On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Having thought about this a bit more I'm going to propose we do 2.12.0 now and
> "pre-announce" 3.0 as the Feb 2014 release to give us just a little more time
> to prepare and make the 3.0 as polished as possible. After all, it'll
> be the third
> maj
JJ:
The mirror would be great, but the scenery isn't finished - it's just the
underlying scenery data.
Plus, because it's 'better' scenery, the question of how do we distribute the
scenery once it is generated becomes an issue.
I know Martin's working on a potential solution, so I'll be patien
A few years ago, I helped squash a bug that occurred when reading in data with
generic IO (I think that my patch was included in the code). At the time, it
was reading in just a float. So, when using it to read in position, the
doubles for lat/long were being cut (rounded or truncated?) and it
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Having thought about this a bit more I'm going to propose we do 2.12.0 now
> and
> "pre-announce" 3.0 as the Feb 2014 release to give us just a little more
> time
> to prepare and make the 3.0 as polished as possible. After all, it'll
>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Collecting the arguments from this discusson, I can see good points for
> a 3.0.0 release. Most convincing was Stuarts comparison against 2.0.0
> and the progress we made since that version.
>
> My suggestion is, we dare to call the 2013 sum
It really smells like a double -> float conversion somewhere in the
pipeline (more than a geocentric / geodetic conversion or something like
that).
Curt.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, D-NXKT wrote:
> > How far off is the aircraft placement - how much is the "jump"? Is it
> > many hundreds o
> How far off is the aircraft placement - how much is the "jump"? Is it
> many hundreds of meters, or on the order a meter or two, or just
> centimeters?
>
> Jon
Several meters!
Or more precise:
first: lat= 47.306263 lon= 11.379070
"jump" to: lat= 47.3062060567 lon= 11.3790703145
Hi Thorsten
> I can also give you the extra lines for the Citation Bravo with hires stains
That would be appreciated. Emilian already reminded me of the normalmap
feature, so it'd be interesting to compare the two and see which one I prefer.
But don't hurry; better not send it to me before Fri
Hi Torsten,
2013/6/25 Torsten Dreyer :
> I'm failing to build SimGear on 64bit linux:
> EffectGeode.cxx:83:136: error: no matching function for call to
> ‘osg::Geometry::setVertexAttribArray(int&, osg::Geometry::ArrayData)’
>
> OSG is stable 3.0.1 from svn (same with OSG trunk)
> SimGear is git ne
Hi,
I'm failing to build SimGear on 64bit linux:
EffectGeode.cxx:83:136: error: no matching function for call to
‘osg::Geometry::setVertexAttribArray(int&, osg::Geometry::ArrayData)’
OSG is stable 3.0.1 from svn (same with OSG trunk)
SimGear is git next from today
Yes, I rm-rf'ed previous artef
Hi Stuart,
> Ah yes. I remember you mentioning this before, me saying I'd add it
> to my TODO list, and then failing to do so. Sorry. I've now added it
> to my wiki TODO list so I don't forget again. Are you thinking about
> the sprinkling of lights that we put over the terrain, the VASI/PAPI
Terrasync.exe is not in the Jenkins 64-bit build. Isn't this an error?
Haven't checked the 32-bit build.
Seems to me that if you start off with FG using on;y Git it needs to be
there.
Nigel
--
This SF.net email is spo
> Interesting! Any way we can see this example "live"? I'd love to
> experiment with it in the 744's cockpit, but that'll have to wait till
> after next weeks exams...
I'll be happy to let you have the files - but the Vinson can't go to GIT
because it doesn't really work due to the uv-mapping
Interesting! Any way we can see this example "live"? I'd love to experiment
with it in the 744's cockpit, but that'll have to wait till after next weeks
exams...
> If you want to do the same detail level using conventional texturing, you
> need a texture resolution of 25600x6400 (I'm guessing n
> I looked at this possibility already. The carrier deck is made up of a
> number of odd-shaped areas, for historical reasons. I don't think that a
> complete rebuild of the flight deck is worth it for this very nice
> eye-candy
> (just too much work). Alexis might think differently.
Do you real
Thorsten wrote
> Sent: 25 June 2013 10:14
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Grain texture for models - a demo
>
>
> Since the idea hasn't really caught with modelers yet, I've tried to get a
more
> practical demo of the virtue of a grain texture and tried to p
Since the idea hasn't really caught with modelers yet, I've tried to get a more
practical demo of the virtue of a grain texture and tried to put a grain effect
on the Vinson flightdeck (I've always felt that the homogeneous grey color
doesn't justice to the details of the model otherwise).
Her
17 matches
Mail list logo
