Hi,
I've implemented a check for implementations that need a Doppler effect
adjustment to be able to hear them but there might be implementations
that sound exaggerated now. If so, please specify which ones and I'll
update the check procedure.
Erik
* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
> Melchior FRANZ
> I don't see any particular merit is setting the value in preferences.xml,
> but it would be nice if the default values worked as designed, no matter
> where they are set.
It's always nice to have default values changeable, rather than
Melchior FRANZ
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] doppler volume
>
> * Maik Justus -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
> > Vivian Meazza schrieb am 22.01.2009 11:17:
> > > I would think that the attenuation of sound in air is
> > > amenable to mathematical calculati
* Maik Justus -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
> Vivian Meazza schrieb am 22.01.2009 11:17:
> > I would think that the attenuation of sound in air is
> > amenable to mathematical calculation.
> Yes it is.
But it depends on the frequency pattern, no? So we'd need to
analyze the spectrum ... time to u
Hi Vivian,
Vivian Meazza schrieb am 22.01.2009 11:17:
> I would think that the attenuation of sound in air is amenable to
> mathematical calculation.
Yes it is. (at lest if your distance to the sound source is large
compared to the size of the source).
> Surely we shouldn't be guessing at some ar
Hi,
Maik Justus schrieb am 22.01.2009 13:45:
> Hello,
> James Sleeman schrieb am 22.01.2009 01:14:
>> Hi Maik,
>> ...
>> Just to clarify on the reference-dist, is it that this value is a
>> diminishing effect, that is for reference-dist of 1 after distance 1
>> the volume is half original, after
Hello,
James Sleeman schrieb am 22.01.2009 01:14:
> Hi Maik,
> ...
> Just to clarify on the reference-dist, is it that this value is a
> diminishing effect, that is for reference-dist of 1 after distance 1 the
> volume is half original, after distance 2 the volume is 1/4 original
> (half of a ha
James Sleeman wrote
>
> Hi Maik,
>
> Maik Justus wrote:
> > the effect you are discussing is not the Doppler effect, but just the
> >
> Yes, I know it's not a function of the Doppler itself, but I was
> thinking more along the lines of the volume drop off, if it were better,
> might help the con
Hi Maik,
Maik Justus wrote:
> the effect you are discussing is not the Doppler effect, but just the
>
Yes, I know it's not a function of the Doppler itself, but I was
thinking more along the lines of the volume drop off, if it were better,
might help the convincingness of the Doppler, if you
Hi James,
the effect you are discussing is not the Doppler effect, but just the
volume as a function of the distance. Every aircraft has its own sound
definition including the distance, where the volume is halved
() and the distance where the volume is cutted off
(). The volume as a function o
The doppler effect (which I currently have working through the
USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER define) has never sounded very "real" to my ear.
Recently I've wondered if it might be to do with the "volume dropoff"
not being enough.
It's hard to subjectively quantify the dropoff in the flyby, but for
exa
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> Is there any chance to get to know at compile time, that
> openal-soft is used?
I haven't found anything specific in the header files.
At runtime, alGetString(AL_VERSION) should contain " ALSOFT ".
m.
-
Hi,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 20:01:
> Yes, USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER works with openal-soft.
Is there any chance to get to know at compile time, that openal-soft is
used?
If not: is there any chance to get to know at runtime, that openal-soft
is used?
if yes: we need to change the concep
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> Unfortunately, the sound isn't muted when pausing ...
Pfff ...
| /*
| alcSuspendContext
|
| Not functional
| */
| ALCAPI ALCvoid ALCAPIENTRY alcSuspendContext(ALCcontext *pContext)
| {
| // Not a lot happens here !
| (void)pContext
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 18:29:
> > I re-tried with USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER, and that only worked
> > for a very short time (less a minute), and then there was
> > no sound at all.
> Strange, in this mode I only modify the pitch value in the s
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 18:29:
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
And the manual calculation works quite fine. And if it works with
openal-soft we should use it with openal-soft.
Ah, ok. I re-tried with USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER, and that only worked
for a very short t
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> And the manual calculation works quite fine. And if it works with
> openal-soft we should use it with openal-soft.
Ah, ok. I re-tried with USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER, and that only worked
for a very short time (less a minute), and then there was no sound
at
Hi Melchior,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 17:54:
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
Did you try to
#define USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER
instead?
No, AFAICS that enables your "manual" Doppler calculations, which
you added for openal implementations with broken Doppler (or
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> Did you try to
>
> #define USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER
>
> instead?
No, AFAICS that enables your "manual" Doppler calculations, which
you added for openal implementations with broken Doppler (or with
correct Doppler that doesn't work with our broken set
Hi Melchior,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 15:56:
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
I just defined USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER after that #if* group, but
Doppler didn't work.
PS: not just after the group, but instead of it, so the other
optional symbols weren't defined.
m.
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> I just defined USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER after that #if* group, but
> Doppler didn't work.
PS: not just after the group, but instead of it, so the other
optional symbols weren't defined.
m.
---
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> #ifndef HAVE_WINDOWS_H
> #ifdef AL_VERSION_1_2
> #define USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER should work
My openal-soft (svn/head) defines AL_VERSION_1_1 (and _1_0),
but not _1_2. I just defined USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER after that
#if* group, but Doppler did
Hi James,
James Sleeman schrieb am 20.12.2008 13:21:
Csaba Halász wrote:
http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html Some distributions (notably
debian) have switched to this version from the "original"
implementation.
Ahh I see, using Ubuntu here and yes it appears to be this soft ver
Csaba Halász wrote:
> http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html Some distributions (notably
> debian) have switched to this version from the "original"
> implementation.
>
Ahh I see, using Ubuntu here and yes it appears to be this soft version.
--
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 1:04 AM, James Sleeman wrote:
> Melchior FRANZ wrote:
>> AFAIK, Doppler doesn't work in fgfs if you are using openal-soft.
>>
> Forgive my ignorance, but as opposed to using what? Is there Open AL in
> hardware on some devices?
Melchior is referring to a particular implem
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> AFAIK, Doppler doesn't work in fgfs if you are using openal-soft.
>
Forgive my ignorance, but as opposed to using what? Is there Open AL in
hardware on some devices? I know I have had doppler on this hardware (I
use a USB headset) before, but it could have been quite
* James Sleeman -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> I have no doppler on any aircraft and havn't for quite a while. As I
> type this I have usually around 40fps in fly-by. Is there perhaps an
> option or something I have inadvertantly switched off?
AFAIK, Doppler doesn't work in fgfs if you are u
Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> This should be resolved. Can you tell me which aircraft doesn't have
> the doppler sound effect? What frame rates are you experiencing when
> you have no doppler effect?
I have no doppler on any aircraft and havn't for quite a while. As I
type this I have usually aroun
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:55 PM, James Sleeman wrote:
> Some time ago there was discussion on the list regarding the loss of
> doppler sound effect in the fly-by view, I was sure I read that it had
> been resolved? I still have no doppler in the fly-by with a fresh build
> last night, am I the on
Some time ago there was discussion on the list regarding the loss of
doppler sound effect in the fly-by view, I was sure I read that it had
been resolved? I still have no doppler in the fly-by with a fresh build
last night, am I the only one, or is it still broken?
---
James Sleeman
-
I got the .diff from Maik Justus.
I merged it into the _Sport Model_.
It works fine; ATIS and marker beacons are no longer Doppler
shifted.
In addition to the two files patched by the .diff, I had
to make some trivial and obvious edits in two other files,
to bring them into compliance with the
Hi,
ups. Is it really July? Please replace June by July in my last post.
Thanks to John.
Maik
Maik Justus schrieb am 06.07.2007 21:23:
> Hi John,
>
> I posted the patch which should fix your problem on June 1st, 22:16
> (German time).
> (If you do not have archived this EMail: just drop me a n
Hi John,
I posted the patch which should fix your problem on June 1st, 22:16
(German time).
(If you do not have archived this EMail: just drop me a note, I will
email it to you).
I think the patch will be commited soon. But I am modifying files, which
are not mine, therefore it is ok, to give
On Friday 06 July 2007 18:27, John Denker wrote:
> It's been ten days now with no CVS-commit nor even any
> discussion of a CVS-commit AFAICT.
That's probably about right. I and a few others on IRC were testing various
patches for Maik for a while... I thought that the results of that made it to
On 07/06/2007 02:56 PM, Thomas Förster wrote:
> Hmm, rereading your post this probably was a misunderstanding. You were
> referring to doppler effect related commits, weren't you?
Yes. Perhaps I clipped too much context; I thought
the Subject: line would be sufficient contex. Sorry.
To rep
Am Freitag 06 Juli 2007 20:33 schrieb John Denker:
> On 07/06/2007 01:50 PM, Thomas Förster wrote:
> > That's definitely not true (generally spoken). Which branch are you
> > using?
>
> CVS OSG, up to date as of late yesterday (the 5th).
> Has something happened since then?
Hmm, rereading your pos
On 07/06/2007 01:50 PM, Thomas Förster wrote:
> That's definitely not true (generally spoken). Which branch are you using?
CVS OSG, up to date as of late yesterday (the 5th).
Has something happened since then?
With this version I observe:
-- Middle marker audio is strongly shifted.
-- ATIS
Am Freitag 06 Juli 2007 19:27 schrieb John Denker:
> It's been ten days now with no CVS-commit nor even any
> discussion of a CVS-commit AFAICT.
That's definitely not true (generally spoken). Which branch are you using?
Thomas
--
PhD Student, Dept. Animal Physiology, HU Berlin
Tel +49 30 2093 61
On 07/06/2007 01:08 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> These bugs actually have been worked out already.
Excellent!
> The necessary fixes have
> been made and with Maik's last patch (which was posted to the dev list, I'm
> pretty sure) I'm not aware of any significant problems. Maybe you could try
>
On Friday 06 July 2007 18:03, John Denker wrote:
> 1) Where I'm coming from: Different people are interested in different
> parts of FlightGear. I consider it a strength of the project that it
> can be put to disparate purposes.
I'm sure we all agree about that, anyway.
> 1a) As for me pe
1) Where I'm coming from: Different people are interested in different
parts of FlightGear. I consider it a strength of the project that it
can be put to disparate purposes.
1a) As for me personally, and for more than a few others, there is
interest in using it as a complex-aircraft pro
Hello Martin,
just didn't got the point of my posting.
Maik
Martin Spott schrieb am 27.06.2007 01:14:
> Maik Justus wrote:
>
>
>> [...] But I only will start to work
>> on that patch if there is a chance to get it into cvs. Therefore I will
>> wait, if the "windows" patch will be accepted.
* Maik Justus -- Wednesday 27 June 2007:
> This patch has some debug code and is not intended to go into cvs.
OK, thanks. I'll apply here and test if it doesn't break sound
on Linux. MS Windows users, please test if it fixes the Doppler
bug for you. Choose a nice aircraft, take off, switch to Fly-
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:14:08 + (UTC)
Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maik Justus wrote:
>
> > [...] But I only will start to work
> > on that patch if there is a chance to get it into cvs. Therefore I will
> > wait, if the "windows" patch will be accepted.
>
> The original author
Maik Justus wrote:
> [...] But I only will start to work
> on that patch if there is a chance to get it into cvs. Therefore I will
> wait, if the "windows" patch will be accepted.
The original author of the OpenAL publicly objects implementing things
in FlightGear that OpenAL usually should tak
Hi Jon,
thanks for pointing that out. And thanks to you and AJ for the debugging
on IRC.
Here is a patch (the same you already got via EMail (ok, one debug
message is different)), which could fix it. If the bug is still present,
please comment out line 56 (#define USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER should wo
With a cvs build checked out about half an hour ago I've just noticed
something very strange - with external views the doppler shift appears
to be related to the view angle rather than the approach speed. If you
select the chase view then you'll find that the sound is extremely slow
from behind
The doppler effect in FG doesn't work yet according to the mailing lists from
2004 it was added by Curt and verified to be working by various people.
Does anybody know where or when we lost this cool feature?
Also when in tower view you get a very weird stereo effect even though the
view is cent
48 matches
Mail list logo
