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
___
On Friday 15 February 2002 01:05 am, you wrote:
> 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.
>
>
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.
John,
Are you still seeing this in the latest code?
Curt
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, e
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, Curti
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
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 now, I have been
flying withou
> 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 li
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 haze.
> 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
I just rebuilt using the ENABLE_THREADS and have gotten more consistent
frame rates while loading tiles (thanks for the tip!). I still get some
frame rates that are rather low, given my system configuration. Not
being a pilot, I am sure that may visibility range is set too high, but
I tend t
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
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 h
> 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
- 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
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
> 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
Grigoriev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "VS Renganathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9
> priorities (lights)
- Original Message -
From: "VS Renganathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities (lights)
> Roman,
> If you know the light posns in runway (object) coords a
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).
- 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
* [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 b
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 relea
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. Th
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 hun
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 bes
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 hap
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 f
> 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
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 nigh
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
