Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: John Check writes: As for me I'd like to see 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot explosion textures) Hmm, I'm not sure I see a reason for this one. I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser. People do ask for it. From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above). In fact, the more full the tanks, the *less* likely an explosion, since there's less oxygen to help the fuel ignite. Crashed planes are often salvaged and rebuilt, even. Dang, and I was just thinking about how I might hook my flame thrower to the usb port for added realism! Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
Yep and some of the most important code ever written is designed for fun...and to impress the user. It would be great to have something more interesting than a frozen screen. Realism is not a requirement. Something creative and/or funny would be good. A USB Flame-thrower would be a pretty severe minimum hardware requirement, so something simpler than that would be better. Maybe if you hit a building it should just pop up a photo of 70 virgins in paradise? oops sorry ...bad joke ;-) Best, Jim SHouldn't that be 70 *Virginians*? :) g. -- I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
On 19 Feb 2002 15:13:13 -0800, Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 1014160393.3607.7.camel@raptor: On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 15:48, Gene Buckle wrote: Yep and some of the most important code ever written is designed for fun...and to impress the user. It would be great to have something more interesting than a frozen screen. Realism is not a requirement. Something creative and/or funny would be good. A USB Flame-thrower would be a pretty severe minimum hardware requirement, so something simpler than that would be better. Maybe if you hit a building it should just pop up a photo of 70 virgins in paradise? oops sorry ...bad joke ;-) Best, Jim SHouldn't that be 70 *Virginians*? :) Oops, worse joke. ;-) ..77 virgins for us muslims, you christians and jews will have to do with just one, of whats left. ;-) ..have 3 usb-capable boxes and a MW size coal fired flame thrower, will travel. ;-) I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) 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] FlightGear Priorities
- Original Message - From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities Roman Grigoriev wrote: Hi! Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear release and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0? I would like to see a 0.8.0 release (moslty bugfixes and fgat support only). This should be the most reliable release of the past five years. :-) There is no reason to prevent non-code changes though. The reason is that you can see what happening in real life if you manage the plane wrong way or when you land with high speed. We have good FDM to calculate conditions of crash to inplement this As for me I'd like to see 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot explosion textures) Hmm, I'm not sure I see a reason for this one. 2)runway lights support 3)aircraft landing lights 4)trees houses and various objects (Have objects and textures) 5) terrain with LODs 6) realisitc clouds I understand that it can be diffuluct to implement. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
On Monday 18 February 2002 04:33 am, you wrote: Roman Grigoriev wrote: Hi! Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear release and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0? I would like to see a 0.8.0 release (moslty bugfixes and fgat support only). This should be the most reliable release of the past five years. :-) There is no reason to prevent non-code changes though. As for me I'd like to see 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot explosion textures) Hmm, I'm not sure I see a reason for this one. I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser. People do ask for it. 2)runway lights support This should be #1 3)aircraft landing lights 4)trees houses and various objects (Have objects and textures) 5) terrain with LODs 6) realisitc clouds I understand that it can be diffuluct to implement. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser. People do ask for it. From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above). The fire (non-ball) does happen occasionally, but is usually delayed with respect to the accident because it takes time for fuel to leak, evaporate and find something hot to get ignited by. Plenty of time to leave the area, but disappointing for simulation users who want an impressive crash effect. I see nothing wrong with a fireball feature ... a PLIB sequenced 3D animation that gets loaded from a file (if requested by config option) and triggered to be played by the rising edge of the crash flag. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
On Monday 18 February 2002 01:44 pm, you wrote: John Check writes: As for me I'd like to see 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot explosion textures) Hmm, I'm not sure I see a reason for this one. I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser. People do ask for it. From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above). In fact, the more full the tanks, the *less* likely an explosion, since there's less oxygen to help the fuel ignite. Crashed planes are often salvaged and rebuilt, even. Oh yeah, cars don't usually explode either, except on TV shows and movies. And they do it for entertainment value. For most people FGFS is classified as a game. That's right up there with offensive capability on the top 10 list at demos . Besides, we can always have a switch to turn it off. TTYL John ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
Alex Perry wrote: I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser. People do ask for it. From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above). The fire (non-ball) does happen occasionally, but is usually delayed with respect to the accident because it takes time for fuel to leak, evaporate and find something hot to get ignited by. Plenty of time to leave the area, but disappointing for simulation users who want an impressive crash effect. I see nothing wrong with a fireball feature ... a PLIB sequenced 3D animation that gets loaded from a file (if requested by config option) and triggered to be played by the rising edge of the crash flag. Well, the way I see it, The whole time were pretending to be the pilot, and then upto the point we crash all of a sudden we are a bystander? That's not logical. Lets make the screen black ... Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: Alex Perry wrote: I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser. People do ask for it. From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above). The fire (non-ball) does happen occasionally, but is usually delayed with respect to the accident because it takes time for fuel to leak, evaporate and find something hot to get ignited by. Plenty of time to leave the area, but disappointing for simulation users who want an impressive crash effect. I see nothing wrong with a fireball feature ... a PLIB sequenced 3D animation that gets loaded from a file (if requested by config option) and triggered to be played by the rising edge of the crash flag. Well, the way I see it, The whole time were pretending to be the pilot, and then upto the point we crash all of a sudden we are a bystander? That's not logical. Lets make the screen black ... Not necessarily. When you get a strong shock (in the medical sense) it might happen that you see yourself as a bystander. (Happend to me once). CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague Whoever that is/was; (c) by Douglas Adams would have been better... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 02:23:47PM -0500, John Check wrote: And they do it for entertainment value. For most people FGFS is classified as a game. That's right up there with offensive capability on the top 10 list at demos . Besides, we can always have a switch to turn it off. You mean a switch to turn it on - the default should be off. :) -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hofman) [2002.02.18 03:52]: Roman Grigoriev wrote: Hi! Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear release and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0? I would like to see a 0.8.0 release (moslty bugfixes and fgat support only). This should be the most reliable release of the past five years. :-) There is no reason to prevent non-code changes though. I like your idea, Erik. I'd like to see us make a 0.8.0 release soon but with these prerequisites (IMHO of course): - erradication of FPEs - stable gear code in JSBSim - runway lighting so flying at night is worthwhile - overhaul of the IGS manual (I'm working on this) Anything beyond that would be icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. -- Cameron Moore / One cannot guess the real difficulties \ \ of a problem before having solved it. / ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
-- I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. Hey. Are you paying royalties on that quote! ;-) Actually, my quote was that we wanted to be plausible, off-nominal, meaning in outer-envelope flight we wanted to be believable in our modeling. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:30:38 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curt comments: Erik Hofman writes: Alex Perry wrote: I see nothing wrong with a fireball feature ... a PLIB sequenced 3D animation that gets loaded from a file (if requested by config option) and triggered to be played by the rising edge of the crash flag. Well, the way I see it, The whole time were pretending to be the pilot, and then upto the point we crash all of a sudden we are a bystander? That's not logical. Lets make the screen black ... Fade gently to black ... ? Check whether the outside view flag is set. If yes, use the fireball sequence as above. If no, use the afterlife sequence. The latter is from the fgfsbase/Scenery/Afterlife/$religion/ directory and replaces the normally rendered scene. The default None we provide in the base package is simply a black screen (as Erik suggests). The ideal, but probably unobtainable, result would be a excerpt from the accident investigation report: 'The aircraft impacted nose down with an angle of approximately 83 degrees to the vertical and 3 degrees of bank. There was no evidence of rotation about any of the aircraft axes. The airspeed was approximately 250 knots. The state of the spinner, recovered portions of airscrew, and engine crankshaft suggest that the engine was at flight idle with the blades feathered. Upon impact the engine rotated about the lower rear mounts, breaking through the firewall as it did so. Whilst it later detached from these mounts it initially rotated through approximately 130 degrees, reducing the occupancy space in the area of the forward seats as it did so. This is consistent with the severe trauma to the lower limbs and chest suffered by the pilot...' or: 'The aircraft left the sealed surface at a speed of approximately 10 knots. Almost immediately the left main gear entered a drainage ditch and the aircraft tipped forward until halted by the left forward portion of the engine bay. Damage to the airscrew was extensive but the engine retained its integrity as the shock-loading was not great. The occupant had fitted, and was wearing, a four point harness. This restrained him and, whilst shaken, he was released from hospital the next day after being kept in for observation. There was extensive damage to the airscrew, left main undercarriage and the left wingtip. This damage is repairable. Shock loading to the engine, whilst not great and causing no visually evident damage, will require its replacement.' Or maybe just a balance sheet: Replacement Aircraft: X Litigation (Surviving Passengers and Relatives of non-survivors): Y Funeral Costs: Z Lost revenue: P Increased insurance premiums: Q Do we know anyone from the NTSB or AAIB? :) Rick -- David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden in those few words - [Post attack] crew changes would have been based on crew availability.' ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
Rick said: The ideal, but probably unobtainable, result would be a excerpt from the accident investigation report: 'The aircraft impacted nose down with an angle of approximately 83 degrees to the vertical and 3 degrees of bank. There was no evidence of rotation about any of the aircraft axes. The airspeed was approximately 250 knots. The state of the spinner, recovered portions of airscrew, and engine crankshaft suggest that the engine was at flight idle with the blades feathered. Upon impact the engine rotated about the lower rear mounts, breaking through the firewall as it did so. Whilst it later detached from these mounts it initially rotated through approximately 130 degrees, reducing the occupancy space in the area of the forward seats as it did so. This is consistent with the severe trauma to the lower limbs and chest suffered by the pilot...' That doesn't seem too hard. Curt, how about having FGFS write the values of all the properties to a file in a shellscript acceptable fashion ? Given a collection of such files, with names that describe the developers' opinion on survivability, it should be easy (and fun) to generate a scripted message. Once we have it working, we either move the script execution into FGFS or use popen() to call the script and then format the results onto the screen. The NTSB reports follow a pattern laid down by regulation, which is why it wouldn't be too difficult to code up. Given a basic version that mostly works, I suspect the real investigators would offer comments and suggestions. Or maybe just a balance sheet: Replacement Aircraft: X Litigation (Surviving Passengers and Relatives of non-survivors): Y Funeral Costs: Z Lost revenue: P Increased insurance premiums: Q That one is alot easier; the numbers are fairly static. However, most users won't be interested in boring facts so it doesn't meet the underlying entertainment goal. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
Hi! Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear release and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0? As for me I'd like to see 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot explosion textures) 2)runway lights support 3)aircraft landing lights 4)trees houses and various objects (Have objects and textures) 5) terrain with LODs 6) realisitc clouds I understand that it can be diffuluct to implement. Thanx Bye ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
