Tim Moore wrote:
> Yeah, the lack of frame buffer object support turned out to be the common
> denominator for users seeing the problem. I checked in code tonight that
> should
> resolve the issue when frame buffer objects aren't available.
Great stuff - thanks Tim.
I wonder whether it would
Hi Lee,
Thanks for taking the time to write. It's well worth airing these issues,
even if I disagree completely with your analysis. :)
Others have already addressed a number of points, but my own
tuppence is below.
LeeE wrote:
> Hello dev list,
>
> If you're in no mood to critically appraise
Durk wrote:
> In the mean time, here is the changelog.
A couple of comments on reading this again.
> rendering bugs). The switch to OpenSceneGraph marks an important milestone
> for FlightGear, as it allows us to make full use of the advanced rendering
> options already available in OpenSceneGr
James Turner wrote:
> I'm noticing quite a few people on the forums with difficulty running
> 1.9.0 - either long delays on startup, hangs while loading scenery,
> crashes or rendering issues. Some of these are certainly driver
> issues, especially with ATI and the dreaded Intel chipsets. An
Tat wrote:
> I'm very happy that we finally released 1.9.0.
Thanks for your hard work in making it happen!
> According to the discussions before the release, I believe that many of us
> are
> willing to release FlightGear more often, like semiannually or quarterly (or
> even more often). To r
Heiko Schulz wrote
> Hi,
>
> Here are some of my screenies for the gallery! Feel free to take one or more
> of
> them.
>
> http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie/FGFS1.9.0/index.htm
Absolutely superb!
> Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all!
> HHS
And to you too.
-Stuart
I wrote :
> Csaba wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > >
> > > The patch below backs out that change. Unfortunately this means the change
> > > to the cloud coverage due to changing METAR will not be reflected in the
>
Csaba wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> >
> > The patch below backs out that change. Unfortunately this means the change
> > to the cloud coverage due to changing METAR will not be reflected in the 3D
> clouds
> > (2D clouds ar
Curt wrote:
> I just did a cross country flight with the latest CVS cloud/weather/metar
> changes and I noticed that the weather interpolation that smoothed out
> abrubt changes to wind and clouds when a new METAR report comes
> in seems to have now been lost. We are back to abrubt wind and clo
Vivian wrote:
> Of course, by the time I looked the METAR had changed. No matter - this
> gives a very similar effect:
>
> SCTO36 BKN047 OVC060
>
> Don't suppose that helps much
Yes, it helps. I can put together the appropriate cloud layers from that
information.
Thanks,
-Stuart
-
Vivian wrote:
> I hope I'm doing something wrong with cvs-head source and data as of this
> morning. I'm seeing this (using METAR at KSFO):
>
> ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.dyndns.org/fgfs/Screen-shots/clouds.jpg
>
> apart from this the recent cloud update is working well. Cumulus looks
> particularly
Hi All,
Attached is yet another 3D clouds patch, to fix the following:
1) The 3D clouds were not modified by the cloud coverage, due to some problems
with osg::Switch
2) METAR changes to cloud coverage were not obeyed.
3) Making changes via the Cloud dialog had no effect unless 3D clouds were
to
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Okay, of the people who responded, the vote was unanimously against this
> idea.
> If it's up to me, I vote for going back to our original consensus, and
> releasing this version as 1.9.0. As far as I can tell, this number has the
> majority vote, and although not Curt's p
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/17/2008 08:04 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
>
> > I assume you are not using sync-to-vblank or fps throttle.
>
> That's a correct assumption. Forsooth, I've never heard of
> sync-to-vblank or fps throttle in this context. The names
> sound nice, but
> -- They are not men
I wrote:
> Subject:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Attached is a very small patch that fixes the issue reported by Martin where
> --prop:/environment/weather-scenario=METAR had no effect.
>
> I think this is a pretty safe patch that should be included in the release.
>
> -Stuart
Sorry for the lack of su
Hi All,
Attached is a very small patch that fixes the issue reported by Martin where
--prop:/environment/weather-scenario=METAR had no effect.
I think this is a pretty safe patch that should be included in the release.
-Stuart
flightgear.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * 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.
Martin Spott wrote:
> Not meaning to complain or trying to urge anyone, I just wanted to
> report back that setting:
>
> --prop:/environment/weather-scenario=METAR
>
> either on the command line or in the ~/-fgfsrc file still does neither
> set the "Weather source" to "METAR" in the "Weather S
Csaba wrote:
> Also, add one new bug reported by Jano: even if you are using METAR
> scenario, METAR updates don't affect the visuals. That is, if you fly
> to another airport, or wait for the 15 minute update interval, nothing
> changes even though the new values show in the property browser.
Th
Heiko wrote:
> Flickering -o.k. I can live with that. I noticed the same issue on the MSFS
> x-Demo with their clouds. But it seems that they interpolate the color and
> alpha
> values of the sprites which makes the clouds soft and maybe prevent this
> visible
> sorting we still have. And wel
Heiko wrote:
> since when are the 2d-clouds moving?
> Well exactly- the clouds aren't moving- but there is something between the 2d
> and 3d-clouds - maybe this explains some renderings bugs Gerad found?
This is the weather being interpolated between METAR states.
Rather than immediately changi
gerard robin wrote:
> > here the progress climbing from sealevel to 8000 ft
> > we may notice some strange behaviour
> > One/
> > the transparency, does the alpha sorted correctly ?
> > http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/3DClouds-img10.jpg
> >
> > Two/
> > Here everything is right, however s
Hi All,
Those keeping an eye on CVS will notice that Tim Moore has committed some
changes to the clouds code. His changes massively improve performance - way
above what I've been achieving with my attempts to re-use cloud definitions. I
am very grateful to Tim for showing me once again how perf
dave perry wrote:
> You were correct. I had not set the weather scenario to METAR. I ran
> fgfs once with 3D clouds and once w/o 3D clouds, both with
> real-weather-fetch and scenario METAR. I only got 1 fps with the 3D
> clouds. Earlier with 3D clouds, I got about 21 fps.
I assume you
gerard robin wrote:
> However i am , now, a bit disappointed with these flickering ( too often,
> may be it is my graphics cards NVIDIA 7800 GS 512 mo) which decrease
> dramatically the result (mainly with Metar) . And which make me to come back
> to the 2D clouds, with the GUI preference.
>
Curt wrote:
> I wonder if there is some sort of floating point resolution / rounding
> problem with the sort?
> I see a lot of flickering myself. Also if I look some particular direction
> and the clouds get
> sorted ok, then look away for even a second, and then look back (by changing
> the
Dave Perry wrote:
> The 3D cloud appearance is much improved. Thanks to all involved!
> Several questions and comments.
> 1. At night, the emmissive seems very very bright.
> 2. Are you intending that the 3D cloud base should match the lowest
> level in the current METAR? I just flew with a K
Heiko wrote:
> The clouds looking great now- the order problem is 99% solved so much as I
> can
> see!
Yes - I think we're pretty much done.
> I see only some few problems still:
>
> -against a second 3d-clouds layer, the problem with z-drawing appears again
I don't know how to solve this at
I wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Attached is what I'm hoping will be the final 3D clouds patch.
Nope, it wasn't attached, because I hit Send rather than Attach.
This time it is attached.
Sorry for the noise.
> It does the following:
> - Replaces simple shader attributes with vectors (this was missed o
Hi All,
Attached is what I'm hoping will be the final 3D clouds patch.
It does the following:
- Replaces simple shader attributes with vectors (this was missed out of the
last patch by mistake)
- Includes Yon's Fog update code (Thanks!)
- Fixes a bug since 1.0 where --enable-real-weather-fetch s
Curt wrote:
> I did think of that after scratching my head a while ... the metar reported
> several cloud layers and
> I did try to switch to a new location as well as switching to fair weather
> and thunderstorm ...
> I did get snow and rain, but with a perfectly clear sky.
I think there's a
Hi All,
Attached is yet another patch for 3D clouds. Could someone please apply it to
CVS?
This provides the following enhancements & bug fixes
- Fix the chequer-board bug.
- Add proper cloud coverage function - so scattered clouds are now truly
scattered.
- Add real-time control for visibility
Geoff Air wrote:
>> (AL_INVALID_VALUE): constructor (alBufferData)
>> Fatal error: Failed to buffer data.
>I think the ONLY reason you would get this not very helpful specific message
>is that the FG/SG is compiled against an ALUT previous to version 1, if it
>still >exists?, or the header alut.h
gerard robin wrote:
> Hello,
> I recently succeeded to build FG CVS with osg 2.7.5 and boost ( ouf , but on
> only one computer) .
> I get that strange 3D clouds mapping , is it just me ?
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/checkboard.jpg
No, it's not just you. It is a (rather poor) attempt
James Turner wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2008, at 22:23, gerard robin wrote:
>
> > For instance, yes, the Stampe is easy to fly but not realistic
> > regarding the FDM.
> > Don't forget we don't make a Game.
I think the Stampe has fairly good FDM. From my limited experience,
it flies as described here
James wrote:
> A "light sport" aircraft or something close would be good, there is a
> big gap between the Dragonfly and a 172, this in fact is probably the
> biggest growth area of aviation these days so seems a shame to skip over
> it.
>
> Likely candidates (one of):
>
> Lionceau
> Sky
Hi Guys,
On some systems (in particular Windows I think), if an aircraft refers to a
.wav file in another, not installed aircraft, OpenAL prints the following error
and FG exits:
(AL_INVALID_VALUE): constructor (alBufferData)
Fatal error: Failed to buffer data.
This makes diagnosis particular
Hi All,
Attached is another clouds patch. This does the following:
1) Puts the 3D clouds in a cloud rendering bin, to reduce the transparent edge
problem. Viewing 3d clouds against a 2D layer _above_ it now blends correctly.
There is still a problem when viewing a layer below the 3d clouds, and
Durk Talsma wrote:
> I just placed the sources and base package for the pending FlightGear 1.9
> release on my webserver:
>
> http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/SimGear-1.99.5.tar.gz
> http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/FlightGear-1.99.5.tar.gz
> http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/FlightGear-data-1.99.5.tar.bz2
Tim Moore wrote:
> The 2D layers are drawn in that order, relative to each other. I didn't
> consider
>
> 3D clouds when I implemented that in OSG.
>
> Grep for setRenderBinDetails in simgear/scene/sky/cloud.cxx to see how to
> insert
>
> the 3d clouds into the cloud layer rendering order.
>
Hi James,
James Sleeman wrote:
> Sorry if this has already been noted, I don't remember seeing it in the
> recent discussions. A picture is worth 1000 words...
>
> http://sirius.gogo.co.nz/fgfs-invisible-cloud.png
>
> Taken from about 7000ft, 1500 ft thick overcast layer at low level,
> scatt
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> I cheched your patch in but I still have the checkerboard :
> http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs_clouds_checker.jpg
> but only when the weather scenario is set to none.
>
> -Fred
Thanks for checking in all my patches.
I'm aware that there are still checkerboard iss
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> > And I have yet to see any 3d clouds. Any clues on where I should be looking
> > (yes the box is checked :-))
>
> Something has changed in the environment manager which means that clouds
> generateion is now inconsis
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> To: FGFS Developers Mail List
> Sent: Monday, 24 November, 2008 23:24:52
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] 3d-clouds- Texture updates
>
> Hi,
>
> There is a lot of improvement left- some days ago I used for testing the
> cloudstextures from X-pLane, and they worked better.
>
James Turner wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2008, at 20:30, Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> > I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list
> > so all our UK based developers can see.
>
> Assuming the packs are free, worth considering. We have enough people
> in the UK (or close to it). Dep
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> I've just applied he latest Sg patch on Win XP/msvc9; builds without error.
> I still get:
>
> Warning: detected OpenGL error 'invalid value' after RenderBin::draw(,)
> RenderStage::drawInner(,) FBO status= 0x8cd5
Presumably that is the one that Fred committed 24/11/2008
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Stuart Buchanan a écrit :
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Attached is a small patch for 3D clouds.
> >
> > It provide the following:
> > 1) Proper spherical distribution of sprites (previously they were
> > distributed
> cylindricall
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> I applied your patch. I noticed this message being repeated endlessly
> when clouds are activated :
>
> Warning: detected OpenGL error 'valeur non valide' after RenderBin::draw(,)
I'm not sure what is going on here. I'm seeing the same warning, but I haven't
yet
managed
James Sleeman wrote:
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > [a whole bunch of stuff cut]
>
> Sigh, I'm sorry Arnt but trying to debate this with you seems to be a
> waste of time, and it's just getting off topic in my opinion.
>
> For once and for all, I have nothing to do with this other than as an
> obse
Hi All,
Attached is a small patch for 3D clouds.
It provide the following:
1) Proper spherical distribution of sprites (previously they were distributed
cylindrically - whoops)
2) Better shading, so the bottom of the cloud is darker than the top.
3) Fixed a couple of texture sizing bugs.
I don'
--- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into
> the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link
> here to get some more eyes on it.
>
> http://flight-aviator.com/
>
One way to discourage this sort of thing would be t
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> I began with making new cloud textures and shaping via xml. Creating clouds
> is
> easier than I thought though it is a lot of work- like building an aircraft!
> ;-)
>
> Here is a video featuring the 3d-clouds with new textures. I need still work
> on
> shaping and crea
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > I'll be able to build Unix binaries for the most common platforms.
> > Would someone do us the honour of providing a standalone 'terrasync'
> > binary for Win32 - statically linked against libsvn in order to save
> > the users from installing yet another dependency ?
>
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> There is only thing I miss, or can't see it really- are the clouds moving due
> to
> the wind?
> I know that the old clouds did this...
Not yet.That's on my list of things to solve next.
-Stuart
Curt wrote:
> One thing that Mark Harris' clouds considered was lighting I believe.
> Portions of the cloud that were shaded were darker and portions of
> the cloud most exposed to the sun light were lighter.
> I don't know the exact algorithm, but I believe he was doing some
> extra work wit
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> For now I which a bit more documentation about making the cloudshapes.
> I did understand that there are layers with Boxes with a set of clouds.
> But I have problems with these coordinates:
>
>
>3200
>0
>2400
>st-large
>
>
> and grid sizes.
Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> By the way, I found a very interesting thing that the clouds always face to
> the
> aircraft.
> I placed ufo in the middle of clouds and made a spin by pressing left cursor.
> Then all the clouds were turning toward me, changing their order.
> I don't complain about t
Ron Jensen wrote:
> Well, that seems to have solved the alpha blending issues! Thanks!
>
> Is this applicable to the trees, too?
The cloud code does a single bubble sort pass per frame, to avoid the
performance penalty of sorting the entire cloud set each frame.
We could do something similar f
Gerard Robin wrote:
> I do like that new version , i hope that the next one without that ordering
> problem will be perfect.
It appears that Manuel has solved the ordering bug.
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/3DClouds-img6.jpg
>
> with that screenshot we may identify where the problem is:
Manuel Massing wrote:
> Attached is a small fix for the sorting in CloudShaderGeometry.cxx.
> I think the sorting problem stems from the osg idiosyncracy
> to store transposed matrices...so the intuitive
>
> osg::Vec4f p = vm * osg::Vec4f(_cloudsprites[i]->position.osg(), 1.0f);
>
> needs to
Hi All,
I've put together an improved 3D clouds patch, available from here:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds2.tar.gz
It fixes the following issues (to a greater or lesser extent):
1) Performance. Quad trees used to improve culling, and the sprites are placed
on the surface of a sphere
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> I try to dig clouds problem and come across to this situation Clouds
> particles
> are improperly sorted from back to front So DepthRenderBin doesn’t sort cloud
> particles Here is to screen shots First I made by manual placing clouds
> particles so 1st particle is nea
Martin wrote:
> Surprisingly, if you set another weather scenario via the menu, this is
> going to find its proper represenation, as seen in the property
> browser, in the "/environment/weather-scenario" property. If I set a
> different scenario via the property browser, this does not have any
> e
Ron Jensen wrote:
> I could never see the clouds with --enable-real-weather-fetch set
There's an interaction between the real weather fetch code and the 3D cloud that
I'm still working out. I think the root problem is that the 3D clouds are
bolted onto
the side of the 2D ones, and don't always g
Fred wrote:
> I missed the "Weather scenario" thing. But when enabling "Fair weather"
> I got :
>
> VERTEX glCompileShader "" FAILED
> VERTEX Shader "" infolog:
> (1) : error C0201: unsupported version 120
>
> glLinkProgram "" FAILED
> Program "" infolog:
> Vertex info
> ---
> (1) : erro
James Sleeman wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 23:55 -0400, Ampere K. wrote:
> > On October 24, 2008 12:38:46 pm Curtis Olson wrote:
> > > 1. Do we like the idea of a scavenger hunt type contest? If so, what
> > > types
> ...
> > If you want a scavenger hunt, then this is one idea. Through an a
George wrote:
> 1. I started FG with --enable-real-weather-fetch, then 2. enabled
> 3-D-clouds in the "Rendering Options" submenu - and did not see anything
> like you.
> Until I 3. enabled "Environment => Weather scenerio" from "none" to
> "METAR". Does also work if I enable "Thunderstorm" or "
LeeE wrote:
> On Saturday 25 October 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > After a lot of effort, and help from Tim, I've finally got some
> > 3D shader-based clouds that work acceptably:
> >
> > http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/cloud
Hi All,
After a lot of effort, and help from Tim, I've finally got some 3D shader-based
clouds that work acceptably:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.jpg
A patch is available from here: http:/www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.tar.gz
I've put quite a bit of effort into making the cl
AJ wrote:
> The point was raised by others that perhaps now the time has come for us to
> suck the parts of plib we still rely on into the FG tree, which would remove
> the long standing problems with getting fixes into PLIB and releases on a
> less than glacial timescale. Of course, it would a
Gérard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it only me ? or is there a funny behaviour with the random objects ?
>
> I have found trees into the stadium :)
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/RandomTreesAndStadium.jpg
No, it isn't just you :)
The random objects, including trees, are placed randomly bas
Csaba/Jester wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> > Is it possible in Flightgear to chat on mutliplayer though frequencies?
> >
> > Gijs and Natovr found this line in preferences.xml under the mutliplay
> > section:
> > type="string">11850
> > but they changed the
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> > Durk Talsma wrote:
> > > So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your
> > current top 10 of
> > > aircraft?
> >
> > I'd be very happy to see Heiko's overhauled C172
> > model included in the
> > release. The outer hull is waaay better than the old on
Hi All,
As I mentioned in my mail yesterday, I'm taking another look at 3D clouds.
Rather than using Impostors, I instead looked at what I could do by using GPU
shaders - basically offloading as much processing onto the graphics card as
possible. This worked very well for the random-forests, wh
--- On Fri, 3/10/08, James Turner wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:01, Tim Moore wrote:
> > Stuart has run into a bug in OSG with respect to Imposters, which
> > manage the cached rendering of the individual cloud sprites.
> > It's unclear if this ever
> > worked well in OSG. Unfortunately I haven't
--- On Mon, 22/9/08, Csaba Halász wrote:
> Patch is broken in multiple places (missing line breaks,
> parts of lines)
Sorry you are having problems.
I did a comparison between the results of a straight "cvs diff" and what is in
my patch, and they match (apart from date changes, and ignoring some
--- On Sat, 4/10/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Durk Talsma -- Saturday 04 October 2008:
> > Given that we have an OSG branch that has undergone
> significant
> > development this year, and a PLIB branch, with little or no
> > development, I would strongly urge that the main release would
> > be OSG
--- On Fri, 3/10/08, Martin Spott wrote:
> gerard robin wrote:
> > And others JSBSim updates within PRE_OSG_PLIB_20061029
> >
> > Updating that branch , is not going backward :)
>
> Maintaining this branch for such a long time, including the
> pile of work that had been spent to get the 1.0 r
--- On Tue, 30/9/08, Csaba Halász wrote:
> In flightgear.diff, however, the hunk at line 36 concerning
> environment_mgr.hxx doesn't have any modifications even
> though the
> line count says a line should have been added:
>
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ public:
>virtual void bind ();
>virtual void
(Resend - my previous reply got lost in the ether)
--- On Mon, 22/9/08, Csaba Halász wrote:
> Patch is broken in multiple places (missing line breaks,
> parts of lines)
Sorry you are having problems.
I did a comparison between the results of a straight "cvs diff" and what is in
my patch, and th
--- On Thu, 25/9/08, Syd wrote:
> I 've been pondering an idea of adding
> updraft/downdrafts to the
> environment, probably as a part of turbulence , so it can
> be
> enabled/disabled...
> My idea is to calculate wind-speed-from -down , by checking
> wind speed ,
> direction , and the normal o
Hi All,
I was hoping that I'd be able to provide a positive update on my work on 3-D
clouds this weekend.
Unfortunately, I've hit what appears to be an OSG issue that is beyond my
knowledge to solve.
The problem I've hit relates to Impostors and Billboards. Impostors are used to
reduce the i
--- On Sat, 16/8/08, gerard robin wrote:
> Coming back to the Erik, Alexis remark and my crazy first
> answer.
>
> Won't it be possible,
> to include in the Cockpit view parameters the additional
> parameters delay
> which gives the delay for 5g blackout and 9 g blackout ?
All the code calcul
--- On Sat, 9/8/08, John Wojnaroski wrote:
> just 2 more cts.
>
> if you're porting to OSG why not consider Mark
> Harris' cloud code? far
> superior in texture, appearance, extendibility,
> transparency, lighting,
> etc, etc,might require a tad more work but IMHO the
> results are
> worth
Hi All,
Just to keep everyone up to date on where I am with porting 3D clouds to FG OSG:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.jpg
Obviously there is still a lot of work to be done before they are complete, but
progress is being made.
I'm hoping that once I've completed the OSG part of t
--- On Sun, 27/7/08, Ron Jensen wrote:
http://cvs.flightgear.org/viewvc/data/gui/menubar.xml?view=log&hideattic=1
> Log of /data/gui/menubar.xml
>
> Revision 1.80 -
> Wed Jun 11 21:20:43 2008 UTC (6 weeks, 3 days ago) by
> stuart
> Branch: MAIN
> Changes since 1.79: +2 -15 lines
>
> Collat
--- On Wed, 23/7/08, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> 3d clouds have not been ported to osg. At the current rate
> of progress - sometime in the next decade :-).
Progress is marginally better than that - I've ported the code and have even
got it to compile.
I'm now at the stage of crashes-on-startup whic
--- On Tue, 15/7/08, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> The idea is simple:
> 1. Only include properties that have changed since the last
> packet was sent.
> 2. To cope with thee potential for message loss include the
> changed property in the next 4 packets too.
> 3. To ensure that newcomers have the ful
Hi All,
For my own amusement, I generated some scenery for Scotland using the GSHHS
coastline and OpenStreetMap for roads. Scotland greatly benefits from using
GSHHS coastline, as the VMAP0 data doesn't include many of the small islands on
the west coast. There are sufficiently few roads that t
--- On Mon, 2/6/08, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> I will continue looking at this, though if anyone else
> would like to jump in with suggestions, that would be very
> welcome.
... and here's the patch, based on Fred's original patch.
Assuming it passes muster, could someone revie
--- On Mon, 2/6/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Stuart Buchanan -- Monday 02 June 2008:
> > Nevertheless, I think these are acceptable numbers for
> a 3 character
> > string. The user can easily perform a more specific
> search on receiving
> > a large number of resul
--- On Sun, 1/6/08, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> I confirm there in no strcasestr or equivalent in MS
> runtime.
> The patch below should be portable, although more
> convoluted.
>From reading the patch, I don't think this does quite what we want either. My
>reading is that this ensures that the ide
Hi All,
Someone on the Forum (or was it here?) mentioned a problem where they couldn't
use the Airport Search dialog easily because some airports in apt.dat are named
in mixed case while some are in all-caps.
Rather than attempt to fix apt.dat (I'm not completely mad ;) ), I've created a
small
--- On Thu, 8/5/08, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..maybe he could join us here? ;o)
I don't think he has any interest in FG - he was approached by another forum
member who wanted to use his textures in a building.
> ..I believe he is wrong in his opinion of being unable to
> make a good living off hi
Hi All,
The maintainer of a textures website has offered some of his textures to be
GPL'd and contributed to the project:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10163
On the assumption that we should take up his kind offer, who would like to be
the point of contact?
As anyone who ha
--- On Thu, 1/5/08, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> Jon Stockill - please read this to protect your models
> database from copyright problems
On a related note, we're going to have to be careful about textures too - see
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1443
I'll make sure that the scene
--- On Sun, 20/4/08, Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:55 -0700, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork
> >
> (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333),
> I've been
> > working on
Hi All,
Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork
(http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been working on
an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which attempts to simulate
the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by moving the pilot viewpoint
vertically d
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> 1. A long time ago in the early days of MP the policy was
> agreed: "If you
> don't have it you don't see it". No glider, no
> ufo, nothing. And AFAIK
> that's still the case. IF we want to depart from this
> long standing policy,
> then that's a slightly
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Stuart Buchanan -- Wednesday 09 April 2008:
> > --- On Wed, 9/4/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > So, please let's discuss that first, before
> anyone
> > > dumps more of that stuff into $FG_ROOT/AI/!
> >
> &
701 - 800 of 1047 matches
Mail list logo
