On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:05:45 -0400, David wrote in message
:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Peter Brown
> wrote:
>
> > In terms of simplicity, I would like to offer a suggestion of using
> > one (or more) of the parking positions at airports with (current)
> > parking positions. If the user
On 7 Apr 2010, at 03:36, Ron Jensen wrote:
> I like the idea of using some standardized properties
> under /sim/realism/ and retrofitting all aircraft to respect start-dark
> or something similar.
>
> I am also firmly against turning on aircraft to aircraft collisions.
Aircraft-aircraft collisi
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 00:06 +0100, James Turner wrote:
> I've started creating some properties under /sim/realism (mostly
> booleans for the moment), with the expectation that at some point we
> can create a GUI, and also use some Nasal to batch-configure the
> individual settings for different app
On 04/06/2010 06:05 PM, David Megginson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Peter Brown
> wrote:
>
>
>> In terms of simplicity, I would like to offer a suggestion of using one (or
>> more) of the parking positions at airports with (current) parking positions.
>> If the user spawns at
On Apr 6, 2010, at 8:05 PM, David Megginson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Peter Brown
> wrote:
>
>> In terms of simplicity, I would like to offer a suggestion of using one (or
>> more) of the parking positions at airports with (current) parking positions.
>> If the user spawns at
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Peter Brown wrote:
> In terms of simplicity, I would like to offer a suggestion of using one (or
> more) of the parking positions at airports with (current) parking positions.
> If the user spawns at an airport without any preset parking positions, a
> position
On 7 Apr 2010, at 00:27, David Megginson wrote:
> OK, here's my suggestion: *all* aircraft start with the runway
> threshold with the engine idling, unless the user has overridden that.
> Engine on/off is a decision that it doesn't make sense leaving to
> individual aircraft designers, since it's
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM, David Megginson wrote:
> OK, here's my suggestion: *all* aircraft start with the runway
> threshold with the engine idling, unless the user has overridden that.
> Engine on/off is a decision that it doesn't make sense leaving to
> individual aircraft designers, sin
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:27 PM, David Megginson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, James Turner wrote:
>
>> My concern is touching the dreaded position init code, which is already
>> baroque and complex. There's also the question of guessing a parking
>> position when we don't have parking
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:06 PM, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 20:35, Martin Spott wrote:
>
>>> Except in the case of an accident or mechanical failure, you would
>>> *never* be sitting on the threshold with your engine off, especially
>>> at a big airport like KSFO (unless you wanted to
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, James Turner wrote:
> My concern is touching the dreaded position init code, which is already
> baroque and complex. There's also the question of guessing a parking position
> when we don't have parking stand data - eg picking a point some distance away
> from t
On 6 Apr 2010, at 20:35, Martin Spott wrote:
>> Except in the case of an accident or mechanical failure, you would
>> *never* be sitting on the threshold with your engine off, especially
>> at a big airport like KSFO (unless you wanted to give your plane and
>> yourself a 747-sized colon exam).
David Megginson wrote:
> 1. it's normal to have a plane sitting on the runway threshold with
> the engine idling
> 2. it's normal to have a plane sitting in a parking spot on the apron
> with the engine off
> 3. it's *not* normal to have a plane sitting on the runway threshold
> with the engine of
13 matches
Mail list logo
