[Flightgear-devel] Re: Segfault starting up
* Curtis L. Olson -- Friday 25 July 2003 04:02: Try the airport code in all caps ... this used to be more robust to non-matching codes, not sure what changed but we should probably look into it. This is fixed in CVS. Unfortunately, fgfs ignores lower case icao codes now, rather than accept them. But at least it doesn't crash any more. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Andrei Barbu
I really think we should have some more screenshots. Looks great btw. Curtis L. Olson wrote: Hi, Andrei has kindly offered to do a bit of web page redesign for the FlightGear project. The included message has a link to his proposed changes for the front page. What do people think? The sample is up at geocities so ignore the advertising; that of course is not part of the redesign. :-) Subject: Website updated From: Andrei Barbu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:03:12 -0700 (PDT) To: "Curtis L. Olson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, I upgraded the website so I've you've seen it until now look at it again. I upgraded the menu system and made headings, should make everything look much nicer and leaner. I also explained what's going on with the site, and added a copyright at the bottom. http://www.geocities.com/a_barbu2/index.htm Andrei __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
Jim Wilson writes: So the examiner's admonishment was unfounded? I take it you didn't argue with him on this point :-) Well, I didn't understand his point during the flight. I was leaned out for cruise in the simulated cross country, and he said we had better try the carb heat and flipped it on -- I thought that he was worried that the engine was running rough (different people have different perceptions), so I turned, smiled, explained that Pipers don't usually have a problem with carb ice, and enriched the mixture a bit instead to make the engine as smooth as possible. Big mistake, but fortunately it cost me only a tongue lashing afterwards. I take it with the Piper there's some warning before it's too late. We hope... or will you be thinking about this email some snowy night in March with engine out and 5000ft of air below? Carb ice is always a concern, and it certainly won't hurt to check once in a while. In fact, carb heat can even smooth out the distribution in a carbureted engine, allowing one to run further lean of peak without roughness. Note that it's not the snowy night that catches people with carb ice, but the humid, hot summer day -- that's when the air holds the most moisture. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Andrei Barbu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Netscape 4.7x is not W3C compilant And that's not just because it's old -- the Netscape people were very cavalier about W3C and IETF specs even at the time. I think that they were hoping to keep up a barrier to entry for MSIE by remaining slightly incompatible (when they still had 70% of the market and everyone had to design pages to work in their browser) -- Microsoft should take note and see how well that strategy worked for their competition before the next time they try it themselves. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:40:12 -0500 Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So should I add a claim to our home page that 100% of people using FlightGear as part of their IFR training have passed their test on the first try? Or let's see we could flip that around and say if you are smart enough to pass your IFR test on the first try, you will know enough to use FlightGear as part of your training. :-) Just so long as you don't expect us all the get an IFR rating before running FG! :-) Hell, I flew a Pakistan Airlines 747 last night without even a PPL. This isn't an excuse for not doing better docs, but there is no reason why we shouldn't point to unsimulated-flying manuals - I use Trevor Thom's seven volume set - it's helped my sim-flying enormously. I think having real aviators, like the now-well-rated Mr Megginson, on the team is one of the things that makes FG fun, and these lists so entertaining. Blessings, Richard. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Realism
Here's a few questions (btw the topic is the best word I could think of). Stopping distances - I wondered if we were modelling these correctly on any aircraft - specifically on the larger ones such as the b52 and 747. Fuel Burn - I think someone mentioned this once (and probably it was modelled) Does the t/o weight for the b52 include a full payload or not. Further, is there a way to 'drop' the bombs - a simulated change in cg and reduction of mass (and trim condition) depending on what I drop/which bays are emptied. Finally regarding the b52 I think someone once told me that in order to takeoff with a full payload it was necessary to have nearly no fuel on board so much so that you burn a bit of oil and then immediately refuel once airborne. Is the dc3 realistic - I know the tail wheel is locked on takeoff, but I have to keep it glued to the runway before I gain suitable speed for t/o and just nudge the stick fwd and then the plane leaps into the air. I've not yet been on a dc3 when flying (although they seem to come for as little $12000 now - RAeS Journal ex hijacked) but I can't imagine a plane as successful as that is so lacking in stability even if it is a tail dragger. Chris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Andrei Barbu
First let me say how good it looks, Now I need to ask, how easy is this to maintain - I'm all in favour of using some modern approach to web design. Ideally we would want to make the life of the admin (Curt) easier not harder. On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:53, David Megginson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Netscape 4.7x is not W3C compilant And that's not just because it's old -- the Netscape people were very cavalier about W3C and IETF specs even at the time. I think that they were hoping to keep up a barrier to entry for MSIE by remaining slightly incompatible (when they still had 70% of the market and everyone had to design pages to work in their browser) -- Microsoft should take note and see how well that strategy worked for their competition before the next time they try it themselves. All the best, David -- Christopher S Horler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim Wilson writes: So the examiner's admonishment was unfounded? I take it you didn't argue with him on this point :-) Well, I didn't understand his point during the flight. I was leaned out for cruise in the simulated cross country, and he said we had better try the carb heat and flipped it on -- I thought that he was worried that the engine was running rough (different people have different perceptions), so I turned, smiled, explained that Pipers don't usually have a problem with carb ice, and enriched the mixture a bit instead to make the engine as smooth as possible. Big mistake, but fortunately it cost me only a tongue lashing afterwards. I take it with the Piper there's some warning before it's too late. We hope... or will you be thinking about this email some snowy night in March with engine out and 5000ft of air below? Carb ice is always a concern, and it certainly won't hurt to check once in a while. In fact, carb heat can even smooth out the distribution in a carbureted engine, allowing one to run further lean of peak without roughness. Note that it's not the snowy night that catches people with carb ice, but the humid, hot summer day -- that's when the air holds the most moisture. Oh right, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, and the story. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Andrei Barbu
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: And that's not just because it's old -- the Netscape people were very cavalier about W3C and IETF specs even at the time. I think that they were hoping to keep up a barrier to entry for MSIE by remaining slightly incompatible (when they still had 70% of the market and everyone had to design pages to work in their browser) -- Microsoft should take note and see how well that strategy worked for their competition before the next time they try it themselves. And note that the reverse strategy might be working for Netscape/Mozilla project now. I mean, why download another browser if the one that came with your system is perfectly fine? Well there's at least one reason... Currently I'm designing a fairly involved intranet application and basically have made the decision to design to standards and use the Mozilla browser as a favored client rather than working around the IE6 shortcomings. For internet it is still the same old lowest common denominator approach, but in house is a different story. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Website, Featuer page
Could someone write a feature list with the best of FlightGear, I can think of a few, but the page should have more highlights. Something like 10-15 points? Thanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
Christopher S Horler writes: Stopping distances - I wondered if we were modelling these correctly on any aircraft - specifically on the larger ones such as the b52 and 747. For the big aircraft, a lot of that has to do with reverse thrust, spoilers, and so on, not to mention a very precise approach speed control. Is the dc3 realistic - I know the tail wheel is locked on takeoff, but I have to keep it glued to the runway before I gain suitable speed for t/o and just nudge the stick fwd and then the plane leaps into the air. I've not yet been on a dc3 when flying (although they seem to come for as little $12000 now - RAeS Journal ex hijacked) but I can't imagine a plane as successful as that is so lacking in stability even if it is a tail dragger. How do you do manage with the J3 Cub? I also find the DC-3 a little harder to control on takeoff, and am considering increasing the rudder effectivity a bit, but as far as I know, *all* taildraggers are naturally unstable on the ground when the tailwheel pops up (i.e. any turn automatically increases unless corrected) -- that's what makes them so much fun. I don't have any real tailwheel experience, but with a bit of practice, I can now keep the FlightGear J3 right on the centreline as long as I want up on two wheels, and I can keep the DC-3 on two wheels with a little swerving left and right of centre. You just have to keep working at it. On a related note, Canada doesn't have a formal tailwheel endorsement like the U.S., but I might go and do 5-10 hours of tailwheel training in a few months just for fun, when I've had time to enjoy my instrument rating a bit, especially since I'd get to do it in a genuine DHC-1 Chipmunk (used as a trainer for Spitfire pilots right after WW II): http://www.entrix.co.uk/pionair/chiprri.html The DHC-1 Chipmunk was the first of the famous DeHavilland Canada flying mammals designed and built in Toronto (before Montreal-based Bombardier bought out DeHavilland Canada). It was followed by the DHC-2 Beaver, the DHC-3 Otter, the DHC-4 Caribou, the DHC-5 Buffalo, and the DHC-6 Twin Otter. After that, they just started using the boring DASH-7 and DASH-8 names. One of my goals is to get all eight of those planes into FlightGear. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, David Megginson wrote: instrument rating a bit, especially since I'd get to do it in a genuine DHC-1 Chipmunk (used as a trainer for Spitfire pilots right after WW II): http://www.entrix.co.uk/pionair/chiprri.html The DHC-1 Chipmunk was the first of the famous DeHavilland Canada flying mammals designed and built in Toronto (before Montreal-based Bombardier bought out DeHavilland Canada). It was followed by the Yay! Now you're talking about a proper aircraft :-) There'll be an awful lot of people whose into to light aircraft was thanks to the Air Training Corps, in a Chippy. I've spent about 30 hours in them and thoroughly enjoyed every minute. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:37:29 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: since I'd get to do it in a genuine DHC-1 Chipmunk Wonderful aeroplane! I flew one (pilot under instruction) in the late '60's. Do it, just for the contrast. Then an FG model perhaps? Richard. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Andrei Barbu
On Friday 25 July 2003 07:45, Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: And that's not just because it's old -- the Netscape people were very cavalier about W3C and IETF specs even at the time. I think that they were hoping to keep up a barrier to entry for MSIE by remaining slightly incompatible (when they still had 70% of the market and everyone had to design pages to work in their browser) -- Microsoft should take note and see how well that strategy worked for their competition before the next time they try it themselves. And note that the reverse strategy might be working for Netscape/Mozilla project now. I mean, why download another browser if the one that came with your system is perfectly fine? Well there's at least one reason... Currently I'm designing a fairly involved intranet application and basically have made the decision to design to standards and use the Mozilla browser as a favored client rather than working around the IE6 shortcomings. For internet it is still the same old lowest common denominator approach, but in house is a different story. Best, Jim From what I've read (a zdnet article I believe).. MS is not going to release another stand-alone browser but instead only include it with their OS. So, from the article, it appears that when folks, like online banking for instance, writes their web apps and pages for IE, their users will ether have to upgrade their systems or not be able to access their online banking, for example. But then again, who knows what ms will actually do in the future :) WillyB ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
Christopher S Horler wrote: Fuel Burn - I think someone mentioned this once Yes, this is definitely messed up (for JSBSim at least. I have not investigated any of the others). Some issues I've found are: the density of the fuel is wrong, somewhere along the line gallons are passed to a method which expects pounds, and the specific fuel consumption resulting from the power calulation is a little bit off. I added an adjustable parameter in the JSBSim engine file for that. Let me see if I can find some code to paste here (a diff will be rather meaningless by now)... // From src/FDM/JSBSim/FGPiston.cpp: // in FGPistion() // init default fuel-flow adjustment ff_adjustment(0.92), // get an (optional) adjustment value from the config else if (token == FF_SCALAR) *Eng_cfg ff_adjustment; // in doAirFlow() // the '2' below is supposed to be 'Cycles' // double swept_volume = (displacement_SI * (RPM/60)) / 2; double swept_volume = (displacement_SI * (RPM/60)) / Cycles; // in doFuelFlow() // see ff_adjustment declaration above. m_dot_fuel = m_dot_air / sr_fuel * equivalence_ratio *ff_adjustment; // keeping gph, but FGTank knows about fuel in pounds, not gals // so adding _pph for ConsumeFuel() FuelFlow_pph = m_dot_fuel * 3600// seconds to hours * 2.2046; // kg to lb // changed 'kerosine' to 'av-gas' (6.6 to 6.0) // eventually we'll want to config this so that we // can burn deisel, alcohol or hydrogen (for example). FuelFlow_gph = FuelFlow_pph / 6.0; // lb to gal_us of av-gas // in CalcFuelNeed() // FGTank knows about pounds, not gallons return FuelFlow_pph / 3600 * State-Getdt() * Propulsion-GetRate(); Kris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
On Friday 25 July 2003 13:48, Christopher S Horler wrote: Here's a few questions (btw the topic is the best word I could think of). Stopping distances - I wondered if we were modelling these correctly on any aircraft - specifically on the larger ones such as the b52 and 747. Fuel Burn - I think someone mentioned this once (and probably it was modelled) Does the t/o weight for the b52 include a full payload or not. Further, is there a way to 'drop' the bombs - a simulated change in cg and reduction of mass (and trim condition) depending on what I drop/which bays are emptied. Finally regarding the b52 I think someone once told me that in order to takeoff with a full payload it was necessary to have nearly no fuel on board so much so that you burn a bit of oil and then immediately refuel once airborne. Chris The b52 doesn't have a weapon load but it does have a full fuel load and from what I was able to figure out from the various bits of diverse info I found, it's actually heavier than the normal take-off weight with a full weapon load. I think it's actually at the max take-off weight for the F model, which, as I said, is less than the full weapon load take-off weight. Also, many of the values had to be deduced from the various numbers I found for different conditions e.g. max take-off weights, max weapon loads, max fuel capacity etc. so while they're going to be in the right ball-park, they're probably not going to be really accurate. I'm pretty sure that the info you had about not taking off with a full fuel and weapon load is correct although I don't know how much fuel is carried for take-offs. I doubt the tanks are nealy empty but a top up after take-off is standard practice for many mil jets that carry a heavy weapon load. Another issue with the YASim b52 is that there's no water injection so it's even more underpowered at take-off than it should be. I think that it's about the right weight for a fully fuelled 'F' model but at the eqivilent take-off power of a 'B/C' model (with WI). I've been looking into using re-heat to simulate water injection but I've not got anything I'm happy with yet. In some ways it's been quite a difficult fdm to work on - I found that the take-off distances to clear a 50ft obstacle are around 10,000ft, which means a slow sluggish take-off, but then the rate of climb should be about 6000fpm. Then there's a max speed limit at low level of around 350 kts, which has to be combined with a high alt perfomance of 554kt @ 21,000ft and 495kt @ 46,500ft and I haven't managed that yet - I've not been able to sustain flight much above 36,000ft I've really concentrated on trying to get the take-off and landing characteristics right - the long low climb out and the flat shallow approaches. It should be remembered too, that unless you do a few hours of flying in it, or reduce the fuel load to start with, you'll probably be landing overweight - even though it can't get as high as it should, you'll be able to fly a very long way in it before running out of fuel. If you come across any hard info on these a/c I'd be pleased to try to roll it in, or you could have a go yourself - I'm not exactly an expert in this field and would be delighted if someone else can improve it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Website, mentaining
It should be super-easy It's using css 2 as the layout manager. Making sweeping changes to the site can be done from 1 central file, default.css. H1-3 have been changed to make them look nice on the site, so much of the code used right now on the current website should be easily adaptable. The site itself requires nothing special, img has been changed so it looks better. It should actually be much easier to mentain then a simple site. Since most things don't need special arguments, like h1. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
Richard A Downing FBCS writes: Wonderful aeroplane! I flew one (pilot under instruction) in the late '60's. Do it, just for the contrast. Then an FG model perhaps? I'm planning to do it, but I do want to take some time just to gloat over my instrument rating first. I did my first IFR flight as a rated pilot today, though (unfortunately) it was in good VMC. I took my ten-year-old daughter along, and I can say that it's much harder to stay in tolerances, even in VMC, with distractions on board. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
Jon Stockill writes: Yay! Now you're talking about a proper aircraft :-) I think that Princes Charles and Andrew both did their first solos in Chipmunks, but I'd have to double-check. There'll be an awful lot of people whose into to light aircraft was thanks to the Air Training Corps, in a Chippy. I've spent about 30 hours in them and thoroughly enjoyed every minute. Tell me more about how they handle -- I understand that they're light on the controls. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Speed question?
It's been my personal experience on a GeForce GO based laptop that 16bpp ran faster and used less texture ram the 24bpp. Ok, so the framerate is higher in 16 bit and there aren't any weird assumptions? (as I said, I judged by the eye, so obviously it was the deprivation of colours that blended my mind:)) FlightGear isn't set up to change your display resolution. It operates on the presumption that the owner of the machine will set the desired resolution and it will run on whatever it is given. So, if I want to run FlightGear in 800x600, I should restart my X in 800x600 resolution and run FlightGear then (that's a bit of a problem because there are some issues with my GF2MX PCI card and it takes about 4 minutes of frozen, blank computer when starting X, but I'll survive:)) You could remove the Textures.high subdirectory. My intension is that the textures in the regular Textures subdirectory should stay within the 256x256 limit although I've had to go in and fix a few things that crept through on occasion. :-) So, all the textures are doubled if I understand, ones in highres and ones in 256*256. What about the specific terrain/model/airport textures? Are these all included here? Yes, especially because you are running on a relatively slower machine, you will probably find yourself geometry limited. In other words the amount of geometry that get's rendered per frame will be the dominant factor in determining frame rate. Increasing FOV increases the amount of geometry (i.e. stuff) that get's drawn per frame. Is there any way you can see in the game the currnet FOV in radians or degrees? Yes, this is the same reason as for 7). By reducing visibility, you are reducing the amount of scenery the system needs to draw. That's good ... also, there is higher density terrain data for the USA (well now all of the western hemisphere but we've only used it for the USA to date) that means that there is often a higher triangle density in USA areas versus non-USA areas. I wonder, is it possible to me manually edit, shape and tile the terrain for Slovenia? I know, we were doing this in Falcon for Balkans theatre ... many tilers were needed:), but in the end it looked very neat as every one was responsible for his own part of the peninsula and we really got these various styles of look in the end then. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:20:11 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard A Downing FBCS writes: Wonderful aeroplane! I flew one (pilot under instruction) in the late '60's. Do it, just for the contrast. Then an FG model perhaps? I'm planning to do it, but I do want to take some time just to gloat over my instrument rating first. I did my first IFR flight as a rated pilot today, though (unfortunately) it was in good VMC. I took my ten-year-old daughter along, and I can say that it's much harder to stay in tolerances, even in VMC, with distractions on board. Another Chippy advantage then, you can't see what's happening in the back seat! With a 10 year old this may be a grave disadvantage I suspect. I think you are right to enjoy the new freedom. But when you are ready for a taildragger, you can't go wrong with a Chipmunk, thousands of RAF (and RCAF) pilots started on it. The controls, if remember correctly, are light, but the aeroplane has great penetration, as if it were a heavier machine. A stick, not a yoke, of course, and nice big trim wheels. Something to look forward to then. Cheers, Richard. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Speed question?
On Friday 25 July 2003 21:56, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I have PII 333 Mhz with GF2MX 32MB on PCI and 256 MB of SDRAM. I have Abit LX something motherboard and SBAWE64 on ISA (I'm about to buy Live! in the next few days). I would like to run FGFS smoothly (that's about 15-20 FPS) on GNU/Debian Linux unstable and using the latest nVidia Linux drivers. By using the latest CVS version I noticed the following things: 1) In mode 24 bpp, FlightGear ran faster than in 16 bpp (I also switched the Xfree depth to 24 and 16 then). Is there any known explanation (I haven't made benchmark, but judging by the eye I thought it was faster) for this. I think it's the textures fault as they are in 32 bit palette maybe? (including alpha channel) And FlightGear needs to calculate approximates to 24 output palette then? I'm using Debian unstable too - have you tried including the line DefaultFbBpp32 in your XF86Config-4 for 24 bpp mode? This will be in the Screen section and you can add it below the DefaultDepth24 entry. Make sure you have a back-up copy of XF86Config-4 before you change it and also that you'll be able to re-instate it from the console if it goes badly wrong and X won't load. It might, or might not make a difference. I have to run FG in 16bpp on my MGA G550 32MB to get decent frame rates. 2) The resolution I had on my X was 1024x768 all the time and I wanted to run FlightGear in 800x600, but had no luck. There was a sign when starting up that it is about to run in 800x600 mode, but when switching to fullscreen, the X mode still stayed 1024x768. I have the possible resolution set in xfree86 config file and ctrl+alt++/- work fine and others applications do change the resolution as well. Is there any parameter to set FlightGear to change the system resolution and runs in that in fullscreen? (I searched for man pages, but haven't found anything) I know it worked in Windows some days. As Curt says, FG won't change your screen resolution. I run FG at 1280x960 and then CTRL+ALT+'+' a couple of times to change the X display res down to match the window. I've not had any problems re-sizing the window when FG is running. 3) --disable-textures parameter is not working. 4) Any way to limit the texture size to at most 256*256 or 512*512 pixels, because when starting up, the limit of 2048*2048 is set AFAIK. As Curt says, delete the Textures.high directory - sadly, that's what I have to :( 5) Around the default KFSO, the framerate is way slower than in e.g. Slovenia. Is there any way to fix that (I know there are way more objects, but still I think it should be faster than 6 FPS when looking to the city or airfield) Is that fps in cockpit view or chase view? I get that sort of fps in chase view at KSFO too, but if in chase view there's also the a/c texture overhead as well. KSFO is pretty heavy especially if you've still got the high res textures. 6) I tried to disable clouds (and sky blending? Is this the same thing because when sky blending is off, there are no clouds) and FPS increased from KSFO 5 FPS to about 9, 10 FPS. 7) By increasing FOV, the framerate decreases drasticly. I would really like to enjoy in a bit wider FOV when playing, but it really hits the FPS. Is this normal? 8) By decreasing visibility, the framerate increases drasticly. I like that:) 9) LJLJ airfield (Slovenia) was more or less playable (about 15 FPS average) with turned clouds on. 10) Sunsets look really nice!:) - Matevz The sunsets are lovely - I do lots of flying at dusk just because of them. Big thanks for your effort Erik. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
Stopping distances - I wondered if we were modelling these correctly on any aircraft - specifically on the larger ones such as the b52 and 747. In JSBSim we have reverse thrust and spoilers available. We don't have anti-skid, autobrakes or autospoilers AFAIK. Fuel Burn - I think someone mentioned this once (and probably it was modelled) I believe YaSim uses a fixed 0.8 TSFC. In JSBSim you can specify the TSFC. The manufacturer's reported TSFC value is usually the cruise value, meaning about mach 0.8 and thirty-something thousand feet. It actually varies a little based on altitude and speed, but this is not modeled. Dave Culp -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Speed question?
Matevz Jekovec writes: So, if I want to run FlightGear in 800x600, I should restart my X in 800x600 resolution and run FlightGear then (that's a bit of a problem because there are some issues with my GF2MX PCI card and it takes about 4 minutes of frozen, blank computer when starting X, but I'll survive:)) Or, alternatively 1. Temporarily change your resolution using something like ALT NUM- and ALT NUM+ (if you're in XFree86). 2. Run FlightGear in a window instead of fullscreen. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Speed question?
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 1) In mode 24 bpp, FlightGear ran faster than in 16 bpp (I also switched the Xfree depth to 24 and 16 then). Is there any known explanation (I haven't made benchmark, but judging by the eye I thought it was faster) for this. I think it's the textures fault as they are in 32 bit palette maybe? (including alpha channel) And FlightGear needs to calculate approximates to 24 output palette then? I wonder where the 16 bit dithering overhead comes in? Might this become a CPU speed (as opposed to interface) issue if there was a lot of texture swapping going on? I would think that any dithering would be cached...but... Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Realism
David Meggison wrote: I also find the DC-3 a little harder to control on takeoff, and am considering increasing the rudder effectivity a bit, but as far as I know, *all* taildraggers are naturally unstable on the ground when the tailwheel pops up (i.e. any turn automatically increases unless corrected) -- that's what makes them so much fun. You can make the ground handling much better (and probably more realistic) for the dc3 by increasing the effectivness of hstab to 3.5 and/or adjusting the CG even more (I find making the mass -2500 a good number). The real stability killer is that you can't very easily get up on the main gear w/o inducing a bouncing problem. With either or both of the above changes, the dc3 is only a little harder to keep down the center line even with the tail gear unlocked. Any taildragger will ground loop if you allow it to get much yaw on the ground. This is because on the ground, the center of drag is in front of the center of gravity. I really think that the problem is the CG location, but the yasim FDM does not converge due to insufficient elevator trim if you move the CG any more. I do enjoy the taildraggers! Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Speed question?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:32:07 +0200, Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So, if I want to run FlightGear in 800x600, I should restart my X in 800x600 resolution and run FlightGear then (that's a bit of a problem because there are some issues with my GF2MX PCI card and it takes about 4 minutes of frozen, blank computer when starting X, but I'll survive:)) ..have you tried to fire up _another_ X on say ':1'? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Actual IMC affects different people in different ways -- some pilots absolutely hate it (the way people hate hornets or fingernails on a chalkboard), some don't mind it in small doses, some will fly a whole trip IMC as long as they have an autopilot, and some don't see any big deal in hand-flying IMC. I'll see which category I fall into when I have more real (non-training) experience, but so far, I feel very comfortable in actual. I spoke with Doug, my boss, about this for a few minutes today. Although he didn't really admit it, I'd say he might fall into the small doses category. Basically he started out by saying that he didn't feel that pilots that are flying one trip a week should be in IMC. He felt that to fly near minimums you needed to be flying on a daily basis, even though you can maintain certification without doing anything like that. Basically he looks for high ceilings (2500ft or higher) that are easy to break through. Apparently when he first got his rating he flew in IMC quite often, and then got a bad weather report that resulted in unexpected icing conditions and a rather frightening flight. So part of it is he no longer trusts the reports. He has some meterological background anyway and apparently he's dealt with this by taking the reports, looking at the numbers and patterns and making his own judgements. It is interesting hearing different takes on this. My feeling is that when I get my license it'll be imperitive to get the instrument rating...especially the way the weather in Maine is. But even as a passenger in the right hand seat I can see I'm more comfortable seeing the ground...or even with clouds below than actually being right in it. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Flight Test: Passed
Jim Wilson writes: It is interesting hearing different takes on this. My feeling is that when I get my license it'll be imperitive to get the instrument rating...especially the way the weather in Maine is. But even as a passenger in the right hand seat I can see I'm more comfortable seeing the ground...or even with clouds below than actually being right in it. Right. The IFR rating won't let you fly any time you want, but it will provide you with many more opportunities -- for example, a low overcast in the morning won't keep you grounded, and a 2000 ft cumulostratus ceiling won't tempt you to scud run. You still won't want to fly in actual when there's a chance of embedded TCU or CB, unless you have a Strikefinder or Stormscope on board -- I'd fly in that case only if I were assured of being well above the cloudtops, so that I could see any exciting stuff coming. And then there's icing. The worst time for icing around here, at the altitudes I can fly, will be early spring and late fall. In summer, the freezing level is usually above my service ceiling, and in winter, the air tends to be too cold to hold anything but ice crystals. It's that -10 to +1 Celsius band that's especially scary, and that's when I really don't want to spend much time in cloud or precip (that's also why the Outside Air Temperature [OAT] gauge is such an important instrument, and one that we need to add to our FlightGear panels). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
