[converting SGPropertyNode* to SGPropertyNode_ptr]
* Jon S. Berndt -- Saturday 25 March 2006 00:27:
> Go ahead. Have you tested it? With several aircraft of different types? I'll
> eventually add it in to JSBSim CVS, but have visitors this weekend.
Testing several aircraft wouldn't make much sens
On Thu, March 23, 2006 11:55 pm, Josh Babcock wrote:
> Naw, just fly backwards.
Or get some red and white paint and repaint the needle.
;-)
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scr
I had not flown for real since the prop disc discussion. This afternoon
3:30 pm to about 5:00 pm, I was out shooting practice instrument
approaches with one of my partners in N7764P. When I was saftety pilot,
I paid attention to when I could see the prop disc and when I could not
see it. Fly
> > Go ahead. Have you tested it? With several aircraft of
> different types? I'll
> > eventually add it in to JSBSim CVS, but have visitors this weekend.
> >
> > Jon
>
> What, they can't help?
Heh!!
J
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by
Hello,
I browsed the property tree but I didn't find any switch that allows me
to toggle the units for the altimeter reference pressure in the b1900d.
Currently EDDW has a QNH of 1001 hPa and I would like to set the
altimeter in the b1900d accordingly.
Any chance ?
Martin.
Hi Martin , so
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> Go ahead. Have you tested it? With several aircraft of different types? I'll
> eventually add it in to JSBSim CVS, but have visitors this weekend.
>
> Jon
What, they can't help?
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xP
> * Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 23 March 2006 16:18:
> > It's just a question of time, though, until the same bug in
> > JSBSim bites us in the ass in the same way. Please fix. (see attachment)
>
> Anything wrong with the patch? Nobody from JSBSim interested?
> Should I commit?
>
> m.
Go ahead. Hav
The other day I was browsing through AI flight plans trying to get my
head around how they are setup.
I want to setup a scenario where I have a lead plane that I am trying to
follow. It will climb/decend and/or turn left/right. Usually the lead
and chase planes will want to maintain some fix
> -Original Message-
> From: "David Megginson"
>
> flies them), but when I do use external views, I find it very
> disconcerting if nobody's flying the plane, especially the small ones
> like the Cub.
I like it: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/p51pilot.jpg
Best,
Jim
--
Jim Wilson
Kel
Just so you guys know the 707 is on the download page for the next FG release but do not work with the current JSBSim, old config.Julien
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 23 March 2006 16:18:
> It's just a question of time, though, until the same bug in
> JSBSim bites us in the ass in the same way. Please fix. (see attachment)
Anything wrong with the patch? Nobody from JSBSim interested?
Should I commit?
m.
--
Hi Thomas,
Thomas F??rster wrote:
> You're flying without conversion tables on your knees, brave pilot... ;-)
>
> Try the 'metar' tool, it gives both hPa and Inch mercury, i.e. $> metar eddw
I know I could convert into in. Hg and set the altimeter accordingly,
this is what I actually do if requ
Am Freitag, 24. März 2006 16:25 schrieb Martin Spott:
> Hello,
> I browsed the property tree but I didn't find any switch that allows me
> to toggle the units for the altimeter reference pressure in the b1900d.
> Currently EDDW has a QNH of 1001 hPa and I would like to set the
> altimeter in the b1
Hello,
I browsed the property tree but I didn't find any switch that allows me
to toggle the units for the altimeter reference pressure in the b1900d.
Currently EDDW has a QNH of 1001 hPa and I would like to set the
altimeter in the b1900d accordingly.
Any chance ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ u
--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Rawlins wrote:
>
> > While on the subject of glitches, looks like
> there's a
> > problem with code for Fokker50. I couldn't find
> where
> > the string "fokker50E" is being set. I'm assuming
> the
> > proper designation should be simply "fokk
Mike Rawlins wrote:
While on the subject of glitches, looks like there's a
problem with code for Fokker50. I couldn't find where
the string "fokker50E" is being set. I'm assuming the
proper designation should be simply "fokker50" per
file in Models/.
This has been fixed some time ago.
Eri
--- Frederic Bouvier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tested a few aircraft with fgsetup-0.9.10-pre2.exe
> now uploading to
> ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de ( should be ready in about
> 40 mn )
While on the subject of glitches, looks like there's a
problem with code for Fokker50. I couldn't find where
Josh Babcock wrote:
>
> I think it would be a good thing if aircraft designers started including
> select animations tied to /sim/model/pilot-visible-internal and
> /sim/model/pilot-visible-external with the appropriate conditions so
> that they each work in the appropriate views
> (/sim/current-
David Megginson wrote:
> On 24/03/06, James Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Possibly this is just me, but: I find adding pilot models to the aircraft a
>>bit weird - could it be made optional (a submodel)? I can't quite explain
>>why, it just seems disconcerting to me. Of course there is
On 24/03/06, James Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possibly this is just me, but: I find adding pilot models to the aircraft a
> bit weird - could it be made optional (a submodel)? I can't quite explain
> why, it just seems disconcerting to me. Of course there is an argument for
> having model
Just saw the respective announcement on Freshmeat:
http://kfreeflight.sourceforge.net/
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
No problem, I understand completly, i just pointed it out.
And thanks for your nice work, i really enjoy the Bravo.
Julien
Hi Julien ,
the Bravo , (and the rest of my aircraft) are works in progress
it may be a long time before every aspect is finished (if ever) ... but
I should be able to send an update in a few days with the flightdirector
/ autopilot partially functional (heading & altitude).
These things
Possibly this is just me, but: I find adding pilot models to the aircraft a bit weird - could it be made optional (a submodel)? I can't quite explain why, it just seems disconcerting to me. Of course there is an argument for having models for each crew member and passenger, to accurately reflect lo
24 matches
Mail list logo
