When flying towards the sun/moon, the body in question
will jump down ~45 degrees for a frame or two. When ever this happens the
time jumps ahead on the clock. Uh... ok... so the time stutters.
Yes, I see the time stutter as well -- it seems to
John Wojnaroski writes:
Question? You mention roads. Are there features (objects) not enabled by the
CVS version?
TerraGear can build scenery with roads, rivers, railroads, small
towns, etc. from the vmap0 CDs, but Curt hasn't included that in the
official scenery distro yet.
All the
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 18:51, David Megginson wrote:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt that
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:51, you wrote:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt that version. Then
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 19:26, David Findlay wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:51, you wrote:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Megginson) [2002.01.31 20:56]:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt
- Original Message -
From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:44 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority
24 matches
Mail list logo
