Lee Elliott wrote
>
> On Wednesday 17 March 2004 21:50, Vivian Meazza wrote: [snip...] ...
> > > I'd be inclined to hold off including the Sea Hawk, TSR-2
> and B-52,
> > > for the time being at least. The Sea Hawk is currently getting a
> > > proper panel,
> > > speed-brakes and some missing
Hi Guys
Al West writes
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 17:15, Norman Vine wrote:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
> > 2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package.
>
> I suggest we limit the base package to 2 or 3 aircraft at most
> IMHO better if this is only 1 aircraft though and have a supplemental
>
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 17:15, Norman Vine wrote:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
> > 2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package.
>
> I suggest we limit the base package to 2 or 3 aircraft at most
> IMHO better if this is only 1 aircraft though and have a supplemental
> aircraft package(s) for
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 21:50, Vivian Meazza wrote:
[snip...]
...
> > I'd be inclined to hold off including the Sea Hawk, TSR-2 and
> > B-52, for the
> > time being at least. The Sea Hawk is currently getting a
> > proper panel,
> > speed-brakes and some missing gear doors, courtesy of Vivian
>
Lee Elliott wrote
> On Wednesday 17 March 2004 16:37, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > > 1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias
> naming system.
> > > I don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes
> annoying to
> > > have 8 names for the same ai
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 16:37, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > 1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
> > don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to
> > have 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircr
Actually, the base cvs package on dial-up isn't too bad once you've done the
initial checkout, and even then it can be done over several sessions.
LeeE
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 07:15, Durk Talsma wrote:
> I agree that trimming down the base package (for the release) is probably
> a good idea.
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 03:50, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
> next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
> tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
>
> 1. I'm growing less enth
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 13:17, Jon Berndt wrote:
> > I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
> > and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
> > --show-aircraft list.
>
> How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
> aircraft - that day is coming
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> Based on the discussion of this thread, here is the current list I have
> assembled for inclusion, [...]
I think this is a choice that makes easy,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> 2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package.
I suggest we limit the base package to 2 or 3 aircraft at most
IMHO better if this is only 1 aircraft though and have a supplemental
aircraft package(s) for the rest
Note I am concerned about the size of the 'minima
> That's a pretty impressive list. For presentation purposes, though,
you might want to
> refer to the PA-28-161 as the "Piper Warrior II" or the "Piper
Cherokee Warrior II" (the
> official name varies by year).
I'll leave that to the aircraft designer. :-) They can put whatever
label they
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Based on the discussion of this thread, here is the current list I have
assembled for inclusion, notice that I err on the side of inclusion
rather than exclusion which I think is fine, especially if we unclutter
the fgrun aircraft browser.
That's a pretty impressive list.
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to
have 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft.
As I understand it, aliases are primarily a convenience for t
Josh Babcock wrote:
Are we going to keep the old functionality laying around so all the
power hungry cui jockeys can do this:
Sorry, that's cli.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-
David Luff wrote:
On 3/16/04 at 9:50 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
1. I'm growing less ent
David Megginson wrote:
Aside from the inclinometer, the panel needs only the primer and carb
heat knobs, which aren't major. After that, we need the throttle and
fuel cutoff on the right side, and that's about it.
"right side" wasn't a typo -- I was thinking of the perspective of the pilot
whi
Jim Wilson wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I'd call the Cub "beta", since it's missing some
basic panel instruments.
AFAIK it has all the original instrumentation, just no "modern" updates.
It's missing the inclinometer at the bottom of the panel -- I had thought
that it was also missing the oi
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:05:03 -0500
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a matter of fact, I'd suggest getting rid of the "yasim",
"jsbsim", etc. in aircraft names altogether. We have only a tiny
handful of aircraft (172, 310, etc.) supported by more than one FDM;
in those cases, let's
David Megginson said:
> I wouldn't go that far. I'd call the Cub "beta", since it's missing some
> basic panel instruments.
AFAIK it has all the original instrumentation, just no "modern" updates.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAI
kreuzritter2000 said:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2004 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So when starting flightgear with a different FDM model for the c172 it
> > would look like this:
> >
> > ./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=yasim
> > or
> > ./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=jsbsim
> > or
> > ./fgfs --a
Jon Berndt said:
> > I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
> > and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
> > --show-aircraft list.
>
> How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
> aircraft - that day is coming if it is not here already.
For
David Luff wrote:
I agree with the fact that there is a problem with the multiple names, but
not with your proposed solution. Please don't ditch the aliases. Or to be
more specific, please don't ditch the short names. Typing --aircraft=737
is so much better than --aircraft=737-jsbsim, and ditto
Martin Dressler wrote:
And what about this: remove description tag from alias set files which
shouldn't be displayed in --show-aircrafts and show only those with non empty
description. Fill description only in c172-set.xml,j3cub-set.xml etc.
It is simplistic solution and all syntax can stay same
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to have
8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft. What
would people say to nuking all the alias entries for the
arch 2004 13:18
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: base package aircraft and aliases
> I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
> and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
> --show-aircraft list.
How will the situation
And what about this: remove description tag from alias set files which
shouldn't be displayed in --show-aircrafts and show only those with non empty
description. Fill description only in c172-set.xml,j3cub-set.xml etc.
It is simplistic solution and all syntax can stay same.
Regards,
MaDr
--
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So when starting flightgear with a different FDM model for the c172 it
> would look like this:
>
> ./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=yasim
> or
> ./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=jsbsim
> or
> ./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=LaRCsim
I want to add l
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 13:17, Jon Berndt wrote:
> > I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
> > and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
> > --show-aircraft list.
>
> How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
> aircraft - that day is coming
On 17 Mar 2004 at 7:17, Jon Berndt wrote:
> > I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
> > and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
> > --show-aircraft list.
>
> How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
> aircraft - that day is coming if it i
> I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
> and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
> --show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
aircraft - that day is coming if it is not here already.
Jon
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 03:50, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> 1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
> don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to have
> 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft. What
> would people say t
Martin Spott said:
> Hello Curt,
>
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> > In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
> > next release.
>
> I think it would be tremendously helpful to coordinate the with the
> next PLib release. There have been sooo many changes to PLib that
"Curtis L. Olson" said:
> What is the status of the helicopters? They've seemed very crude when
> I've looked at them. I don't mean to be anti-helicopter, but if we are
> trying to cull some of the less nice stuff out of the official release,
> I'm not sure in their current form they would ma
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 11:22, David Luff wrote:
>
> I agree with the fact that there is a problem with the multiple names, but
> not with your proposed solution. Please don't ditch the aliases. Or to be
> more specific, please don't ditch the short names. Typing --aircraft=737
> is so much b
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 07:16, Martin Spott wrote:
> Hello Curt,
>
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> > In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
> > next release.
>
> I think it would be tremendously helpful to coordinate the with the
> next PLib release. There have been
> In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
> next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
> tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
I think now is a good time to bother everyone with the "hangar" idea again.
If we
David Luff wrote:
On 3/17/04 at 10:29 AM Erik Hofman wrote:
The following aircraft didn't make it due to the following reason:
737 : There are already too many US aircraft. The A320 fills that gap.
I strongly disagree. I think that both the 737 and A320 should go in. The
737 is a good showcase
On 3/17/04 at 10:29 AM Erik Hofman wrote:
>
>The following aircraft didn't make it due to the following reason:
>
>737 : There are already too many US aircraft. The A320 fills that gap.
I strongly disagree. I think that both the 737 and A320 should go in. The
737 is a good showcase for how f
On 3/17/04 at 11:22 AM David Luff wrote:
>Then, one could type --aircraft=C172 --2d to try and get a 2d cockpit if
>available (would fall back to default if not), and likewise
--aircraft=C172
>--3d (ditto for fallback), and a lot of names would become superfluous.
Just to be clear, I'm proposin
On 3/16/04 at 9:50 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
>next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
>tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
>
>1. I'm growing less enthused with o
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming syste
Hello Curt,
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
> next release.
I think it would be tremendously helpful to coordinate the with the
next PLib release. There have been sooo many changes to PLib that
FlightGear should _not_ base on the
I agree that trimming down the base package (for the release) is probably a
good idea. I'm beginning to wonder if the "base" package isn't starting to
overshoot it's target these days. What I mean to say with this is that a few
years ago we had a pretty big discussion about whether or not to se
44 matches
Mail list logo
