Jim Wilson writes:
> Yep great idea. Is the at-startup-parking-brake working? I couldn't seem
> to make it work last night.
No, there's some kind of a bug (it might just be that JSBSim is
overriding the initial setting), and I'll have to investigate.
All the best,
David
--
David Meggin
John Check <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> I could bind a toggle for the brakes to the indicator.
> I think it's fairly likely somebody might click on it
>
Yep great idea. Is the at-startup-parking-brake working? I couldn't seem
to make it work last night.
Best,
Jim
Jim Wilson writes:
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Curtis L. Olson writes:
> >
> > > I would think that if we are going to have the engine running at
> > > startup, we really should have either the parking brake set, or the
> > > sim come up paused/frozen.
> >
> > Perhaps,
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > I would think that if we are going to have the engine running at
> > startup, we really should have either the parking brake set, or the
> > sim come up paused/frozen.
>
> Perhaps, but if we get the idle speeds reasona
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> I would think that if we are going to have the engine running at
> startup, we really should have either the parking brake set, or the
> sim come up paused/frozen.
Perhaps, but if we get the idle speeds reasonable, it won't be too
bad. Having the brakes on by defaul
David Megginson writes:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > > I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling
> > > rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even
> >
> > Is there a way to set the parking brake at startup so that the plane doesn't
> > roll d
Jim Wilson writes:
> > I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling
> > rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even
>
> Is there a way to set the parking brake at startup so that the plane doesn't
> roll down (or off) the runway as soon as it
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling
> rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even
Is there a way to set the parking brake at startup so that the plane doesn't
roll down (or off) the runway as soo
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 04:49 pm, you wrote:
> John Check writes:
> > On that note... David, do you have the source files for your
> > instruments? I'd like to have a CVS module for the postscripts at least,
> > so that we can regenerate fresh copies and go with 1 instrument per
> > text
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> David Megginson writes:
> > I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling
> > rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even
> > if you specify a different airport). No C++ code changes are
> > necessary, other than a small bu
John Check writes:
> > There's nothing wrong with realism, but since we're cheating in the
> > direction of expediency in so many places already, maybe it makes
> > sense to make the expedient mode the default one. Maybe add a
> > "--pedantic" switch, perhaps, to control the engnie start cod
John Check writes:
> > There's nothing wrong with realism, but since we're cheating in the
> > direction of expediency in so many places already, maybe it makes
> > sense to make the expedient mode the default one. Maybe add a
> > "--pedantic" switch, perhaps, to control the engnie start cod
John Check writes:
> > There's nothing wrong with realism, but since we're cheating in the
> > direction of expediency in so many places already, maybe it makes
> > sense to make the expedient mode the default one. Maybe add a
> > "--pedantic" switch, perhaps, to control the engnie start cod
John Check writes:
> > There's nothing wrong with realism, but since we're cheating in the
> > direction of expediency in so many places already, maybe it makes
> > sense to make the expedient mode the default one. Maybe add a
> > "--pedantic" switch, perhaps, to control the engnie start cod
John Check writes:
> On that note... David, do you have the source files for your instruments?
> I'd like to have a CVS module for the postscripts at least, so that we
> can regenerate fresh copies and go with 1 instrument per texture.
Yes, I have. They're in TGIF's native format, but I can
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 01:24 pm, you wrote:
> Christian Mayer wrote:
> > To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the runway it's
> > IMO very unrealistical that the engine isn't running.
>
> Y'know, folks, this is actually a really (really) good point. :)
>
> There's nothing
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 11:23 am, you wrote:
> Jim Wilson writes:
> > This is what I'm getting:
> > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/dc3-leaving-bangor.png
> > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/dc3-on-runway.png
> >
> > Does it look like the mapping is off on the right wing?
>
> Yes, it is.
Cameron Moore writes:
> I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but I've always
> wondered why we don't have a --runway-id= option so we can choose
> which runway we start on. Just a thought...
It's a good thought, please submit patches / additions to impliment
this option at any time. :
David Megginson writes:
> I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling
> rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even
> if you specify a different airport). No C++ code changes are
> necessary, other than a small bug-fix to JSBSim.cxx; I've just chan
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Curt Olson) [2002.02.13 12:51]:
> Alex Perry writes:
> > One of the original reasons for the preferences file (and heirarchy) is
> > exactly Christian's point. Last time we had this discussion (or whatever
> > you want to call it 8-) the conclusion was that the aircraft shoul
David Megginson wrote:
>
> If Curt and the rest of you hate this change, I'm happy to roll it
> back out, but I've been hearing some very strong arguments against
> putting 0.7.9 out with engines off by default and no arguments in
> favour. Since this is a config-file change rather than a change
David Megginson writes:
> > To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the runway it's IMO
> > very unrealistical that the engine isn't running.
>
> I've thought about that as well (though FLY! does the same thing).
I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines id
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 12:43:05PM -0600, BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) wrote:
>
> Hilarious. That's right. Why would anyone be on the runway, ready to take
> off, with the engine off.
It happens - with multi-engine aircraft anyway. Some years ago a plane
(747 I believe) taking off from Tok
Christian Mayer writes:
> To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the runway it's IMO
> very unrealistical that the engine isn't running.
I've thought about that as well (though FLY! does the same thing).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> What I've seen done in more advanced sims is for the operator gui to
> provide a set of positioning options such as:
>
> - at gate
> - position and hold
> - 3 mile final
> - 7 mile final
> - etc.
Yup, that is what we should aim for.
But for 0.7.9 we need
Alex Perry writes:
> One of the original reasons for the preferences file (and heirarchy) is
> exactly Christian's point. Last time we had this discussion (or whatever
> you want to call it 8-) the conclusion was that the aircraft should either
> * Appear on the runway as though told to position-
> Christian Mayer wrote:
> > To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the
> runway it's
> > IMO very unrealistical that the engine isn't running.
>
> Y'know, folks, this is actually a really (really) good point. :)
Hilarious. That's right. Why would anyone be on the runway, ready
One of the original reasons for the preferences file (and heirarchy) is
exactly Christian's point. Last time we had this discussion (or whatever
you want to call it 8-) the conclusion was that the aircraft should either
* Appear on the runway as though told to position-and-hold (which implies
t
What about just making "e" the automagic engine start key like CFS2, Fly!,
etc. do? That way the gear heads can start the engine(s) the "right" way,
and the sunday fliers can smack the keyboard once and be on their way.
g.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Andy Ross wrote:
> Christian Mayer wrote:
> > To
Christian Mayer wrote:
> To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the runway it's
> IMO very unrealistical that the engine isn't running.
Y'know, folks, this is actually a really (really) good point. :)
There's nothing wrong with realism, but since we're cheating in the
direction o
Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > > * Many improvents with piston engine and propeller modeling. Engine
> > > startup procedures work, and engine guages work.
> >
> > I think it should be pointed out _explicitly_ that you _have_ to start your
> > engine(s) man
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
> > As I understand it, in recent versions of plib, they have fixed the
> > bug/feature that prevented oversized textures from being properly
> > scaled down for voodoo users. So in theory, voodoo owners should
> > still see the textures, but they will be a bit blurr
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> As I understand it, in recent versions of plib, they have fixed the
> bug/feature that prevented oversized textures from being properly
> scaled down for voodoo users. So in theory, voodoo owners should
> still see the textures, but they will be a bit blurrier. Thi
Jim Wilson writes:
> Dang! The textures can still be reduced to 256x256 by Voodoo users
> and more or less mapped correctly, right?
Yes. I will reduce them myself if there's an outcry (PLIB might
actually do that automatically now -- it used to be broken, though).
Can you try
fgfs --aircr
Jim Wilson writes:
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > John Check writes:
> >
> > > We could do it like we do panel_2, it's no biggie. Mind you,
> > > 256x256 can only hold so much text, although we could use generated
> > > text. Or possibly do it as a HUD with static text.
> >
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> John Check writes:
>
> > We could do it like we do panel_2, it's no biggie. Mind you,
> > 256x256 can only hold so much text, although we could use generated
> > text. Or possibly do it as a HUD with static text.
>
> Just a quick note -- right now,
John Check writes:
> We could do it like we do panel_2, it's no biggie. Mind you,
> 256x256 can only hold so much text, although we could use generated
> text. Or possibly do it as a HUD with static text.
Just a quick note -- right now, I'm using 512x512 textures for the
DC-3 model, effective
On Tuesday 12 February 2002 09:31 pm, you wrote:
> > > I consider this as a required option for novices - although I might be
> > > proven to be wrong. Anyway I'd dare to suggest making running engines a
> > > default on startup - knowing that this might be an excellent start for
> > > a flame war
Martin Spott wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
* Many improvents with piston engine and propeller modeling. Engine startup procedures work, and engine guages work.
I think it should be pointed out _explicitly_ that you _have_ to start yourengine(s) manually - at least as long as you
> > I consider this as a required option for novices - although I might be
> > proven to be wrong. Anyway I'd dare to suggest making running engines a
> > default on startup - knowing that this might be an excellent start for a
> > flame war ;-)))
I hereby deliver the flame war. 8-)
_IF_ we ha
Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Many improvents with piston engine and propeller modeling. Engine
> > startup procedures work, and engine guages work.
>
> I think it should be pointed out _explicitly_ that you _have_ to start your
> engine(s) manually - at least as long as you us
> * Many improvents with piston engine and propeller modeling. Engine
> startup procedures work, and engine guages work.
I think it should be pointed out _explicitly_ that you _have_ to start your
engine(s) manually - at least as long as you use JSBSim.
I tried --prop:/engine/running (or simil
On Tuesday 12 February 2002 04:49 pm, you wrote:
> Jim Wilson writes:
> > "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Here's my list of things that have been changed, fixed, or added for
> > > 0.7.9. It's rather long, but if anyone sees any major ommissions or
> > > errors in this list, ple
> Would you want to mention the switch to JSBsim as default
> FDM?
Didn't that happen with 0.7.8?
> And maybe the c310 model addition?
Yes, I think this is new.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mail
Jim Wilson writes:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Here's my list of things that have been changed, fixed, or added for
> > 0.7.9. It's rather long, but if anyone sees any major ommissions or
> > errors in this list, please let me know. Thanks.
> >
>
> Would you want to me
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Here's my list of things that have been changed, fixed, or added for
> 0.7.9. It's rather long, but if anyone sees any major ommissions or
> errors in this list, please let me know. Thanks.
>
Would you want to mention the switch to JSBsim as defau
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> Here's my list of things that have been changed, fixed, or added for
> 0.7.9. It's rather long, but if anyone sees any major ommissions or
> errors in this list, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> [...]
Nice list. OTOH I don't know any missed items. But the "bullets"
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> Here's my list of things that have been changed, fixed, or added for
> 0.7.9. It's rather long, but if anyone sees any major ommissions or
> errors in this list, please let me know. Thanks.
> * Fixed a bug preventing the LaRCsim engine from starting.
This fixes a bug
48 matches
Mail list logo
