> Oh dear. The problem seems to be in the coverage column. All the global
> weather scenarios set all the correct data except the coverage. If I
> attempt to set those manually they set back to clear.
>
> 3d clouds work correctly if I select the scenario manual. They also work if
> I select disab
Did you notice there is a while loop begining line 223 ?
-Fred
- Message d'origine -
De: Alasdair
Env: mardi 14 septembre 2010 03:57
À: FlightGear developers discussions
Objet: [Flightgear-devel] A puzzling problem with FG XML parsing
I have recently been delving into FG's innards, w
Am 14.09.10 03:57, schrieb Alasdair:
> I have recently been delving into FG's innards, with a view to fixing
> some problems with the speech handling capabilities. This has led
> indirecly to my having to understand how XML files are parsed.
>
> Now in SG's XML folder is a program called easyxml.cx
I have recently been delving into FG's innards, with a view to fixing
some problems with the speech handling capabilities. This has led
indirecly to my having to understand how XML files are parsed.
Now in SG's XML folder is a program called easyxml.cxx which reads the
XML files before passing con
Torsten Dreyer
> > > Under MSVC9 it compiles and builds OK (Pull from git a few minutes
> old).
> > > On the other hand, I can see no effect of METAR and the old 3d clouds
> are
> > > not displayed. In the GUI the clouds remain set at clear, and cannot
> be
> > > manually changed.
> >
> > Thanks f
> > Under MSVC9 it compiles and builds OK (Pull from git a few minutes old).
> > On the other hand, I can see no effect of METAR and the old 3d clouds are
> > not displayed. In the GUI the clouds remain set at clear, and cannot be
> > manually changed.
>
> Thanks for the report.
> I am currently b
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the new METAR handler uses the following code
> >
> > static const string coverage_string[] = {
> > SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_CLEAR_STRING,
> >
> > Does anybody else see this? Is a static string array a bad idea?
>
>
> Under MSVC9 it compiles and builds OK (Pull from git a few minutes old). On
> the other hand, I can see no effect of METAR and the old 3d clouds are not
> displayed. In the GUI the clouds remain set at clear, and cannot be
> manually changed.
Thanks for the report.
I am currently building under
Torsten Dreyer,
>
> the new METAR handler uses the following code
>
> static const string coverage_string[] = {
>SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_CLEAR_STRING,
>SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_FEW_STRING,
>SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_SCATTERED_STRING,
>SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_BROKEN_STRING,
>SGCloud
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the new METAR handler uses the following code
>
> static const string coverage_string[] = {
> SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_CLEAR_STRING,
>
> Does anybody else see this? Is a static string array a bad idea?
Looks like initializat
Hi all,
the new METAR handler uses the following code
static const string coverage_string[] = {
SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_CLEAR_STRING,
SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_FEW_STRING,
SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_SCATTERED_STRING,
SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_BROKEN_STRING,
SGCloudLayer::SG_CLOUD_OVERCAS
Thorsten (with an H) wrote
>
> > I haven't fully tested all the options, but in general the frame rate
> > cost seems very heavy.
>
> > Regarding frame-rates: yes, the Local-Weather implementation kills
> > non-high-end systems (mine, too).
>
> I'm getting slightly frustrated here. I've spent m
>> non-high-end systems (mine, too).
>>
> I'm getting slightly frustrated here. I've spent months to improve
> performance, and I feel by now that I at least deserve a fair judgement
> for my effords, i.e. an apples-to-apples comparison rather than a highly
> skewed comparison.
>
Sorry i
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> If you want to compare apples to apples, then you have to level the field.
> I've just tested 'fair weather' conditions seen from the same location
> (above KLSV), no cloud movement, same altitude of cloud layers and same
> visibility of terrain (35 km) and clouds (
> I haven't fully tested all the options, but in general the frame rate
> cost seems very heavy.
> Regarding frame-rates: yes, the Local-Weather implementation kills
> non-high-end systems (mine, too).
I'm getting slightly frustrated here. I've spent months to improve
performance, and I feel by
Am 13.09.10 12:02, schrieb thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi:
>> I run last sources and data and I also see this message. Is it expecting
>> a not yet written feature ?
>>
> No, I have a GIT binary from a while ago supplied by Hooray which does not
> produce the message but detects support available. So
Am 13.09.10 11:19, schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> HB-GRAL
>
>
>
>> Am 13.09.10 00:25, schrieb Torsten Dreyer:
>>
> Should I really apply a patch from the forum before I use this menu?
>
> Thanks, Yves
>
>>> Hi Yves,
>>>
>>> these messages come from the "Local Wea
> I run last sources and data and I also see this message. Is it expecting
> a not yet written feature ?
No, I have a GIT binary from a while ago supplied by Hooray which does not
produce the message but detects support available. So there exist versions
of code in which the patch is supplied, but
Hi Thorsten,
- "thorsten i renk" a écrit :
> > I get the same message on start.
>
> Yes, there's a script that checks if a hard-coded vector elevation
> sampling works or if you have to do repeated goedinfo calls. If the
> system is to be compatible with 2.0.0 and to make use of GIT features
> I get the same message on start.
Yes, there's a script that checks if a hard-coded vector elevation
sampling works or if you have to do repeated goedinfo calls. If the system
is to be compatible with 2.0.0 and to make use of GIT features to speed it
up, it has to have some way of knowing if the
> Torsten, sorry, I get this anyway in the log, it’s just new here today.
> But I get a bus error when I try to use 'Global weather' in the GUI,
> 'Local weather' seems to work. Do I need some special command line
> options to use 'global weather' from the menu?
>
No special option is required
HB-GRAL
> Am 13.09.10 00:25, schrieb Torsten Dreyer:
> >> > Should I really apply a patch from the forum before I use this menu?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Yves
> > Hi Yves,
> >
> > these messages come from the "Local Weather" nasal based implementation.
> The
> > mentioned patch is not necessary t
- "James Turner" a écrit :
> On 12 Sep 2010, at 09:28, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> > Overall, it's less hassle to add the files by hand in the studio,
> so, don't bother.
> >
> > Do you remember which file you added to the MSVC100 project ?
>
> simgear/misc/ResourceManager.cxx|.hxx
>
> (t
On 12 Sep 2010, at 09:28, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Overall, it's less hassle to add the files by hand in the studio, so, don't
> bother.
>
> Do you remember which file you added to the MSVC100 project ?
simgear/misc/ResourceManager.cxx|.hxx
(to the SimGear project, naturally)
Regards,
James
24 matches
Mail list logo
