Thanks Tim,
I have occasionally submitted patches , starting way back , nothing
significant , so I know what happens... I guess I hoped for more discussion
of why the changes were
requires , my mine weren't , etc. Just to help me into the flow...
But nothing serious , I'm on to the next project :)
Hi Andrew,
I think you are going too deep. The problem happens when you import
the file. The textures are not imported with it.
The same applies if you import to Blender with the intention of
exporting it to a third party application like Sketchup. The textures
are lost, though plain colo
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:44 PM, syd adams wrote:
> OK I'll consider myself out-voted :)
> It is a bit of a turn off though, when I try to fix some minor issues and
> get back into the coding side of things. and its immediately rewritten
> without notice.
> But I guess that's better than it being
> I just greped through the current CVS aircraft and found the following
> results:
>
> 51 Aircraft and the generic-autopilot uses the pi-simple-controller
>
> 49 of these aircraft and the generic-autopilot uses the
> pi-simple-controller with a Ki of zero aka P-only
>
> the remaining 2 Aircraf
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:29 AM, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2010, at 15:44, syd adams wrote:
>
> > It is a bit of a turn off though, when I try to fix some minor issues and
> get back into the coding side of things. and its immediately rewritten
> without notice.
>
> I apologise for commit
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Pete Morgan wrote:
>
>> Has/Does FlightGear participate ?
>>
>>
>> http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/03/google-summer-of-code-applications-now.html
>
>
> We have never participated before, but I see th
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>> leee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
>>>
>>> This is exactly th
leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>> In a continuous process of improving FlightGear there's no point
>> in keeping an 'undesired' (or, in some cases even a buggy)
>> feature as being the default just because some unknown 3rd party
>> software _might_ depend on it.
>> If
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> > > There is always a risk associated with changing default
> > > behaviour and the bottom line is that there is no immediate
> > > need to do so, nor any overhead incurred by not doing so.
> > >
>
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> >> That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
> >> though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
> >
> > This is exactly the sort of think I'd hope to see at th
leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>> That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
>> though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
> This is exactly the sort of think I'd hope to see at the end of the
> transition/notification period and just be
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> > There is always a risk associated with changing default
> > behaviour and the bottom line is that there is no immediate
> > need to do so, nor any overhead incurred by not doing so.
> >
> > This just
On 10 Mar 2010, at 15:44, syd adams wrote:
> It is a bit of a turn off though, when I try to fix some minor issues and get
> back into the coding side of things. and its immediately rewritten without
> notice.
I apologise for committing the modified changes without asking - I felt my
modifica
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> There is always a risk associated with changing default behaviour
> and the bottom line is that there is no immediate need to do so,
> nor any overhead incurred by not doing so.
>
> This just seems like a commonsense policy to me, and was one of the
>
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM, leee wrote:
> > I agree that windup == bad and antiwindup == good, and that in
> > a perfect world no one would have leveraged windup and that
> > everyone would have implemented their PI simple controllers
> > correct
OK I'll consider myself out-voted :)
It is a bit of a turn off though, when I try to fix some minor issues and
get back into the coding side of things. and its immediately rewritten
without notice.
But I guess that's better than it being completely ignored ;)
My main wish is that the enabling opti
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM, leee wrote:
> I agree that windup == bad and antiwindup == good, and that in a
> perfect world no one would have leveraged windup and that everyone
> would have implemented their PI simple controllers correctly. The
> trouble is that It's not a perfect world.
>
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, leee
wrote:
> > As this would be a new feature, and one which might affect
> > existing behaviours, I _really_ think it ought to be off by
> > default.
>
> I really can't imagine any sane system that is designed to
>
Stuart Buchanan wrote
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Pete Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Curtis Olson wrote:
> > > One more thing we need. I need someone to sign up on the google
> > > summer of code page and create an ID for themselves. The applications
> > > requires a "backup admin" link id an
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, leee wrote:
> As this would be a new feature, and one which might affect existing
> behaviours, I _really_ think it ought to be off by default.
>
I really can't imagine any sane system that is designed to leverage windup
as a feature. It's like closing your eyes
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, James Turner wrote:
> Maybe my comment about 'changed from Nasal' was misleading, I'm not
> really suggesting these properties particularly need to be dynamically
> configured, but for example it does mean the values can be tweaked in
> the Property Inspector during aircraf
On Tuesday 09 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am about to commit a change that adds anti windup logic to
> > the pi-simple- controller (FGPISimpleController) which
> > currently lacks such functionality.
> >
> > The FGPIDContr
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Pete Morgan wrote:
>
> Curtis Olson wrote:
> > One more thing we need. I need someone to sign up on the google
> > summer of code page and create an ID for themselves. The applications
> > requires a "backup admin" link id and it will not let me enter myself.
> >
Curtis Olson wrote:
> One more thing we need. I need someone to sign up on the google
> summer of code page and create an ID for themselves. The applications
> requires a "backup admin" link id and it will not let me enter myself.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curt.
Have files this issue
#101 - Google Summe
Martin Spott wrote:
> Pete Morgan wrote:
>
>
>> A Major issues is that GAE does not support binary files very well, eg
>> gallery, so I'm not sure how this would work. One possibility would be
>> to rename the current machine as "www2." or "stash." and using it as the
>> binary storage.
>>
Evening all,
I have modified a FlightGear scenery model using Blender, and
exported it to .ac format. However, in FlightGear it displays as a
solid block rather than using the correct textures or materials. The
problem was not any change I made to the model. I tried importing a
model and i
Thanks for the positive repsonse ;-)
however...
I have pasted your replies into the bug tracker so the original
filer(david) can have a trackable chain as the submitter who is not on
this mailing list.
http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=100
Should this have been a "forwar
On 03/10/2010 01:47 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> I did not commit the 6-axes fix for the following reason:
> If we change the protocol anyway, why not do it right an support the maximum
> number of axes from plib (currently 16)?
The following idea is better:
> I'd suggest sending the number of
Pete Morgan wrote:
> A Major issues is that GAE does not support binary files very well, eg
> gallery, so I'm not sure how this would work. One possibility would be
> to rename the current machine as "www2." or "stash." and using it as the
> binary storage.
To my understanding, one of the issu
On 10 Mar 2010, at 07:27, adams@gmail.com wrote:
> Ive had a better look at the changes you made to my patch ... could you
> please change them back ?
> I'd prefer the option of setting these in the instrumentation.xml file , and
> for safety sake , add the default settings back.
> I apprec
> bug #100 recently submitted is a fix for 64bit system.
>
> http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=100
>
> pete
>
The 64bit fix is commited with some tiny cosmetic modifications.
I did not commit the 6-axes fix for the following reason:
If we change the protocol anyway, why
31 matches
Mail list logo
