I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me
based on my general impression of consensus.
737-300 -> 787
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Durk Talsma wrote:
> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
> list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Sent: 06 December 2007 08:31
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
>
>
> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following
> the aircraft
> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:57:04 +0100
AnMaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> > Citation-Bravo -> B1900D
> >
> > This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the
> > Citation has indicated preferring that is is not
On Thursday 06 December 2007 08:30:42 Durk Talsma wrote:
> Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested
> adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a
> really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested
> doing "name
In general I agree with Durk.
The only issue is that if we drop the Citation we would end-up with no
bussiness jet class aircraft, which are high performance machines (compared
to props), easier to fly than an airliner (787), and with its
own limitations (as compared to fighters - F16). Also a Very
AnMaster schrieb:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
>> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
>> list based on the various suggestion made
Hi All
I guess I would not be defending myself if I did not stick up for the
737-300 since I did the 3d model for it.
The thing is the 737 is still the most popular commercial jet in service
with the worlds airlines while the 787 has not yet flowen a commercial
mile.
I wonder if new people to flig
2007/12/6, Innis Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi All
> I guess I would not be defending myself if I did not stick up for the
> 737-300 since I did the 3d model for it.
> The thing is the 737 is still the most popular commercial jet in service
> with the worlds airlines while the 787 has not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Well without a 3D cockpit I don't think it would fit in the base package.
Basically the lack of a decent cockpit would put off users.
/AnMaster
Innis Cunningham wrote:
> Hi All
> I guess I would not be defending myself if I did not stick up for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
AnMaster wrote:
> Well without a 3D cockpit I don't think it would fit in the base package.
> Basically the lack of a decent cockpit would put off users.
I really liked the 737, but unfortunately it's been completely unusable
for me since I got a wide
AnMaster wrote:
> > As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready
> > aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO
> > as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ).
> Well I think the A-6E is easier to land on carrier, but maybe I just
>
On Thursday 06 December 2007 11:06:18 Stefan Seifert wrote:
> AnMaster wrote:
> > Well without a 3D cockpit I don't think it would fit in the base package.
> > Basically the lack of a decent cockpit would put off users.
>
> I really liked the 737, but unfortunately it's been completely unusable
> f
Innis Cunningham schrieb:
> Hi All
> I guess I would not be defending myself if I did not stick up for the
> 737-300 since I did the 3d model for it.
> The thing is the 737 is still the most popular commercial jet in service
> with the worlds airlines while the 787 has not yet flowen a commercial
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I tested this and found it to be true, the 787's autopilot is broken. However
the 737's cockpit is uggly. Hm can either of those be fixed before release?
/AnMaster
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightG
Willie Fleming schrieb:
> On Thursday 06 December 2007 11:06:18 Stefan Seifert wrote:
>
>> AnMaster wrote:
>>
>>> Well without a 3D cockpit I don't think it would fit in the base package.
>>> Basically the lack of a decent cockpit would put off users.
>>>
>> I really liked the 737, b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> Willie Fleming schrieb:
>> On Thursday 06 December 2007 11:06:18 Stefan Seifert wrote:
>>
>>> AnMaster wrote:
>>>
Well without a 3D cockpit I don't think it would fit in the base package.
Basically the lack
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
if we choose the 737 this should be done before the release:
1. Put the aircraft onto earth. It hovers over the runway.
Hi,
You could try this patch. I made these local changes quite some time ago
so I'm not certain if it is still the right adjustm
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 06 December 2007:
> 2. Add an entry to the aircraft help how to get back to the 2D panel
> once lost (ie. if an unexperienced user looks to the side with the
> mouse. I am pretty sure, someone starting with FG is lost!)
Maybe turn the 2D panel into a 2.5D panel. (That
> There has been some discussion of the F-16 working badly. I took
> another look at it over lunch. I think I have found one bug
> (which is not to say, the "only" bug). There are several
> integrators used in the control laws. These should have wind-up
> protection set up (which they don't). B
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Durk Talsma wrote:
> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
> list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me
> based on my general impre
* gerard robin -- Thursday 06 December 2007:
> I have red that the choice in between a model A and an other
> model B is to choose the easier to fly.
>
> Do you mean that FlightGear is a game (versus some other FS
> non free). I am feeling that we are loosing the base of the
> values we had when
Hi,
Still working on the 3D-cockpit but a first release I
can give this week!
HHS
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 06 December 2007:
> > 2. Add an entry to the aircraft help how to get
> back to the 2D panel
> > once lost (ie. if an unexperienced us
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 16:53 -0800, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> Hi all ,
> In case I wasn't too clear previously ,what i was proposing for the
> gear lever lock was to add something like this to the controls.nas file ...
>
> var gearDown = func(v) {
> if(getprop("/controls/gear/gear-lever-loc
--- gerard robin wrote:
> Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated
> why ?
Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to grips
with it.
As you say - it is a very complicated aircraft. Unfortunately that makes it
difficult to get to
Hi,
we have the 777-200 ( not in CVS but GPL!)
We have Fred's A320, which is nice to fly and we have
the b1900d, which is really good and an airliner.
But it should be no problem, to fix the 787-autopilot:
there are some people quite good in tuning the
autopilot- that's something should be done
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightGear are more
>interested in smaller aircraft or helicopters than in airliners, at
>least if we count the new developed aircrafts. At least for Germany,
>this might be vice versa. If I check the interests of known
>
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> --- gerard robin wrote:
> > Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly
> > elaborated why ?
>
> Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to
> grips with it.
>
> As you say - it is a very complicated
I agree, I think a business jet (or very light jet but we have none to
my knowledge) is an important class, at least compared to adding a
second twin prop.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:14 AM, Fabian Grodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general I agree with Durk.
> The only issue is that if we drop the Citat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> --- gerard robin wrote:
>> Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated
>> why ?
>
> Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to
> grips
> with it.
>
> As you
Heiko Schulz schreef:
> Hi,
>
> Still working on the 3D-cockpit but a first release I
> can give this week!
>
> HHS
Screenshots? Will that be an actual -300 cockpit (with EFIS and separate
engine gauges) instead of the current 'NG-like' cockpit gauges?
I do think there aren't enough decent airlin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
AJ MacLeod schrieb:
> One point which keeps cropping up is "size". While I fully agree that it's
> important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't
> put off downloading FG, I also think that there's perhaps even a "da
On 12/06/2007 04:22 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> One point which keeps cropping up is "size".
We may be able to have this cake and eat it to; see below.
> While I fully agree that it's
> important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't
> put off downloading FG, I als
Hi Simon,
Instead of a nice thumbnail, we now have this message after uploading a
new image.
"Error creating thumbnail: sh:
/hermes/web10/b2504/pow.hellosimon/htdocs/flightgear_wiki/bin/ulimit.sh:
/bin/bash: bad interpreter: Permission denied"
Examples can be found on the Aircraft page or on
On Thursday 06 December 2007 18:27:06 John Denker wrote:
> It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature.
> Then the "base package" can be quite small, containing just the
> name, thumbnail, and short description for each aircraft, plus
> the full model for a verrry small number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Sounds like a great idea. I would suggest using libcurl for the download (if you
don't have a better idea). Some key features needed for making this good:
* Update list of available aircrafts (when new are added to website).
* Find updates for alread
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:05:35 AnMaster wrote:
> However I find it hard to belive we could get this done in time for the
> release.
I don't think anyone was suggesting (or would suggest) that goal! For one
thing, nobody has actually said they would write the code, and such a feature
woul
On Dec 6, 2007 1:04 PM, AJ MacLeod <> wrote:
> Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one
> that
> belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that
> having --show-aircraft display non-installed aircraft would be useful, for
> example.
Supposedly, OSG
Hi Alex,
On Dec 6, 2007 2:03 PM, alexis bory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Instead of a nice thumbnail, we now have this message after uploading a
> new image.
>
> "Error creating thumbnail: sh:
> /hermes/web10/b2504/pow.hellosimon/htdocs/flightgear_wiki/bin/ulimit.sh:
> /bin/bash: b
Hi there,
> On 12/06/2007 04:22 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature.
I think this is a good idea. I once thought about introducing such feature
to the GUI launcher on Mac OS, but it was not that easy since there's no unifi
ed aircraft package desc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
AJ MacLeod wrote:
> On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:05:35 AnMaster wrote:
>> However I find it hard to belive we could get this done in time for the
>> release.
>
> I don't think anyone was suggesting (or would suggest) that goal! For one
> thing,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 1:04 PM, AJ MacLeod <> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one
>> that
>> belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that
>> having --show-aircraft dis
On Dec 6, 2007 1:38 PM, AnMaster <> wrote:
> I object to transparent download behind your back. As AJ suggested on IRC:
> call it "background sneaky transfer system"
Honestly, this is a weak point. An application has a lot of power and can
do a lot of things over the network, to the local file
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:19:55 Curtis Olson wrote:
> Supposedly, OSG has a feature (or add on?) that will transparently download
> a model and it's subparts from a remote web site if it can't be found
> locally. I don't know if that's been incorporated into OSG, but at one
> point Don Burns
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:03:01 -0700
Ron Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 16:53 -0800, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > Hi all ,
> > In case I wasn't too clear previously ,what i was proposing for the
> > gear lever lock was to add something like this to the controls.nas file ...
AnMaster,
> I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best
: C#
> for mono using GTK#.
>
> I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc
tly.
> It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nas
al
> maybe) +
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> AnMaster,
>
>> I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best
> : C#
>> for mono using GTK#.
>>
>> I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc
> tly.
>> It
On Thursday 06 December 2007 20:05:47 Curtis Olson wrote:
> Honestly, this is a weak point. An application has a lot of power and can
> do a lot of things over the network, to the local file system, to your
> personal files, etc.
Which is why I suggest being cautious about monitoring the capabilit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
After some discussion on IRC (AJ pointed out that plural of aircraft is
aircraft, and andy noted that may be a more fg-style top node), I
suggest that either change the top node to something else, or call it
and go the whole way and make it simgear
On Dec 6, 2007 2:24 PM, Simon Hollier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Dec 6, 2007 2:03 PM, alexis bory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > Instead of a nice thumbnail, we now have this message after uploading a
> > new image.
> >
> > "Error creating thumbnail: sh:
> > /
--- Robin van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
schrieb:
> Heiko Schulz schreef:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Still working on the 3D-cockpit but a first
> release I
> > can give this week!
> >
> > HHS
> Screenshots? Will that be an actual -300 cockpit
> (with EFIS and separate
> engine gauges) instead of the
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> A screenshot here:
> http://www.hoerbird.net/boeing737-300.3dcockpit1.jpg
>
> I have still trouble with perfomance, but I have a
> too old pc anyway ...
>
> That's why the developement is very slow and now cause
> of looking for a new job I w
> Hi
>
> A screenshot here:
> http://www.hoerbird.net/boeing737-300.3dcockpit1.jpg
>
> I have still trouble with perfomance, but I have a
> too old pc anyway ...
>
> That's why the developement is very slow and now cause
> of looking for a new job I will not really have the
> time to go on
Guillaume CHAUVAT a écrit :
> I have the same bug, FG/OSG always opens on the :0 display, although
> my $DISPLAY has an other value. I think it's not due to OSG itself,
> because osgviewer has not this bug.
> Guillaume
>
I t
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:49, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language
> I know best
>
> : C#
> :
> for mono using GTK#.
>
> I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or
> fgfs directly.
>
> It would be a stand alone pro
> Hi
>
> A screenshot here:
> http://www.hoerbird.net/boeing737-300.3dcockpit1.jpg
Wow. OK, that is sweet.
> But the fdm of the 737 done here by Dave Culp is one
> of the best we have, I was really surprised that it
> can be flew exactly after the checklists and
> procedures which can be found
Hi All,
Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in
Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release?
Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing
oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft.
agl boundary turbulence is 0.1. This is true for
On Dec 6, 2007 9:07 PM, dave perry <> wrote:
> Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in
> Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release?
>
> Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing
> oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft.
> agl bo
Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 9:07 PM, dave perry <> wrote:
>
> Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in
> Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release?
>
> Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing
> oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots i
dave perry wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in
> Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release?
>
> Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing
> oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft.
> agl boundary turbul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jean pellotier wrote:
> Guillaume CHAUVAT a écrit :
>> I have the same bug, FG/OSG always opens on the :0 display, although
>> my $DISPLAY has an other value. I think it's not due to OSG itself,
>> because osgviewer has not this bug.
>> Guillaume
>>
* Laurence Vanek -- Friday 07 December 2007:
> Although I like realistic flight my ILS approaches we very unstable with
> the turb values given in the Preferences.xml file [...]
But, but ... some have just told us that we shouldn't make it too
easy, or fgfs will be perceived as a toy. So I'd rath
62 matches
Mail list logo
