Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

oopp. that should read 154-electrical.xml Slainte, Andy just noticed that the 154 is having problems in the 15-electrical.xml file Any importance to anyone?? Im just a sim pilot not a programmer (and the occasional illustration...) :) Slainte, Andy --

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

just noticed that the 154 is having problems in the 15-electrical.xml file Any importance to anyone?? Im just a sim pilot not a programmer (and the occasional illustration...) :) Slainte, Andy Hi Again AJ, yes the 154 is a Yasim A/C and I get this error with it "cant find named so

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

Hi Again AJ, yes the 154 is a Yasim A/C and I get this error with it "cant find named source: Logo Lights Power YASim SOLUTION FAILURE: insufficient elevator to trim for approach" My default airport at that time was Wellington (NZWN), on default runway setting Slainte, Andy Also, ha

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

Hi AJ, it was a fresh install about 2 weeks ago (I formatted both hard drives and re-installed everything, not reccommended if loved ones are around!), and all aircraft were re-downloaded, no older files insstalled as I wanted a clean running system (games and all...). Will try uninstalling

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

On Sunday 30 April 2006 00:07, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > It could be possible that a few straggling aircraft weren't upgraded to > JSBSim v2.0 in time for the v0.9.10 release? It could well be - I tested a few of those mentioned and they worked fine, but of course I'm using cvs. The C172r I belie

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

AJ MacLeod wrote: On Saturday 29 April 2006 23:45, Andrew Gorman wrote: Not so fast everyone... Sorry aboutthis but I have downloaded the latest version of FGFS 9.10 and re-downloaded the aircraft from the FG website and I still get the same error aboput having the wrong CFG file. Hmm

RE: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

> Not so fast everyone... > > Sorry aboutthis but I have downloaded the latest version of FGFS 9.10 and > re-downloaded the aircraft from the FG website and I still get the same > error aboput having the wrong CFG file. > > The aircrafft in question are: > > Boeing 707, B29 > Cessna 172R > Lockheed

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

On Saturday 29 April 2006 23:45, Andrew Gorman wrote: > Not so fast everyone... > Sorry aboutthis but I have downloaded the latest version of FGFS 9.10 and > re-downloaded the aircraft from the FG website and I still get the same > error aboput having the wrong CFG file. Hmm. How about deleting a

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

Not so fast everyone... Sorry aboutthis but I have downloaded the latest version of FGFS 9.10 and re-downloaded the aircraft from the FG website and I still get the same error aboput having the wrong CFG file. The aircrafft in question are: Boeing 707, B29 Cessna 172R Lockheed 1049 Fokker 10

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

On Saturday 29 April 2006 09:52 am, Paul Glanville wrote: > The other day I downloaded and installed FlightGear-0.9.9-0.FC.i386.rpm > on my Fedora Core 4 system. Version 0.9.9 is not compatible with many of the aircraft packages currently available at FlightGear's download page. You need 0.9.10.

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

Am Samstag, den 29.04.2006, 09:52 -0500 schrieb Paul Glanville: > > > I've got a problem with about 1/2 of the aircraft I've downloaded from > > > FlightGear. > > > ... > > > YOU HAVE AN INCOMPATIBLE CFG FILE FOR THIS AIRCRAFT. RESULTS WILL BE > > > UNPREDICTABLE !! Current version needed is: 1.65

Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with downloaded aircraft

> > I've got a problem with about 1/2 of the aircraft I've downloaded from > > FlightGear. > > ... > > YOU HAVE AN INCOMPATIBLE CFG FILE FOR THIS AIRCRAFT. RESULTS WILL BE > > UNPREDICTABLE !! Current version needed is: 1.65 > > You have version: > > OK, I'll be the first to ask. What v