I have just tried it again. The path tag seem to expect a path to the XML
file, so specifying a path to a model will result in an error and that stupid
"glider".
I have also assign the path to the XML file and just animate away. There is
no error, but there is no movement in the model either.
I have just tried it. It doesn't seem to work.
Regards,
Ampere
On June 15, 2004 08:02 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Well actually... h... Right now we're referencing xml files in the
> "path" property of the model arrays ( tags). What happens when you
> add animation tags inside a tag and make t
I was planning on doing that for the MD11's engines. I will check it out.
Regards,
Ampere
On June 15, 2004 08:02 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Well actually... h... Right now we're referencing xml files in the
> "path" property of the model arrays ( tags). What happens when you
> add animation t
Roy Vegard Ovesen said:
> On Tuesday 15 June 2004 14:49, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > I can probably answer your question, but I don't know what you mean by
> > "alias feature". Is that a 2d panel thing? Maybe that answers your
> > question? ;-)
>
> Yes, the alias feature is a 2d panel thing. It is u
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
Because of aliases apparently not being implemented, the Piper has two CDIs
that are connected to the same nav radio, and consequently display the same
information.
Aliasing is part of the XML layer, so it should still work.
All the best,
David
___
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 14:49, Jim Wilson wrote:
> I can probably answer your question, but I don't know what you mean by
> "alias feature". Is that a 2d panel thing? Maybe that answers your
> question? ;-)
Yes, the alias feature is a 2d panel thing. It is usefull when you have two
identical i
Jim Wilson wrote:
Josh Babcock said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Ok, so I have this nice generic fuel pump toggle switch that I made for my
x-100, which has a panel tilted at 15 deg. I want to also use it in my x-200,
which has a panel with a vertical orientation. If I just plug it in, one of
them will
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Josh Babcock wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Josh Babcock said:
and bitmaps. However, one of the things that can currently only be done
in the
control's model file is orientation. I think this is a mistake.
Orientation,
like placement, should be defined outside the xml for a gi
Josh Babcock said:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> Ok, so I have this nice generic fuel pump toggle switch that I made for my
> x-100, which has a panel tilted at 15 deg. I want to also use it in my x-200,
> which has a panel with a vertical orientation. If I just plug it in, one of
> them will have
Josh Babcock wrote:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Josh Babcock said:
> >
> >
> >>and bitmaps. However, one of the things that can currently only be done
in the
> >>control's model file is orientation. I think this is a mistake.
Orientation,
> >>like placement, should be defined outside the xml for a g
Jim Wilson wrote:
Josh Babcock said:
and bitmaps. However, one of the things that can currently only be done in the
control's model file is orientation. I think this is a mistake. Orientation,
like placement, should be defined outside the xml for a given control.
Otherwise, it is impossible
Josh Babcock wrote:
the non-common instruments are (or should be) more frequent.
Actually, the opposite is true, at least for general aviation
I read this to mean throttles, trim wheels, levers switches, yokes and
such.
Jim mentioned instruments rather than controls. As far as controls go,
m
Josh Babcock said:
> and bitmaps. However, one of the things that can currently only be done in the
> control's model file is orientation. I think this is a mistake. Orientation,
> like placement, should be defined outside the xml for a given control.
> Otherwise, it is impossible to reuse a
David Megginson said:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...maybe reusability isn't the most important issue here. While I know
> > that there are many stock devices that are the same in different aircraft, it
> > almost seems that numerically, with the number aircraft we have modeled now,
> > the n
David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Hmmm...maybe reusability isn't the most important issue here. While I
know
that there are many stock devices that are the same in different
aircraft, it
almost seems that numerically, with the number aircraft we have
modeled now,
the non-common instrume
Jim Wilson wrote:
Hmmm...maybe reusability isn't the most important issue here. While I know
that there are many stock devices that are the same in different aircraft, it
almost seems that numerically, with the number aircraft we have modeled now,
the non-common instruments are (or should be) mor
Roy Vegard Ovesen said:
>
> The "switch-hotspots.xml" file is a small (10x10) panel with one big
> instrument with one big hotspot. This worked as expected. I was also able to
> reuse the switch instrument at different locations in the cockpit, as
> expected. Is there perhaps a limit to how m
17 matches
Mail list logo
