* James Turner -- Wednesday 17 December 2008:
> > + var KT2MPS = 0.51; # knots to m/s
> Personally I think all these constants would be easier to
> read if they were written the same way as the Simgear ones,
> i.e MPS_TO_KT, NM_TO_M and so on.
I find them equally easy to read
On 17 Dec 2008, at 01:03, Melchior Franz wrote:
> + var KT2MPS = 0.51; # knots to m/s
> + var MPS2KT = 1 / KT2MPS;
> +
> var LB2KG = 0.45359237;# pounds to kilogram
> var KG2LB = 1 / LB2KG;
Personally I think all these constants would be easier to read if th
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 00:25 -0700, Ron Jensen wrote:
> The attached patch isn't ready to go in, but I was hoping to get some
> comments on it.
I guess it would help to include the header file patch :)
Index: FGPiston.h
===
RCS file:
The attached patch isn't ready to go in, but I was hoping to get some
comments on it. It changes the power calculation to use the Gagg-
Farrar Power Drop Off Rule from "Performance of Light Aircraft" by John
Lowry.
The Gagg-Farrar equation uses a constant to express the power drop off
of a piston
On 12/16/2008 06:38 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
>> 1:: c172p: As of rc2, the model makes weird, unrealistic
>> noises that
>> are presumably supposed to be engine noise, but do not
>> vary in pitch
>> or amplitude in the appropriate way. Real pilots are very
>> sensitive
>> to engine noise.
>
> r
On 12/16/2008 09:54 PM, Ron Jensen wrote:
> Lets see. Ignoring the manifold pressure and just looking at the
> assertion that an increase in RPM always leads to an increase in
> HORSEPOWER, I did a google image search for RPM vs HORSEPOWER.
OK.
>> This one is particularly interesting, as it sh
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 05:12 -0700, John Denker wrote:
> OK, let's back up and take another look at this.
[snip]
> Let's start with some basic science. Consider a RW piston engine
> with a _fixed_ impedance in the induction system. That means
> no governor and some fixed throttle position, fixed f
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 00:12 -0700, John Denker wrote:
> On 12/15/2008 11:43 PM, Ron Jensen wrote:
>
> > As mentioned above, the MAP readings are not a "bug"
>
> Well, then we need to find another word for it.
>
> Perhaps we can call it a counterintuitive, unrealistic,
> and undocumented feature.
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 10:35 -0500, bitwibiff wrote:
>I've also noticed the c310's ceiling is apparently excessive in the
> pre-release, with the rpm' ed version of fgfs it seemed more realistic,
> topping out at ~ 13,000 ft.
>
> If there's any more information I can supply I'll happily try
Hi,
So we three are all busy around the release date :-)
I'm OK if it will be either Friday or Saturday, or even after that. I
need to make some tests before the release, but this time it can be
slow since my spare time for FG is very limited in a given time frame.
So the Mac version will b
A few more opportunities for improvement:
37:: Documentation: As of rc2, data/Docs/FGShortRef.pdf is in dire
need of an update. It bears a 2005 date, and internally refers to
version 0.8.0. For example, it thinks the "space" key (not the "s"
key) runs the starter.
38:: Documentation: As of rc
Martin Spott wrote:
> [...] If you like, find the appropriate
> instructions for pulling the LaTeX source here:
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/cvs/getstart-cvs.html
or here (via GIT):
http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl?p=getstart
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly
John Denker wrote:
> 37:: Documentation: As of rc2, data/Docs/FGShortRef.pdf is in dire
> need of an update. It bears a 2005 date, and internally refers to
> version 0.8.0. For example, it thinks the "space" key (not the "s"
> key) runs the starter.
>
> 38:: Documentation: As of rc2, I'm pret
Hi Fred,
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:50:51 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> I replied that the target is next Friday. After that I may have
> difficulties to build a binary from where I will be.
>
> -Fred
How would your availability be after Friday. As it turns out, I have a
Christmas dinner thi
Hello FlightGear people,
I have enjoyed your flight sim for some time now, and am looking forward
to the OSG-based release :) I myself am not a professional programmer
(yet I get paid for programming :) and as an experimental particle
physicist do not have a large knowledge of planes.
However,
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 13 December 2008:
> The idea is great, but it's not in committable shape
I'm glad to read that work on that goes on. I'd really like
to have that feature in CVS, and the sooner the better. The
few "issues" aren't really hard to fix. In the past I've
occasionally commit
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/16/2008 10:20 AM, James Turner wrote:
>
>> The problem is, what happened a couple of years is irrelevant, in the
>> strictest sense of the word: it has zero relation to the present.
>
> Except that the problem continues into the present. Very
> recently I submitted a
On 16 Dec 2008, at 17:25, John Denker wrote:
>
> I don't think a "base position" is needed. A notion of
> "current position" sufficies. As for the CLI, it is useful
> to process the positioning items _in order_ so that going
> to --airport=KJFK and then to --vor=SAV will reliably get
> you to S
On 12/16/2008 10:20 AM, James Turner wrote:
> The problem is, what happened a couple of years is irrelevant, in the
> strictest sense of the word: it has zero relation to the present.
Except that the problem continues into the present. Very
recently I submitted a patch. The guy who specifical
John Denker wrote:
> 2) You can't make bugs go away by shouting "there are no bugs!"
>
> 3) There are some people on this list who are quick to turn
> anything and everything into a personal attack, but it
> doesn't need to be that way.
John, you should be aware that your understanding of a 'f
On 12/16/2008 03:05 AM, James Turner wrote:
> The dialog box behaviour, is that it explicitly clears out the current
> lat/lon before doing the navaid/fix search, so we get the same
> behaviour from the GUI - at least it's consistent.
>
> My proposed fix is to add a 'base position' or similar
(echoing Melchior slightly)
On 16 Dec 2008, at 16:29, John Denker wrote:
> 3) There are some people on this list who are quick to turn
> anything and everything into a personal attack, but it
> doesn't need to be that way. There are plenty of other
> lists in the world where that doesn't happen.
Hi guys,
>> Personally, I think a big build up to an oddball version number like
>> 1.99.5 is a little strange, but again, I'm not so hung up on version
>> numbers as long as they keep increasing. It would also be odd to
>> backtrack since the point of version numbers is to distinguish
>> releases
* John Denker -- Tuesday 16 December 2008:
> I submitted patches to correct many of the "old bugs"
> recently mentioned. Dozens of them. I submitted them
> a couple of years ago. Nobody even looked at them.
I'm pretty sure that I looked at every single of them.
But either I wasn't competent to
On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma asked for bug reports.
So on 12/15/2008 11:20 PM, I sent in some bug reports.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
On 12/16/2008 06:38 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote in part:
> Oh- did I mention that the aircraft is still WIP? Did I? No?
Actually on 12/02/2008 05:14 AM
On 16 Dec 2008, at 15:42, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Anyway, shorter release cycle can give flightgear a chance to get more
> attension, so I like that idea. If quarterly releasing cycle is a bit
> too often, then semiannual is fine for me.
>
> What do you guys think?
Quarter annual at least, i
- "Curtis Olson" a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Tatsuhiro Nishioka <
> tat.fgmac...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> I guess Tim means 1.9.0, not 2.0.
>
> Actually 1.99.5 is just a temporal number for fgfs/cvs and (I believe)
> we're heading to 1.9.0. Curt told us that he put 1.99
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Tatsuhiro Nishioka
wrote:
> I guess Tim means 1.9.0, not 2.0.
>
> Actually 1.99.5 is just a temporal number for fgfs/cvs and (I believe)
> we're heading to 1.9.0. Curt told us that he put 1.99.5 since he had
> missed the discussion on this list about the version nu
>
> >> Heh, I was wondering about this - I'm hopeful
> that Tim means what he
> >> wrote, but that 2.0 will also be along soon, maybe
> even Q1 2009. And
> >> then 2.1, 2.2 and so on...
> > I meant that I would start checking this stuff in
> after the 1.99.5
> > release.
>
> Ah, even better.
>
Hi,
On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:54 PM, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>>> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
>>> make, among other things, local light sources practical. I'm not
>>> sure if the best way to do cockpit lightin
Here's the console output from an abort at startup: ( .fgfsrc hidden )
/opt<=>fgfs
Model Author: Unknown
Creation Date: 2002-01-01
Version: $Id: c172p.xml,v 1.20 2008/09/01 15:14:33 torsten Exp $
Description: Cessna C-172
ALSA lib pcm_pulse.c:629:(pulse_prepare) PulseAudio:
On 16 Dec 2008, at 15:20, Tim Moore wrote:
>> Heh, I was wondering about this - I'm hopeful that Tim means what he
>> wrote, but that 2.0 will also be along soon, maybe even Q1 2009. And
>> then 2.1, 2.2 and so on...
> I meant that I would start checking this stuff in after the 1.99.5
> release
James Turner wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>>> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
>>> make, among other things, local light sources practical. I'm not
>>> sure if the best way to do cockpit lighting is to have a light
>>> source in th
> It'd be lovely if bug reports were accompanied by some
> analysis (like
> my Bravo/GPWS investigation) of this rather than just the
> user-level
> feedback. Obviously that's much more time consuming,
> but *someone* has
> to do that work, ultimately.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
That's the po
On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:38, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> @John again: Sorry, but I'm not happy with your type of criticism. I
> coulden't see anything comitting to FGFS from you yet, so I wonder
> if I should really take you seriously!
> It was about 3 months ago when I finally decide to update the 3d
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, This time I really think I should make my works commercial- or
> if you want to have all this give ma a lot of money.
>
> I'm aware that we want to make it right, like our overall concept on
> flightgear.org says. But this is also dependant of time and (!)
>
On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
>> make, among other things, local light sources practical. I'm not
>> sure if the best way to do cockpit lighting is to have a light
>> source in the cockpit or to simply turn
>
>
> 22:: c172p: No GPS? Is it realistic to fly without a GPS these days?
> Suggestion: Remove the ADF and DME from the main radio stack and use
> the space for a transponder and GPS. The ADF and DME can be
> relocated far to starboard or discarded entirely.
>
I have a few dozens of hours fl
- "Tim Moore" a écrit :
> > 3:: c172p: As of rc2, the aircraft's landing and taxi lights are
> > not effective at illuminating the runway or other surfaces. This
> > is an issue for night operations.
> ...
> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
> make, among
Hi,
Well, This time I really think I should make my works commercial- or if you
want to have all this give ma a lot of money.
I'm aware that we want to make it right, like our overall concept on
flightgear.org says.
But this is also dependant of time and (!) information the model authos have.
I got rushed as I finished this e-mail and failed to properly proof read
it. I apologize for my errors.
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 23:43 -0700, Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 22:15 -0700, John Denker wrote:
> > On 12/15/2008 04:31 PM, Tom Betka wrote a long note making
> > a number of good
On 12/16/2008 05:12 AM, I wrote:
>I suspect the RW engine was
> designed to develop 100% power at roughly 27" at 2700 RPM
> (sea level, full throttle). Maybe 28/2700.
Just to clarify: I was thinking of 80 kias.
^^^
That is, 100% power at 27/27
OK, let's back up and take another look at this.
In previous messages -- mine and others -- it has not always
been clear what remarks refer to real-world aircraft and what
remarks refer to the model. Such remarks are OK if we think
the model is faithful to reality, but since it has become
cle
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> If all goes well, I would like to prepare the final release version next
>> Friday.
>
> Wow.
>
>> Until that time please hold back on committing anything risky, and
>> give these prereleases a decent workout. Let's try to m
Yon Uriarte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ok, last tree-rendering patch spam. Using attached patch (with no
> attributes) and
> "coverage /= 10.0" in obj.cxx:
> Result: ufo, v=0, 160fps:
> http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=treessimpledlpatchbt7.jpg
> click on the image to zoom it.
>
> RAM usage seem
On 16 Dec 2008, at 08:25, James Turner wrote:
>> 32:: Dialog: As of rc2, if you sit at KSFO and try to relocate to the
>> SAV VOR, it will take you to Savannakhet, Laos (SAV) ... even though
>> the pilot probably wanted to go to Savannah, GA (SAV). In case of
>> ambiguity, the rule should be to
On 16 Dec 2008, at 06:20, John Denker wrote:
> 22:: c172p: No GPS? Is it realistic to fly without a GPS these days?
> Suggestion: Remove the ADF and DME from the main radio stack and use
> the space for a transponder and GPS. The ADF and DME can be
> relocated far to starboard or discarded enti
47 matches
Mail list logo
