Hi Durk,
> Please note that there is currently a second release
> candidate available for
> windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for window
> was skipped to stay
> synchronized with the mac release candidates:
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~dtalsma/fgsetup-2.0.0-RC2.exe.torrent
>
> Also note
- "Durk Talsma" a écrit :
> On Tuesday 19 January 2010 11:08:59 pm Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Please note that there is currently a second release candidate
> available
> > for windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for window was skipped
> to
> > stay synchronized with the mac release candida
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 11:08:59 pm Durk Talsma wrote:
> Please note that there is currently a second release candidate available
> for windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for window was skipped to
> stay synchronized with the mac release candidates:
> Also note that Tat has already made t
Hi Heiko,
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 09:58:26 pm Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Final release just after a week testing without official RC-candidates?
> Whooo very brave! :-(
>
Please note that there is currently a second release candidate available for
windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for
Hi,
>>You're right. Our deadline for code and data submissions is tentatively >>set
>>to
>>Sunday, 24 January 2010, 18:00 UTC. That is, I'm planning to start >>tagging
>>the
>>data repository sometime after 7:00PM CET.
Sounds o.k.
>>After that, we're allowing ourselves approximately one week
Hi Gijs,
On Monday 18 January 2010 06:50:03 pm Gijs de Rooy wrote:
>
> PS: Durk, it might be nice to share atleast a week-of-release with us, so
> we know how much time we can work on fixing our stuff before the release...
>
You're right. Our deadline for code and data submissions is tentatively
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:50:03 +0100, Gijs wrote in message
:
> Hi,
>
> > Scott wrote:
> > To help discussion, I've tried to list all the contemporary
> > "airliners" and give some idea of how much functionality (for
> > flying) is implemented.
>
>
> If we look at your status numbers, only the
Hi,
> Scott wrote:
> To help discussion, I've tried to list all the contemporary "airliners" and
> give some
> idea of how much functionality (for flying) is implemented.
If we look at your status numbers, only the Concorde and 777-200ER are
considered
to be fairly completed. As the conco
Hi,
Very well done!
Great comparison!
Regarding 737-900ER: it has a cockpit- but the wrong cockpit.
It uses the cockpit of a 777, wich is completly wrong. I don't think this one
will be a good idea.
Cheers
HHS
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam
The tu154b model isn't GPL and its FDM has to be replaced with another
file(included) to work with CVS. Works fine here.
--
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and brighte
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:01 +, Heiko Schulz wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure it is easy, then the aircrafts has to be:
>
> -under GNU GPL to fit into the Base package (So David Culp's aircrafts can't
> be included)
>
> -in CVS already - the Lockheed Lockheed L1049h (the "h"-version!)is not yet
> i
Peter Brown wrote:
> - Carrier Aircraft : T-2C or F-4N (while the F-14 is carrier capable, Dave
> Culp has some excellent aircraft that don't fit the omnipowerful jet fighter
> category)
Keep in mind that the aircraft from Dave's hangar are not GPL compatible
and hence could not be added to the
Hi Peter,
>>I'll place a vote after some thought, but I'd like to mention there are >>a
>>few aircraft that don't really fit the existing categories, but yet >>are
>>excellent aircraft to represent FG.
>>- Large multi-engine (or historic airliner) : Lockheed L1049h >>Constellation
>>- Seaplane
I'll place a vote after some thought, but I'd like to mention there are a few
aircraft that don't really fit the existing categories, but yet are excellent
aircraft to represent FG.
- Large multi-engine (or historic airliner) : Lockheed L1049h Constellation
- Seaplane : Grumman Goose (there's mo
14 matches
Mail list logo
