Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:
Sorry if it's been known mentioned already --- among the
0.9.9 features I think it's would be great to get back
the high-res IFR version of a c172 aircraft (c172-610x-null).
(BTW, is it not there in the CVS version because of the new electrical
c172 system approach?)
Sorry if it's been known mentioned already --- among the
0.9.9 features I think it's would be great to get back
the high-res IFR version of a c172 aircraft (c172-610x-null).
(BTW, is it not there in the CVS version because of the new electrical
c172 system approach?)
Vassilii
__
Am Tuesday 04 October 2005 12:51 schrieb Harald JOHNSEN:
>
> Some 3d models have conditional displays based on the view number. In
> internal view their often don't draw
> most of the external model to be fps friendly. A simple solution for
> that problem is to set the view number
> to 'external' w
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
Am Tuesday 04 October 2005 09:26 schrieb George Patterson:
I was not aware that it is possible to switch to another clients cockpit.
However, if this really depends on properties which get not transmitted over
the network yet, we should disable this in the upcoming r
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 11:11 +0200, Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> Am Tuesday 04 October 2005 09:26 schrieb George Patterson:
> >
> > The cockpit view of other planes need to be fixed. For those that aren't
> > aware of it. If you view another players/pilot's plane, you only see the
> > cockpit panels an
Am Tuesday 04 October 2005 09:26 schrieb George Patterson:
>
> The cockpit view of other planes need to be fixed. For those that aren't
> aware of it. If you view another players/pilot's plane, you only see the
> cockpit panels and perhasp part of the tail or insignia. This is because
> the propert
George Patterson wrote:
The nicer lighting would be good for those that want to compare
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 with FGFS. gives a fairer comparison.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, better lighting *effect* or just
better sky lighting? If so, what do you think could be improved?
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 19:57 +0200, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 03 October 2005 19:47:
> > * Durk Talsma -- Monday 03 October 2005 18:08:
> > > > (B) which bugs need to be fixed (and by whom :-)?
> >
> > > - Setting a wrong path for --fg-scenery results in an abort
> >
> >
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 14:02 +0200, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> And here is what I have to say. :-)
>
> > (A) will a new official plib release be required?
>
I'm not really qualified to answer this one.
>
>
> > (B) which bugs need to be fixed (and by whom :-)?
>
> I ran into another groundcache en
On Monday 03 October 2005 20:31, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Durk Talsma -- Monday 03 October 2005 20:18:
> > Could not find VVNS
> > Could not find VVNT
> > Aborted
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/FlightGear-0.9/source-devel>
>
> You have compiled with glut? And not used the -fexceptions flag?
>
That's
* Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 03 October 2005 20:31:
> You have compiled with glut? And not used the -fexceptions flag?
Well, it's the same for SDL, of course ... :-)
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flight
* Durk Talsma -- Monday 03 October 2005 20:18:
> Could not find VVNS
> Could not find VVNT
> Aborted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/FlightGear-0.9/source-devel>
You have compiled with glut? And not used the -fexceptions flag?
In this case you don't get flightgear's error messages, but a simple
On Monday 03 October 2005 19:57, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 03 October 2005 19:47:
> > * Durk Talsma -- Monday 03 October 2005 18:08:
> > > > (B) which bugs need to be fixed (and by whom :-)?
> > >
> > > - Setting a wrong path for --fg-scenery results in an abort
> >
> > I'l
* Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 03 October 2005 19:47:
> * Durk Talsma -- Monday 03 October 2005 18:08:
> > > (B) which bugs need to be fixed (and by whom :-)?
>
> > - Setting a wrong path for --fg-scenery results in an abort
>
> I'll look into this.
It behaves exactly as it is supposed to: If no pa
* Durk Talsma -- Monday 03 October 2005 18:08:
> > (B) which bugs need to be fixed (and by whom :-)?
> - Setting a wrong path for --fg-scenery results in an abort
I'll look into this.
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.o
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> The new shadows should possibly be activated by default. Or does
> not enough 3D hardware/software support it, so that this would
> cause too many problems? Activate 3D clouds by default, too?
I like it very much to have 3D clouds and shadows and on an ATI Radeon
X800-size
* Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 03 October 2005 14:02:
> > (B) which bugs need to be fixed (and by whom :-)?
Forgot my own homework: I'll fix endless querying of stale METAR
data. It seems to have been done for the init phase already (Harald?),
but should also be considered later on.
Then there is the
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
>
> The new shadows should possibly be activated by default. Or does
> not enough 3D hardware/software support it, so that this would
> cause too many problems? Activate 3D clouds by default, too?
>
Both shadows and 3d clouds, although great eye candy, both cause a
signifi
And here is what I have to say. :-)
> (A) will a new official plib release be required?
Depends: fgfs with legacy GUI does probably not need a new plib, at
least I'm not aware of relevant bugfixes. (any important js fixes?)
If we advertise GUI theming (which we IMHO should) -- and maybe even
swi
19 matches
Mail list logo
