Recently a very kind person donated some hardware to upgrade the
flightgear web/cvs/ftp/rsync/cvs server. I am respecting their wishes
to remain anonymous which is why I've avoided any hoopla. However, in
the next few days/weeks(?) I plan to start migrating services over.
Complicating this is a c
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Recently a very kind person donated some hardware to upgrade the
> flightgear web/cvs/ftp/rsync/cvs server. I am respecting their wishes
> to remain anonymous which is why I've avoided any hoopla.
Aw, c'mon. Can't we have just a little hoopla? I hate anonymous
donations
Andy Ross writes:
> Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > Recently a very kind person donated some hardware to upgrade the
> > flightgear web/cvs/ftp/rsync/cvs server. I am respecting their wishes
> > to remain anonymous which is why I've avoided any hoopla.
>
> Aw, c'mon. Can't we have just a little hoopl
> I haven't given any thought to soliciting bandwidth donations
> recently. However, that is a very good idea. My sense is that FTP is
> what kills me here. It would be great if we could move the "official"
> ftp site to somewhere with higher bandwidth which could handle a lot
> more concurrent
Martin Spott writes:
> Which bandwidth, how many concurrent user connections do you consider as
> 'useful' ?
During day time hours I've been limiting it to 7 concurrent
connections. Here are the ftp stats:
http://seneca.me.umn.edu/stats/ftp/
Looks like we are averaging just over 7Gb transfe
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:55:50 -0600,
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I haven't given any thought to soliciting bandwidth donations
> recently. However, that is a very good idea. My sense is that FTP is
> what kills me here. It would be great if w
> During day time hours I've been limiting it to 7 concurrent
> connections. Here are the ftp stats:
[...]
> Looks like we are averaging just over 7Gb transfered a day ...
What about a round-robin dispatcher over all known the mirrors that exist
nowadays ? I'd offer to run a complete mirror for t
Heads up aircraft designers!
I just committed a fairly significant change to both fgfs source and
data CVS repositories. This is another step towards making aircraft
self contained in their own subdirectory. The end goals is to be able
to install / remove / distribute aircraft that are entirely
In the process of changing, adding and removing files the last few years
there was the situation where four directories contained just two files,
of which three directories were aircraft related, and one directory
contained test code from Curt that might be better of in SimGear anyhow.
This i
Bernie Bright has submitted a simplified boost distribution for
SimGear and I have committed it to CVS. The boost web page is here:
http://www.boost.org/
We will begin depending on this package soon. We are treating it in
the same way we treat the zlib and metakit libraries. It is another
We might also want to start thinking of an official organization
hierarchy such as:
Aircraft/
LightSingles/
JetFighters/
CommercialJets/
CommercialTurboProps/
Bombers/
WWI/
WWII/
SailPlanes/
Experimental/
For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy:
- Fighter (m
Not to forget the prop liners before the jets.
Also by the by is there any intention of updating to 9.3 in the near
future.Just asking to see whats in the pipe line
Cheers
Innis
"Curtis L. Olson" writes
>
We might also want to start thinking of an official organization
hierarchy such as:
Aircra
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200
Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy:
> - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s)
> - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25)
> - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52
On Saturday 20 September 2003 17:45, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200
> Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy:
> > - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s)
> > - Attack (A-10, Harr
Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200
Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy:
- Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s)
- Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su
I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having
a "one aircraft, one file" type configuration. The idea is basically to
put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind
of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the archives into one
direct
JD Fenech writes:
> I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having
> a "one aircraft, one file" type configuration. The idea is basically to
> put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind
> of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the
> That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be
> useful?
Don't all of our aircraft fit into that category?
:-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Two areas of concern. There are about 40 variations on the c172 and
> about 20 variations on the c310 with different incantations and
> aliases and various conglomerations of yasim, jsbsim, 3d cockpits, 2d
> cockpits, etc. etc. etc. This was kind of
> We might also want to start thinking of an official organization
> hierarchy such as:
>
> Aircraft/
> LightSingles/
> JetFighters/
> CommercialJets/
> CommercialTurboProps/
> Bombers/
> WWI/
> WWII/
> SailPlanes/
> Experimental/
>
> Regards,
>
> Curt.
Are there any plans for he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships?
The X-15 is considered a rocket.
Also I've collected some NACA flight data documents of the U.S.S. Los
Angles. I haven't had time to construct a JSBSim configuration files for
this airship but I think
On Sunday 21 September 2003 08:35, Erik Hofman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships?
>
>
> The X-15 is considered a rocket.
>
> Also I've collected some NACA flight data documents of the U.S.S. Los
> Angles. I haven't had ti
Curt wrote:
>This is another step towards making aircraft
>self contained in their own subdirectory. The end goals is to be able
>to install / remove / distribute aircraft that are entirely contained
>in their own subdirectory tree making things easier on everyone
>[hopefully]. :-)
Sounds good :
- Original Message -
From:
Lee Elliott
To: FlightGear developers
discussions
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:43
AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up
- aircraft reorg
On Sunday 21 September 2003 08:35, Erik Hofman wrote:>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:&
Jon Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be
> > useful?
>
> Don't all of our aircraft fit into that category?
>
> :-)
Well I suppose you could call anything that isn't built any more historical,
but for the most part the term see
Hi,
I've checked in a change that changes the location of FlightGear's base
package from /lib/FlightGear to /share/FlightGear
I think this is the really the right location for the base package.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> Bernie Bright has submitted a simplified boost distribution for
> SimGear and I have committed it to CVS. The boost web page is here:
>
> http://www.boost.org/
>
> We will begin depending on this package soon.
Well, *I* don't really understand what boost is u
--- Christian Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> >
> > Bernie Bright has submitted a simplified boost
> distribution for
> > SimGear and I have committed it to CVS. The boost
> web page is here:
> >
> > http://www.boost.org/
> >
> > We will begin depending on th
Hopefully Bernie Bright can address this, although he is running on
Australian time so I don't know how soon we'll here from him.
Curt.
Tony Peden writes:
>
> --- Christian Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bernie Bright has submitted a simplified boost
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:33 -0600 (CST)
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hopefully Bernie Bright can address this, although he is running on
>Australian time so I don't know how soon we'll here from him.
I looked at it a few weeks ago and tossed out the idea
that it might be usefu
Jon S Berndt writes:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:33 -0600 (CST)
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hopefully Bernie Bright can address this, although he is running on
> >Australian time so I don't know how soon we'll here from him.
>
> I looked at it a few weeks ago and tossed out
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> Jon S Berndt writes:
> > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:33 -0600 (CST)
> > "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Hopefully Bernie Bright can address this, although he is running on
> > >Australian time so I don't know how soon we'll here from him.
> >
> > I lo
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:18:02 -0600 (CST)
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jon S Berndt writes:
>Bernie wanted this included so he could rewrite the
>flightgear event manager class to be a bit more flexible.
>
>I'm usually not an advocate of jumping on the hype bandwagon because
>it
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
>Jon S Berndt writes:
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:03:33 -0600 (CST)
>> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Hopefully Bernie Bright can address this, although he is running on
>> >Australian time so I don't know how soon we'll here from him.
>>
>> I looked at
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:26:06 +0200
Christian Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And IMHO an additional dependancy might be much worse than a event
>manager that's a bit more flexible. But I don't know yet.
That's what I thought initially. But, I guess I shouldn't
rain on Bernie's parade and so
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:36:18 -0500
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Boost has lots of good stuff and FWIW the Boost team does a
>VERY good job of insuring compiler, STL and machine independance
>see the compiler, platform and stdlib subdirectories in
>the distribution
Yes, they appea
Christian Mayer wrote:
>
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> >
> > Bernie Bright has submitted a simplified boost distribution for
> > SimGear and I have committed it to CVS. The boost web page is here:
> >
> > http://www.boost.org/
> >
> > We will begin depending on this package soon.
>
> Well, *
you know,
i've been thinking about the nature of bandwidth, storage and mirrors as it
relates to open source for a while as I've seen bandwidth and mirroring
discussions before.
i wanted to throw some thoughts out there to this group ... just for fun.
feel free to care or not ...
it occurs to
It occurred to me that our 3-D modelers might not all be running plib cvs.
Andy came up with an excellent improvement to the ac3d loader/optimizer (new
optimizer actually) that incorporates logic to automatically split vertices in
two so that they go into seperate normal calculations (averages).
The autopilot is broken, and who knows what else because someone decided to
rename some of the properties being written by the GPS module. This isn't a
serious problem but the change hasn't been announced here or even mentioned in
the cvs log.
Anyway, this is the announcement we should have gotte
Jim Wilson wrote:
For the time being though, I propose that we try to get this default angle to
a higher value. From my testing 61 degrees seems to be a good number. 61
degrees means that a 6 sided cylinder will be smoothed. Anything less (e.g. 4
or 5 sides) will be sharp sided. Many of the a
Jim Wilson wrote:
For the time being though, I propose that we try to get this default angle to
a higher value. From my testing 61 degrees seems to be a good number. 61
degrees means that a 6 sided cylinder will be smoothed. Anything less (e.g. 4
or 5 sides) will be sharp sided. Many of the a
Erik Hofman wrote:
> I think it really is time to make that a configuration option in the
> animation configuration file. That would require s patch for plib, but
> it allows the simple "random" scenery objects to go untouched and look
> nice also (while preserving the simplicity of the model).
Ah
Jim Wilson
> It occurred to me that our 3-D modelers might not all be
> running plib cvs.
> Andy came up with an excellent improvement to the ac3d
> loader/optimizer (new optimizer actually) that incorporates
> logic to automatically split vertices in two so that they go
> into seperate
Vivian Meazza said:
>
> We seem to have jumped into something without really thinking it through.
> Pity. We need to implement something like the AC3D 'crease' sooner rather
> than later.
>
> Regards
Well, imo Andy Colebourne is a crook so you won't be seeing an upgrade to the
loader coming fr
Jim wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jim Wilson
> Sent: 09 March 2004 19:31
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] heads up for 3D modelers -
> plib cvs issue
&g
Vivian Meazza wrote:
We seem to have jumped into something without really thinking it through.
Pity. We need to implement something like the AC3D 'crease' sooner rather
than later.
Actually, what we need is a proper graphics format that specifies per-vertex
normals. What we have now is a kludge
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 21:24, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Jim wrote
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Jim Wilson
> > Sent: 09 March 2004 19:31
> > To: FlightGear developers discussions
David Megginson said:
> Actually, what we need is a proper graphics format that specifies per-vertex
> normals. What we have now is a kludge that we need to hold onto until plib
> supports another 3D format as fully as it supports AC3D. Given that
> problem, I don't know how much formal machi
Jim Wilson wrote:
FWIW it is probably best _not_ to change property names in your modules unless
the change is critically important. Removing the word "indicated-" from the
names is a nice idea but IMHO trivial in the scope of things. All you are
doing is creating work for others.
Actually, keep
On Monday 22 March 2004 22:50, Jim Wilson wrote:
> The autopilot is broken, and who knows what else because someone decided to
> rename some of the properties being written by the GPS module. This isn't
> a serious problem but the change hasn't been announced here or even
> mentioned in the cvs lo
51 matches
Mail list logo
