Hi,
Curtis, well we went quite offtopic, the real topic was, why some people don't
want "Taylor's" ( is this his real name?) competition... ;-)
I just was surprised as I understood you said that we aren't far away from
fully FAA-certificable, but I could remember from older dicussions the thin
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 03:33:11AM +0100, Pete Morgan wrote:
> pigeon, how can we move toward having the navaids data base "seperate".
>
> albeit it might be on the same google map, however the data sources
> would be seperate eg available on desktop file with sqllite rather than
> remote, or an
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the quick fix on the strutils. In this case, (haha, so to speak)
yes, I think if code is already referencing OpenGL, then it would be fair to
replace that with code that references OSG. And yes, if you can generate
png's instead of the 42x larger ppm format, that would be a bi
On 30 Sep 2009, at 19:44, Curtis Olson wrote:
> I just noticed you added an OSG dependency to strutils.cxx/hxx If
> possible it would be nice to avoid adding graphics system
> dependencies to these text manipulation libraries. SimGear and
> SimGear code is used in a variety of places beyo
The project my company is working on will use FG v1.9.1 (with
additions) to seek FAA Certification. But there are several things
lacking in the "production" release--the instructor's station is the
main thing. I haven't read the FAA Advisory Circular that governs
certification of these thin
Hi Everybody,
In preparation for FSWeekend, I would like to make some posters highlighting
FlightGear, it's open source concept, and some exciting new features of the
upcoming release. I you happen to have some nice screen shots, that you would
be willing to donate, or have a few text snippets
Hi Mathias,
On Saturday 26 September 2009 03:08:52 pm Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 17 September 2009 17:58:47 Durk Talsma wrote:
> > with no or insufficient parking. Each successive call to
> > getGroundElevation would put the lowest aircraft on top of the other, and
> > slowly th
Hi Wolfram,
Long time no hear, welcome back. :-)
I'm sorry I'm a little late responding, but my teaching obligations have been
a little intense the last couple of weeks. In any case, I'm looking forward to
seeing you there. I'll try to see whether I can get you a discount coupon for
the show (
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> So it is just the GPS? Or still more?
>
As with all things, it's maybe not that simple. We can already plug in a
real gps and run with that. I've messed with a Garmin 295 and a Garmin 400
(which means we should be able to support a real G4
Hi,
O.k. there was one misunderstood from my site regarding the pieces...
> I think we are pretty close.
So it is just the GPS? Or still more?
Pretty close does not mean in my eyes that we are FAA-certificable yet- But
woulden't be that a nice goal to be?
I think John Denker did already a
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> To be more clear:
> Quote from http://www.x-plane.com/pg_levels.html
>
> "In other words, the copy of X-Plane that can be purchased right here for
> under $50 has all the features required for FAA certification built in--you
> just have to b
On 5 Oct 2009, at 17:17, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Adding a "Change View" dialog, or enhancing one of the existing
> dialogs would
> be very straightforward - especially as I've already got most of the
> Nasal code ;)
I would enhance / improve the frankly confusing 'view options' dialog,
wh
Hi Curtis,
>
> If you read that X-Plane is FAA certified, they certainly
> mean that X-Plane was one component in an FAA certified
> simulator, not that the software itself is FAA certified,
> however they don't work very hard to make that
> distinction clear to their users.
To be more clear:
Quo
Curtis Olson wrote:
> I don't know if this would overly clutter the gui, but perhaps it would be
> useful to add a short blurb reminding the user that they can still change
> views using the normal mechanism during the replay. My initial reaction
> when I first saw the view selection dialog box
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> The main reason for including it is that I find that I rarely want to play
> the replay from
> the cockpit. I'm typically trying to judge how good my 3-point taildragger
> landing was,
> which is best done from a different view.
>
> I'm gues
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> I really would like to admit your sentences.
> But - on their website I can't see any reference, hint or link to Project
> FlightGear.
>
> But I see that he earns money with our work. I do know that this allowed
> under or licence. But is this
Hi Jon,
>
> Before
> you guys have a knee-jerk response that poisons the
> atmosphere you need to take
> a deep breath, re-read the statement from FlightProSim, and
> make some
> constructive remarks – and it might not hurt to
> re-read the license under
> which we operate.
>
>
>
> First,
>
Before you guys have a knee-jerk response that poisons the atmosphere you
need to take a deep breath, re-read the statement from FlightProSim, and
make some constructive remarks - and it might not hurt to re-read the
license under which we operate.
First, the most recent email from FlightProSim
I totally agree with Peter Clemenko,
that it would be an error to accept any money from FPS.
It is not an fair sponsor and the way the money will be divided will
more create a divide between the developers than
build it into a team of freely cooperating people.
Greetings Arthur
On Mon, Oct 5, 200
With all due respect FPS, it would be better off if you were to submit any
modified code you make back INTO FGFS. adhering to the GPL V2. and for the
FG devs, if FG is under the v3, ether switch it to LGPL or the v2, as that
way you have some control over your code. I really personally don't like t
Alan Teeder wrote:
> Sorry to be the messenger, but compilation of soundmgr_openal.cxx and all
> flightgear files using soundmgr_openal.hxx fails under VC90.
No problem, I already was expecting these reports since I can't test on
all platforms.
> See attached build log.
It's beyond me why gcc
Sorry to be the messenger, but compilation of soundmgr_openal.cxx and all
flightgear files using soundmgr_openal.hxx fails under VC90.
See attached build log.
I am using the 3rd part libraries as per
flightgear/source/projects/VC90/README.msvc.
i.e.
(Precompiled librairies and headers for compil
Curtis Olson wrote:
>One comment/question. I never understood the inclusion of a view selection
>box
> for the replay? When I run the replay I'm usually flipping all around
> between views
> using the normal view selection keys, and often panning the view with the
> mouse.
> It's very rar
On 5 Oct 2009, at 08:33, Dave wrote:
> That all sounds like good stuff. I'll try and migrate the KLN89
> towards
> using it and depreciating the dclgps stuff - that should give it some
> testing.
Sounds good to me. I've been going through the KLN89 manual, and
there's definitely some more s
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> One quick question: will the sound configuration xml files need to
> change to match the new system or will there be backwards compatibility?
It's backwards compatible. I do plan a new format change to be able to
position the sounds in 3d-model space instead
James Turner wrote:
> Just a notification / warning - I'm planning to land my GPS / FMS /
> route-manager re-write tomorrow (Monday). It's not perfect (yet) but
> already much more usable than the previous code. I'm sure I'll regress
> a few things initially, but of course I'll work through a
On 5 Oct 2009, at 00:20, syd adams wrote:
shader menu V2
http://imagebin.org/66379
Seems good to me, only concern from a usability point of view is
people who don't know what a shader is - 'advanced graphics settings'
might better (but too long for comfort). However, FG has many, many
p
27 matches
Mail list logo
