Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( Obviously it depends on how the tower is constructed for FlightGear. For example you can fly through the Sutro tower very well (both releases). Dunno what makes this possible, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Martin Spott wrote: Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( Obviously it depends on how the tower is constructed for FlightGear. For example you can fly through the Sutro tower very well (both releases). Dunno what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 18 July 2003 07:09, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( Obviously it depends on how the tower is constructed for FlightGear. For example you can fly through the Sutro tower very well (both releases). Dunno what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 18 July 2003 6:55 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) That's what I like to hear, plane talk hwaah hwaah hwaaah hwah Do I get double points for that one? I didn't think so ;) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Lee Elliott wrote: On Friday 18 July 2003 07:09, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( Obviously it depends on how the tower is constructed for FlightGear. For example you can fly through the Sutro tower very well (both releases). Dunno what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) Yes, you're right. I meant that their area projected onto an horizontal plane along the vertical is very small, so the HOT algorithm is not finding them. Am I precise enough ? ;-) -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Saturday 19 July 2003 00:41, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Friday 18 July 2003 07:09, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( Obviously it depends on how the tower is constructed for FlightGear. For example you can fly through the Sutro tower very well (both releases). Dunno what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) Yes, you're right. I meant that their area projected onto an horizontal plane along the vertical is very small, so the HOT algorithm is not finding them. Am I precise enough ? ;-) -Fred Sorry - me being flippant. I blame it on the booze - I don't get enough of it so I'm out of practice when I finally do get out for a drink:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:20:38 -0400, John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Friday 18 July 2003 6:55 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) That's what I like to hear, plane talk hwaah hwaah hwaaah hwah Do I get double points for that one? I didn't think so ;) .. ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Friday 18 July 2003 07:09, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote: It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) LeeE Infinitely so. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
How much of real life potential scenery do you thing is copyrighted ? I know one good example of that, it's the Eiffel Tower (in Paris, for those who wouldn't know) by night. It has had a lighting system since new year 2000, and I think you have to pay royalties if you redistribute images of the lit up tower... What can we do ? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Thursday 17 July 2003 18:30, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: How much of real life potential scenery do you thing is copyrighted ? I know one good example of that, it's the Eiffel Tower (in Paris, for those who wouldn't know) by night. It has had a lighting system since new year 2000, and I think you have to pay royalties if you redistribute images of the lit up tower... What can we do ? Hopefully, this will be sucessfully challenged in law. Because of it's size and prominance it must be regarded as part of the scenery, as well as being an artifact in it's own right. While it may be reasonable to copyright an artifact, it's not yet possible to copyright scenery. There's also the fact that by placing their copyrighted material so prominently on public display, in such a way that it would be impossible to avoid, that they are preventing other objects or scenes from being photgraphed and displayed because it could be impossible to get a photograph that didn't have it in the background. This may not actually be an issue for FG at all though, because we wouldn't be distributing an image of the tower but a model of it. Also, because it should only be possible to copyright a particular lighting design and not the idea of illuminating the tower, we should be able to distribute an illuminated tower as long as lit was lit differently i.e. not using the copyrighted design. Important Note: I am not a copyright scientist and these comments must not be taken as legal advice. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:23:23 +0100, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thursday 17 July 2003 18:30, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: How much of real life potential scenery do you thing is copyrighted ? I know one good example of that, it's the Eiffel Tower (in Paris, for those who wouldn't know) by night. It has had a lighting system since new year 2000, and I think you have to pay royalties if you redistribute images of the lit up tower... What can we do ? Hopefully, this will be sucessfully challenged in law. Because of it's size and prominance it must be regarded as part of the scenery, as well as being an artifact in it's own right. While it may be reasonable to copyright an artifact, it's not yet possible to copyright scenery. There's also the fact that by placing their copyrighted material so prominently on public display, in such a way that it would be impossible to avoid, that they are preventing other objects or scenes from being photgraphed and displayed because it could be impossible to get a photograph that didn't have it in the background. This may not actually be an issue for FG at all though, because we wouldn't be distributing an image of the tower but a model of it. Also, because it should only be possible to copyright a particular lighting design and not the idea of illuminating the tower, we should be able to distribute an illuminated tower as long as lit was lit differently i.e. not using the copyrighted design. Important Note: I am not a copyright scientist and these comments must not be taken as legal advice. ..in FG, we could fix this, legally, the al-Quaida way. ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: ... I look forward to being able to fly through our own version of it. After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( (unless, I suppose, one turns off the allow building collisions option, but then there's hardly a challenge). MS also doesn't provide the long grass approach before the tower. The monument is instead depicted tightly framed by rather tall buildings. On the other hand, in FS2004 there is a saved flight that comes with the sim which encourages the pilot to fly through an open barn. Apparently if you do it successfully a bunch of chickens will fly out. I tried it at E3, but clipped the doorway with a wingtip and thus can't verify the chicken story... :P Kris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: How much of real life potential scenery do you thing is copyrighted ? I know one good example of that, it's the Eiffel Tower (in Paris, for those who wouldn't know) by night. It has had a lighting system since new year 2000, and I think you have to pay royalties if you redistribute images of the lit up tower... What can we do ? Don't know what to do, but can confirm definetly that images taken at night are copyrighted. Damned if I know the legal bases of that, but it is certainly true. even more OT I was there last month and went up to the top for the first time. Definetly recommend it. :) Looks absolutely beatutiful at night Just watch out for the damn anoying blokes trying to sell you rubbish at the base. Lawrence ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
I know (and can appreciate) that there is some sensitivity to warfare kinds of themes in FlightGear. However, I wonder if there might be some acceptance of re-enactments of WWI/WWII dogfighting tactics - for historical research and education, etc. A few years back I was hooked on a game called Air Warrior III, which had massively multi-player scenarios, including renactments of actual campaigns. It was wy too much fun! I eventually had to erase the program from my computer to save myself from becoming Tron (now there's a blast from the past). The people who ran the server had to have flying moderators in order to catch people gaining unfair advantage by hacking the program. In FlightGear it would be trivial to give your Messerschmidt 10,000,000 horsepower. You couldn't even call it hacking. Since we already have an OV-10 we could stick a J-85 engine on top of it and make an OV-10Z, which the German airforce uses (or used) for gunnery training. It would pull a large dart behind it on a long cable, which fighters would then attack. The benefit here is that solving the dart-towing programming would then lead directly to sailplane towing. Anyway, here's a Lot's of Fun screen shot for all to enjoy. http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/fw190.jpg Dave Culp -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Lee Elliott wrote: In a contradictory sort of way, military flight simming is less serious/realistic than civil flying, so I think this is a good point too. ?? Maybe from a gaming point of view? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun! Copyright and Disasters
Daniel Moore wrote: How about having a disaster setting? When switched it on could affect any part of the aircraft from power loss to hydraulic failure in control surfaces. How about reenacting famous air disasters? Having bits fail in the sim might even give a pilot some idea how to cope if it were to happen in real life... If/whenever FlightGear got it's scripting engine (I've been working on it but haven't look at it for a while) these things should ultimately be put into external scripts. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun! Copyright and Disasters
Erik Hofman writes: How about having a disaster setting? When switched it on could affect any part of the aircraft from power loss to hydraulic failure in control surfaces. How about reenacting famous air disasters? Having bits fail in the sim might even give a pilot some idea how to cope if it were to happen in real life... If/whenever FlightGear got it's scripting engine (I've been working on it but haven't look at it for a while) these things should ultimately be put into external scripts. Changing the flight characteristics is a little trickier, but failing systems and controls is very straight-forward. When I have time, I plan to implement something nick-named the Failulator, which will be capable of disabling any systems or controls including the engine based on either a random failure rate or a user-supplied failure rate (MTBF or something similar). 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] Lot's of Fun!
Arnt Karlsen writes: ..the Wright Flyer oughtta be ok this year, even if it is American, it _is_ 100 years old! ;-) Sounds good, but someone needs to take a snapshot and do the gimp/photoshop work. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..and, gun support _is_ gonna come, either here or in a fork, you like it or not. I believe frightening an OpenSource developer by mentioning the word 'fork' belongs to the past - it does not work out any more these days. In the end, those people will decide that are doing the Real Work, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On 6 Jul 2003 09:02:59 GMT, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..and, gun support _is_ gonna come, either here or in a fork, you like it or not. I believe frightening an OpenSource developer by mentioning the word 'fork' belongs to the past - it does not work out any more these days. .. ;-) In the end, those people will decide that are doing the Real Work, ...and pointing it the right way makes it more useful for us all. ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
Lee Elliott writes: The sad this is that much interesting research and developement has been done for military systems and you can't really investigate them outside that sphere. The good thing about a sim is that you can. You can also do lots of other things, like racing, re-enactment, research etc. When we do a better job of modularizing FlightGear, we can put combat support into entirely separate modules. People who object to combat simulations will not find anything to dislike in the main FlightGear distro, but people who are interested can easily download the WWII or Cold War modules (for example). My biggest concern right now is that nearly all of the screenshots on the startup splash screens are of U.S. combat aircraft: they don't bother me (though I'd prefer to see Mosquitos, Hurricanes, and Spits), but they might turn off a lot of users. Perhaps we could bias them more towards civilian aircraft, so that we don't give a misleading impression of what FlightGear currently is. 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] Lot's of Fun!
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: My biggest concern right now is that nearly all of the screenshots on the startup splash screens are of U.S. combat aircraft: they don't bother me (though I'd prefer to see Mosquitos, Hurricanes, and Spits), but they might turn off a lot of users. Perhaps we could bias them more towards civilian aircraft, so that we don't give a misleading impression of what FlightGear currently is. H...good point...when I get a chance see about making up some new additions. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: My biggest concern right now is that nearly all of the screenshots on the startup splash screens are of U.S. combat aircraft: they don't bother me (though I'd prefer to see Mosquitos, Hurricanes, and Spits), but they might turn off a lot of users. Perhaps we could bias them more towards civilian aircraft, so that we don't give a misleading impression of what FlightGear currently is. H...good point...when I get a chance see about making up some new additions. Perhaps user-submitted screen shots would be an interesting idea? A kind of users gallery, if you like. Lawrence ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
It would be neat to build a duplicate of the Reno Air Races course and field. Well... we can't do that. By: Mark Kallio Well, it was a nice thought while it lasted - developing a plug-in for air racing fans out there to go online and have a virtual air race on a virtual Reno course. It's sad that I have to bring you the bad news but things are sometimes just what they are - the Reno/Stead facility as well as the existing course layout of off-limits to flight sim developers. Complete article is here: http://www.pylon1.com/news/need4speed/fsar_01/index_02.shtml Oh goodie. I think I'll go copyright Hudson Bay and charge everyone that takes pictures of it. Screw 'em. Set up the pylons with a 100 foot or so offset. Better yet, give 'em 50% of FlightGear's commercial revenue. (ie. diddly squat) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Gene Buckle writes: It would be neat to build a duplicate of the Reno Air Races course and field. Well... we can't do that. By: Mark Kallio Well, it was a nice thought while it lasted - developing a plug-in for air racing fans out there to go online and have a virtual air race on a virtual Reno course. It's sad that I have to bring you the bad news but things are sometimes just what they are - the Reno/Stead facility as well as the existing course layout of off-limits to flight sim developers. Complete article is here: http://www.pylon1.com/news/need4speed/fsar_01/index_02.shtml Oh goodie. I think I'll go copyright Hudson Bay and charge everyone that takes pictures of it. Screw 'em. Set up the pylons with a 100 foot or so offset. I am with you on this one Gene. I wouldn't even put the 100 foot offset in *if* we can find a layout of the course that doesn't have a copyright that prevents us from using it. We don't have to include this as part of the 'official' scenery if this makes anyone too nervous. But it sure would be cool to find a FAA or other regulatory agencies layout of the course :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Gene Buckle wrote: Better yet, give 'em 50% of FlightGear's commercial revenue. (ie. diddly squat) So far FlightGear only costs me money. DO you think they wil start paying me 50% then? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Norman Vine wrote: Gene Buckle writes: By: Mark Kallio Complete article is here: http://www.pylon1.com/news/need4speed/fsar_01/index_02.shtml Oh goodie. I think I'll go copyright Hudson Bay and charge everyone that takes pictures of it. Screw 'em. Set up the pylons with a 100 foot or so offset. I am with you on this one Gene. If this goes any further you would have to pay for your freedom in the near future ... :-/ Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Erik Hofman wrote: Gene Buckle wrote: Better yet, give 'em 50% of FlightGear's commercial revenue. (ie. diddly squat) So far FlightGear only costs me money. DO you think they wil start paying me 50% then? It would be nice, eh? :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Norman Vine wrote: Gene Buckle writes: By: Mark Kallio Complete article is here: http://www.pylon1.com/news/need4speed/fsar_01/index_02.shtml Oh goodie. I think I'll go copyright Hudson Bay and charge everyone that takes pictures of it. Screw 'em. Set up the pylons with a 100 foot or so offset. I am with you on this one Gene. If this goes any further you would have to pay for your freedom in the near future ... :-/ What do you think we do now? Fair Use is now Fair paymelicencefees Use. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Gene Buckle writes: http://www.pylon1.com/news/need4speed/fsar_01/index_02.shtml Oh goodie. I think I'll go copyright Hudson Bay and charge everyone that takes pictures of it. Screw 'em. Set up the pylons with a 100 foot or so offset. I am with you on this one Gene. I wouldn't even put the 100 foot offset in *if* we can find a layout of the course that doesn't have a copyright that prevents us from using it. We don't have to include this as part of the 'official' scenery if this makes anyone too nervous. But it sure would be cool to find a FAA or other regulatory agencies layout of the course :-) Hmmm. Anyone have a terminal chart for that area? If the towers are tall enough, they'd be marked on the map. :) That's what I was thinking :-) Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
What do you think we do now? Fair Use is now Fair paymelicencefees Use. g. http://www.airrace.org/raceCourse.php http://tinyurl.com/g5io Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:39:21 +0100 (BST), Lawrence Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: My biggest concern right now is that nearly all of the screenshots on the startup splash screens are of U.S. combat aircraft: they don't bother me (though I'd prefer to see Mosquitos, Hurricanes, and Spits), but they might turn off a lot of users. Perhaps we could bias them more towards civilian aircraft, so that we don't give a misleading impression of what FlightGear currently is. H...good point...when I get a chance see about making up some new additions. Perhaps user-submitted screen shots would be an interesting idea? A kind of users gallery, if you like. ...a good place to grab splash screens from. -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
On Sunday 06 July 2003 14:59, David Megginson wrote: Lee Elliott writes: The sad this is that much interesting research and developement has been done for military systems and you can't really investigate them outside that sphere. The good thing about a sim is that you can. You can also do lots of other things, like racing, re-enactment, research etc. When we do a better job of modularizing FlightGear, we can put combat support into entirely separate modules. People who object to combat simulations will not find anything to dislike in the main FlightGear distro, but people who are interested can easily download the WWII or Cold War modules (for example). I think that would be ideal. My biggest concern right now is that nearly all of the screenshots on the startup splash screens are of U.S. combat aircraft: they don't bother me (though I'd prefer to see Mosquitos, Hurricanes, and Spits), but they might turn off a lot of users. Perhaps we could bias them more towards civilian aircraft, so that we don't give a misleading impression of what FlightGear currently is. In a contradictory sort of way, military flight simming is less serious/realistic than civil flying, so I think this is a good point too. LeeE 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Sunday 06 July 2003 20:39, Norman Vine wrote: Jon Berndt writes: http://www.airrace.org/raceCourse.php Doesn't help The contents of this Web site are copyright C2002-2003 Mark Johnston and the Reno Air Racing Association. No part of this Web site may be reproduced without the express written consent of the copyright holders Hmm I guess I am now in violation of their copyright however this is the only part of this site I will copy and I will take my chances on any court's interpretation of my intent in posting the above Norman Could someone fly over and take some snaps? Could be worked out from them pretty accurately. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:59:06 +0100, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Could someone fly over and take some snaps? ..snaps? Tape it. ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
Someone wrote: My biggest concern right now is that nearly all of the screenshots on the startup splash screens are of U.S. combat aircraft: they don't bother me (though I'd prefer to see Mosquitos, Hurricanes, and Spits), but they might turn off a lot of users. Perhaps we could bias them more towards civilian aircraft, so that we don't give a misleading impression of what FlightGear currently is. One of the problem here is that the recent and nicest modeling work has been military planes. (Note the seahawk is a british plane.) If someone wants to make a better splash screen, then by all means, please do. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Lawrence Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have no idea at all where those aircraft come from! But I believe I can answer the last point. The jumping around is because of the way the multiplayer feature works; it simply transmits coordinates at regular intervals So the other guys position updates N times a second (I've tried 10 over a VPN to my mates LAN). Thus the other plane appears to jump rapidly from point to point in the sky. Of course, it would be cool if it transmitted velocities as well, thus the other machine could guess at where it is going between updates. You're describing how the IEEE1278 (DIS) protocol works :-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Martin Spott writes: Lawrence Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have no idea at all where those aircraft come from! But I believe I can answer the last point. The jumping around is because of the way the multiplayer feature works; it simply transmits coordinates at regular intervals So the other guys position updates N times a second (I've tried 10 over a VPN to my mates LAN). Thus the other plane appears to jump rapidly from point to point in the sky. Of course, it would be cool if it transmitted velocities as well, thus the other machine could guess at where it is going between updates. You're describing how the IEEE1278 (DIS) protocol works :-) If you have a time series of positions, you have a time series of velocities ie the velocity is just the first difference ( Pi - P(i-1)) / dT; And acceleration is just the 2nd differeance so all you need is to keep track of the difference vectors for the Positions dX, dY, dZ and the Rotations HPR, and the Positional, and Rotational accelerations probably easiest to keep these in Vector form but in essence dX = (ThisX-LastX)/dT # Velocity in X ddX = dX - last_dX # Acceleration in X etc... http://www.shodor.org/cserd/Resources/Algorithms/NumericalDifferentiation/index.php Even better is to feed the positions into a Kalman Filter http://seneca.me.umn.edu/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-June/018511.html Keep in mind that these techniques work best with 'continious' functions but this should still give *much* better AI for the *vast* majority of the time as 'normal' Flight is reasonably 'smooth' Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a time series of positions, you have a time series of velocities ie the velocity is just the first difference ( Pi - P(i-1)) / dT; And acceleration is just the 2nd differeance Oh, yes, I know this numerical stuff quite well because I did massive use for my diploma thesis. But the DIS protocol goes one step further and they would not have included this additional stuff into an IEEE standard if it were of no use. The 'classical' numeric methods, as you already know, allow some sort of prediction based on the _past_ movement of an object. You can optimize your prediction by different weighing of the past waypoints based on empirical experience. I developed such an algorithm - it was uncommon, sort of 'simple' but very effective for my use :-) The DIS protocol is one step ahead. It tells the client in which direction the object will _definitely_ move at which speed. From this information the client can do a much better prediction. The server itself does this prediction on the same information _too_ and this is the reason why the server always knows what position and velocity of the object the client is currently assumin. The server delays sending updates to the client until it's own (the servers) prediction differs from the actual position and speed of the object. This is quite tricky, isn't it :-))) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:49:06 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: learning myself. As for the FG code, I'm not even where to begin looking to see how it's all put together. Start by trying to track properties you are interested in back to the code that updates them (the main reason for writing the property browser, btw). It's not that bad...just takes a litle time. I did take a c++ class back in about 81 or so, when an 80286 was new and MS just came out with windows 3.0. That was a long time ago. Oops! dates don't match up ;-) IIRC 80286 was 1984, C++ was still in the lab in 1985, Windows 3.0 released 1990! ..who cares, if that bought us a new coder. ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:24:50 -0500, Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Aerial Paintball. :-) ..getting hit should _hurt_, change the colors and add a ton to the weight? ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
I'd like to see leaking fuel, detaching flight control surfaces, and most importantly the pilot parachuting away! Additionally! I'd like to be able to participate in massively multiplayer flightgear games. I'm looking forward to the day when we get ATC controlled flight and fighters are dispatched to pick up planes straying too much out of their flight plan. I can just imagine the dc3 being chased down by a Spitfire or P51. My long term plan at the moment is making a mosquito, and Wellington. Shortterm plan finish Spitfire. On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 13:02, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:24:50 -0500, Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Aerial Paintball. :-) ..getting hit should _hurt_, change the colors and add a ton to the weight? ;-) -- Christopher S Horler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:24:01 -0700, WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ok Rich... now I'm in trouble because he seems a little bit interested and asked me how to program. I know enough to sometimes follow the code, but ..be a good father and invest in your future, then ask him. ;-) ..http://tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/programming.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Emacs-Beginner-HOWTO.html ..David M, hints for Emacs-for-FlightGear setup? -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
Martin Spott writes: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a time series of positions, you have a time series of velocities ie the velocity is just the first difference ( Pi - P(i-1)) / dT; And acceleration is just the 2nd differeance The DIS protocol is one step ahead. It tells the client in which direction the object will _definitely_ move at which speed. From this information the client can do a much better prediction. The server itself does this prediction on the same information _too_ and this is the reason why the server always knows what position and velocity of the object the client is currently assumin. The server delays sending updates to the client until it's own (the servers) prediction differs from the actual position and speed of the object. This is quite tricky, isn't it :-))) Hmm.. _definately_ is a strong concept . FWIW I doubt if the DIS protocol is much if any better then a clientside Kalman Filter except for reducing 'net traffic'. So the tradeoff is where do you want to expend the computing time. It does take a 'leap of faith' though :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Arnt Karlsen writes: On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:24:01 -0700, WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ok Rich... now I'm in trouble because he seems a little bit interested and asked me how to program. I know enough to sometimes follow the code, but ..be a good father and invest in your future, then ask him. ;-) ..http://tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/programming.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Emacs-Beginner-HOWTO.html I heartily reccomend How To Think Like A Computer Scientist esp. the Python version but you have a choice :-) These texts are introductions to Computer Science in an increasing number of both programming languages and natural languages. The order of presentation is what might be called procedural first, which means that the programming style is mostly procedural until the later chapters, which introduce object-oriented programming. They are intended for people with little or no programming experience, and are appropriate for first year college or advanced high school students, or anyone interested in learning to program. All versions are under the GNU Free Documentation License. http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/ Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 04 July 2003 13:49, Jim Wilson wrote: WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: learning myself. As for the FG code, I'm not even where to begin looking to see how it's all put together. Start by trying to track properties you are interested in back to the code that updates them (the main reason for writing the property browser, btw). It's not that bad...just takes a litle time. I did take a c++ class back in about 81 or so, when an 80286 was new and MS just came out with windows 3.0. That was a long time ago. Oops! dates don't match up ;-) IIRC 80286 was 1984, C++ was still in the lab in 1985, Windows 3.0 released 1990! hmmm.. I guess I started the school in 89 then, but I remember they just purchased the 80286, so maybe it was just new to the school. I don't have such a good memory when it comes to anything more than a few years back, unless it's something I think about all the time. They did get Windows after I had been going for a while, so I'd say 89-90 was when I was there. It was a one year course and I started in late summer. It was a computer applications course at one of those almost college school.. Draughns I think. I do remember that we learned dos 4.0 and used a dos disk to boot the schools computers. I learned dbase and clipper there also, along with computerized accounting and wordperfect also. That was what got me interested in computers anyway. Thanks for the corrections! Anything that helps jog my long-term memory is good ;) Re's WillyB Best, Jim ___ 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] Lot's of Fun!
On Saturday 05 July 2003 07:23, Norman Vine wrote: Arnt Karlsen writes: On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:24:01 -0700, WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ok Rich... now I'm in trouble because he seems a little bit interested and asked me how to program. I know enough to sometimes follow the code, but ..be a good father and invest in your future, then ask him. ;-) ..http://tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/programming.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Emacs-Beginner-HOWTO.html I heartily reccomend How To Think Like A Computer Scientist esp. the Python version but you have a choice :-) These texts are introductions to Computer Science in an increasing number of both programming languages and natural languages. The order of presentation is what might be called procedural first, which means that the programming style is mostly procedural until the later chapters, which introduce object-oriented programming. They are intended for people with little or no programming experience, and are appropriate for first year college or advanced high school students, or anyone interested in learning to program. All versions are under the GNU Free Documentation License. http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/ Cheers Norman Thanks for the encouragement and the links :-)) I found these while surfing last night: http://www.infosys.tuwien.ac.at/Research/Component/tutorial/prwmain.htm http://www.thinkbrown.com/programming/ (and from the last link): http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/ThinkingInCPP2e.html WillyB ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
WillyB writes: Thanks for the encouragement and the links :-)) I found these while surfing last night: http://www.infosys.tuwien.ac.at/Research/Component/tutorial/prwmain.htm http://www.thinkbrown.com/programming/ (and from the last link): http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/ThinkingInCPP2e.html Ah you found Bruce :-) To stave off the many emails that I have been receiving that suggest I consider writing a book titled Thinking in Python: yes, I've definitely been planning to do it. Considering that Python is my language of choice for virtually all my own programming projects, my research into the language is continuing apace. http://mindview.net/Books/Python/ThinkingInPython.html Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol He's watching me write this, and even though I told him guns were not in the plans as of yet, I have to ask. It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Best, I think what you'd get is something like the companies that sell dogfighting training in Marchetti(sp) S260's with lasers on them. It'd be a lot of fun. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
David We could also set up a course on some scenery tile .. say in Death Valley or some other remote 'arena area' .. and have races :) It would be neat to build a duplicate of the Reno Air Races course and field. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Aerial Paintball. :-) ..getting hit should _hurt_, change the colors and add a ton to the weight? ;-) :-) I know (and can appreciate) that there is some sensitivity to warfare kinds of themes in FlightGear. However, I wonder if there might be some acceptance of re-enactments of WWI/WWII dogfighting tactics - for historical research and education, etc. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Saturday 05 July 2003 10:19, Gene Buckle wrote: David We could also set up a course on some scenery tile .. say in Death Valley or some other remote 'arena area' .. and have races :) It would be neat to build a duplicate of the Reno Air Races course and field. Well... we can't do that. By: Mark Kallio Well, it was a nice thought while it lasted - developing a plug-in for air racing fans out there to go online and have a virtual air race on a virtual Reno course. It's sad that I have to bring you the bad news but things are sometimes just what they are - the Reno/Stead facility as well as the existing course layout of off-limits to flight sim developers. Complete article is here: http://www.pylon1.com/news/need4speed/fsar_01/index_02.shtml WillyB ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Well, it was a nice thought while it lasted - developing a plug-in for air racing fans out there to go online and have a virtual air race on a virtual Reno course. It's sad that I have to bring you the bad news but things are sometimes just what they are - the Reno/Stead facility as well as the existing course layout of off-limits to flight sim developers. There are much, much better places for a race than there. In a flight sim, we also are not subject to the same restrictions. Obstacles, challenges, and hazards might include (for us): - night - mountains (over hill and dale, through valleys and canyons, etc.) - about pylons and buildings - around and/or through airborne stationary or moving targets etc. Make it sort of like an airborne Grand Prix. Add challenges such as best touch and go, best bean-bag drop on target, etc. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Saturday 05 July 2003 13:54, Christopher S Horler wrote: I'd like to see leaking fuel, detaching flight control surfaces, and most importantly the pilot parachuting away! Additionally! I'd like to be able to participate in massively multiplayer flightgear games. I'm looking forward to the day when we get ATC controlled flight and fighters are dispatched to pick up planes straying too much out of their flight plan. I can just imagine the dc3 being chased down by a Spitfire or P51. My long term plan at the moment is making a mosquito, and Wellington. Shortterm plan finish Spitfire. I've been think about asking for a 'crashed' property so that I could try animating crashes. I don't have a problem with modelling weapons and systems in a sim, or having the possibility of shooting someone down. This is because it's a sim. LeeE On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 13:02, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:24:50 -0500, Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Aerial Paintball. :-) ..getting hit should _hurt_, change the colors and add a ton to the weight? ;-) -- Christopher S Horler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Lot's of Fun!
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know (and can appreciate) that there is some sensitivity to warfare kinds of themes in FlightGear. However, I wonder if there might be some acceptance of re-enactments of WWI/WWII dogfighting tactics - for historical research and education, etc. Even though it's already part of history (a very burdensome history for us Germans! ) I'd prefer to see David's idea of a cone realized that you have to stay inside for a certain amount of time. Reno air race would be fine, too. Although I'm partially fascinated by the technique employed in modern military aircraft I have a strong antipathy against war games. This probably has to do with the fact that we Germans - o.k., not all but at quite a few of us - still are in the process of bearing the blame that earlier generations brought over the German nation, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Saturday 05 July 2003 21:19, Martin Spott wrote: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know (and can appreciate) that there is some sensitivity to warfare kinds of themes in FlightGear. However, I wonder if there might be some acceptance of re-enactments of WWI/WWII dogfighting tactics - for historical research and education, etc. Even though it's already part of history (a very burdensome history for us Germans! ) I'd prefer to see David's idea of a cone realized that you have to stay inside for a certain amount of time. Reno air race would be fine, too. Although I'm partially fascinated by the technique employed in modern military aircraft I have a strong antipathy against war games. This probably has to do with the fact that we Germans - o.k., not all but at quite a few of us - still are in the process of bearing the blame that earlier generations brought over the German nation, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- I couldn't in any way blame the current day Germany for the WWs. And it would be a bit 'Hello Pot, Kettle here' in any case, imo. The sad this is that much interesting research and developement has been done for military systems and you can't really investigate them outside that sphere. The good thing about a sim is that you can. You can also do lots of other things, like racing, re-enactment, research etc. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On 5 Jul 2003 20:19:21 GMT, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know (and can appreciate) that there is some sensitivity to warfare kinds of themes in FlightGear. However, I wonder if there might be some acceptance of re-enactments of WWI/WWII dogfighting tactics - for historical research and education, etc. Even though it's already part of history (a very burdensome history for us Germans! ) I'd prefer to see David's idea of a cone realized that you have to stay inside for a certain amount of time. Reno air race would be fine, too. Although I'm partially fascinated by the technique employed in modern military aircraft I have a strong antipathy against war games. This probably has to do with the fact that we Germans - o.k., not all but at quite a few of us - still are in the process of bearing the blame that earlier generations brought over the German nation, ..true. The fact _is_ however that war games _are_ fun, fun enough to draw in _millions_ from gamers, and even pacifists play Quake, Counter Strike, Half Life etc, check out _any_ damned LAN party. ..and, gun support _is_ gonna come, either here or in a fork, you like it or not. ..the real thing, military service can also be fun, and I did 22 months and I saw _no_ reason ;-) to confuse anyone with the 6'th Commandment, strict adherance to it cause 5 times greater military damage to the enemy than the sin, _and_ keeps everyone and their families happy, those on the wrong side don't have the freedom of choice, other than where to put their bullets. (And, boy _was_I_lucky_, the Russians defeated the Soviet Union and cancelled WWIII. ;-) ) ..statistics shows it takes an average 250 to 400 rounds to down an enemy soldier in infantery field combat, in Vietnam the US GI's dropped their ammo expenditure into the 2-digits region, this is credited (or blamed) onto Hollywood type TV shows, where the average kid sees 1400 firearm kills and _no_ sex. ;-) ..the cause of this ammo extravaganza is human civilization, soldiers are simply reluctant to kill each other, in the muzzleloader age, in Battle of Gettysburg, 95% of the rifles found on the field, were still loaded, 25% were not fired before being _re_-loaded, an average 2 times to put 3 charges into it, one guy managed to stuff 10! charges into his pipe bomb without blowing up his platoon, before he was shot. ..about a year ago, some anti-war activists organized sabotage against Counter Strike gamers, where they would join gamer teams, and then either shoot their own team mates in the back, or commit suicide in a rather tasteless style, disrupting the game to convince the gamers war is bad. ..we _all_agree_ war crime is _bad_. (Unfortunately, it _usually_ takes a war to stop war crime.) ..these above facts gave me the idea that the 4 Geneva Conventions and their Protocols Additional, and the Hague Convention on warfare, _should_ be used as _the_ guidelines, to code kill score rules for _all_ combat games. ..to maximize your kill score under such a score rule set, would encourage combat gamers to _learn_ about them. ..I rather firmly believe this will help weed out war crimes, by simply training these gamers to maximize their kill score using the Hague and the 4 Geneva Conventions, as combat weapons, and thus make _better_ soldiers out of these pacifist war gamers. -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:03:52 -0700, WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello! Just got done flying around KSFO for about an hour w/ one of my sons, the 11 yr old via networked flightgears :) What a Blast! .. ;-) He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol ..now, what _ever_ happened to his role model ideals? _Where_ did he pick up these heinous ideas? ;-) He's watching me write this, and even though I told him guns were not in the plans as of yet, I have to ask. ..tell him to do it himself. The source _is_ open for new stuff. ;-) -- ..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] Lot's of Fun!
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:03:52 -0700 WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello! Just got done flying around KSFO for about an hour w/ one of my sons, the 11yr old via networked flightgears :) What a Blast! He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol Well now, 11 years old is nearly as old as many of the hackers I know. To me, they all look that age (the Supreme Court is starting to look a bit young). So get him into programming, and he can start coding the weapons for us. Rich. P.S. Tell him to remember that each round fired (especially the depleted uranium ones), or bomb dropped instantaneously alters the CG, and hence the position of the airframe with respect to it (just like using fuel), so we have to hope that the 'reference' thread comes to a conclusion soon!. And firing cannon rounds will generate a force vector that needs modelling too! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 04 July 2003 03:03, WillyB wrote: Hello! Just got done flying around KSFO for about an hour w/ one of my sons, the 11 yr old via networked flightgears :) What a Blast! He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol He's watching me write this, and even though I told him guns were not in the plans as of yet, I have to ask. Best Regards! WillyB I was playing at intercepts last night (and I think it was the first time I'd run FG properly since updating a couple of days ago). I had a B-52 flying on AP between KLAX and KSEA in TF mode at low level and was flying a YF23 out of KSFO when I noticed a few other aircraft en-route to the intercept area. One of them was either the 747 or another B-52 and another looked like one of the GA a/c (although I was further away from it). I followed one of the big jet a/c up to 10,000ft but didn't chase it further then, to check exactly what a/c it was as I wanted to make the intercept. This was all miles away from KEMT. I was wondering if these were a new feature of the AI developments or were they mis-placed instances of my target a/c? I was intentionally flying at dusk for the low light conditions and at first I thought I was seeing a rendering glitch. It was certainly a bit of a surprise:) I should just add that this was on a lan with no on-line connection to the net;) Regarding multiplay, even though my lan's 100mb and the lan loading is pretty light, the 'other' a/c jump around a lot when I get close them. What is the most likely cause of this? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Lee Elliott wrote: I was playing at intercepts last night (and I think it was the first time I'd run FG properly since updating a couple of days ago). I had a B-52 flying on AP between KLAX and KSEA in TF mode at low level and was flying a YF23 out of KSFO when I noticed a few other aircraft en-route to the intercept area. One of them was either the 747 or another B-52 and another looked like one of the GA a/c (although I was further away from it). I followed one of the big jet a/c up to 10,000ft but didn't chase it further then, to check exactly what a/c it was as I wanted to make the intercept. This was all miles away from KEMT. I was wondering if these were a new feature of the AI developments or were they mis-placed instances of my target a/c? I was intentionally flying at dusk for the low light conditions and at first I thought I was seeing a rendering glitch. It was certainly a bit of a surprise:) I should just add that this was on a lan with no on-line connection to the net;) Regarding multiplay, even though my lan's 100mb and the lan loading is pretty light, the 'other' a/c jump around a lot when I get close them. What is the most likely cause of this? Have no idea at all where those aircraft come from! But I believe I can answer the last point. The jumping around is because of the way the multiplayer feature works; it simply transmits coordinates at regular intervals So the other guys position updates N times a second (I've tried 10 over a VPN to my mates LAN). Thus the other plane appears to jump rapidly from point to point in the sky. Of course, it would be cool if it transmitted velocities as well, thus the other machine could guess at where it is going between updates. This is all from guessing at how it works; I've not looked at the code or anything. The other interesting thing is positions of flaps, speed of the prop etc, are not transmitted. This means that if you get close to the other aircraft you can see his prop looks to be going at the same speed as yours (this is obviously much easier to see on the runway). Even with these charactastics, mutliplay is still great fun! :) Lawrence ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 04 July 2003 11:08, Lee Elliott wrote: On Friday 04 July 2003 03:03, WillyB wrote: Hello! Just got done flying around KSFO for about an hour w/ one of my sons, the 11 yr old via networked flightgears :) What a Blast! He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol He's watching me write this, and even though I told him guns were not in the plans as of yet, I have to ask. Best Regards! WillyB I was playing at intercepts last night (and I think it was the first time I'd run FG properly since updating a couple of days ago). I had a B-52 flying on AP between KLAX and KSEA in TF mode at low level and was flying a YF23 out of KSFO when I noticed a few other aircraft en-route to the intercept area. One of them was either the 747 or another B-52 and another looked like one of the GA a/c (although I was further away from it). I followed one of the big jet a/c up to 10,000ft but didn't chase it further then, to check exactly what a/c it was as I wanted to make the intercept. This was all miles away from KEMT. I was wondering if these were a new feature of the AI developments or were they mis-placed instances of my target a/c? I have no idea! I've never seen this myself and not seen anything on the list to suggest that there is more than one IA aircraft at KEMT... Interesting. Air traffic seems like it would be a nice enhancement to FGFS though, as in the real world I imagine every pilot has to keep that in mind constantly. I was intentionally flying at dusk for the low light conditions and at first I thought I was seeing a rendering glitch. It was certainly a bit of a surprise:) I should just add that this was on a lan with no on-line connection to the net;) Regarding multiplay, even though my lan's 100mb and the lan loading is pretty light, the 'other' a/c jump around a lot when I get close them. What is the most likely cause of this? I noticed that too, but attributed it to the lower frame rates on the windows machine. I'm not even sure if you can connect 3 or more together, I only have two systems with FGFS on them. Also I've never tried via the internet, only my local lan which is 10/100 base eth through. WillyB ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 04 July 2003 19:02, Lawrence Manning wrote: On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Lee Elliott wrote: I was playing at intercepts last night (and I think it was the first time I'd run FG properly since updating a couple of days ago). I had a B-52 flying on AP between KLAX and KSEA in TF mode at low level and was flying a YF23 out of KSFO when I noticed a few other aircraft en-route to the intercept area. One of them was either the 747 or another B-52 and another looked like one of the GA a/c (although I was further away from it). I followed one of the big jet a/c up to 10,000ft but didn't chase it further then, to check exactly what a/c it was as I wanted to make the intercept. This was all miles away from KEMT. I was wondering if these were a new feature of the AI developments or were they mis-placed instances of my target a/c? I was intentionally flying at dusk for the low light conditions and at first I thought I was seeing a rendering glitch. It was certainly a bit of a surprise:) I should just add that this was on a lan with no on-line connection to the net;) Regarding multiplay, even though my lan's 100mb and the lan loading is pretty light, the 'other' a/c jump around a lot when I get close them. What is the most likely cause of this? Have no idea at all where those aircraft come from! I guess they were mis-placed instances of my taget then. I'll check it out - try a few different targets and chase them until I can positivly id them. But I believe I can answer the last point. The jumping around is because of the way the multiplayer feature works; it simply transmits coordinates at regular intervals So the other guys position updates N times a second (I've tried 10 over a VPN to my mates LAN). Thus the other plane appears to jump rapidly from point to point in the sky. Of course, it would be cool if it transmitted velocities as well, thus the other machine could guess at where it is going between updates. This is all from guessing at how it works; I've not looked at the code or anything. I'd guessed that might be the reason and I've tried upping the rate to 40 or 50. The 'target' pc was running at between 20 - 40 fps (in a 800x600 window, cockpit view, no hud or panel) so there didn't appear to be a cpu problem. Actually it was on a dual cpu box but I was only getting about 50% untilisation (--with-threads option). The other interesting thing is positions of flaps, speed of the prop etc, are not transmitted. This means that if you get close to the other aircraft you can see his prop looks to be going at the same speed as yours (this is obviously much easier to see on the runway). I've noticed this too. If you're using identical a/c your controls are mirrored on the 'remote' a/c. If they're different there's no control surface animation but the gear seems to be ok. Need to check a bit more though to be sure about everything. Even with these charactastics, mutliplay is still great fun! :) Lawrence Definitely - lots of fun:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 04 July 2003 08:58, Richard A Downing FBCS wrote: On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:03:52 -0700 WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello! Just got done flying around KSFO for about an hour w/ one of my sons, the 11yr old via networked flightgears :) What a Blast! He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol Well now, 11 years old is nearly as old as many of the hackers I know. To me, they all look that age (the Supreme Court is starting to look a bit young). So get him into programming, and he can start coding the weapons for us. Rich. Ok Rich... now I'm in trouble because he seems a little bit interested and asked me how to program. I know enough to sometimes follow the code, but thats about it. I did download Kylix3 the other day because I wouldn't mind learning myself. As for the FG code, I'm not even where to begin looking to see how it's all put together. I did take a c++ class back in about 81 or so, when an 80286 was new and MS just came out with windows 3.0. That was a long time ago. Just out of curiosity, is the first file that starts the process source/src/Main/main.cxx ? Seems like I remember that void main(); or something like that was always how we started a new program. P.S. Tell him to remember that each round fired (especially the depleted uranium ones), or bomb dropped instantaneously alters the CG, and hence the position of the airframe with respect to it (just like using fuel), so we have to hope that the 'reference' thread comes to a conclusion soon!. And firing cannon rounds will generate a force vector that needs modelling too! I know it would be a very deep and involved addition, with a lot to consider. WillyB ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
WillyB wrote: I'm not even sure if you can connect 3 or more together, I only have two systems with FGFS on them. Also I've never tried via the internet, only my local lan which is 10/100 base eth through. That would be no problem. Just conenct them all to the broadcast address. (in a C class network: 192.168.0.255). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: learning myself. As for the FG code, I'm not even where to begin looking to see how it's all put together. Start by trying to track properties you are interested in back to the code that updates them (the main reason for writing the property browser, btw). It's not that bad...just takes a litle time. I did take a c++ class back in about 81 or so, when an 80286 was new and MS just came out with windows 3.0. That was a long time ago. Oops! dates don't match up ;-) IIRC 80286 was 1984, C++ was still in the lab in 1985, Windows 3.0 released 1990! Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Lawrence Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Have no idea at all where those aircraft come from! But I believe I can answer the last point. The jumping around is because of the way the multiplayer feature works; it simply transmits coordinates at regular intervals So the other guys position updates N times a second (I've tried 10 over a VPN to my mates LAN). Thus the other plane appears to jump rapidly from point to point in the sky. Of course, it would be cool if it transmitted velocities as well, thus the other machine could guess at where it is going between updates. This is all from guessing at how it works; I've not looked at the code or anything. If you could get a reasonably steady update rate it should be easy enough to interpolate. It is possible to do it with an unsteady rate, but you'd have to live with some lag. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol He's watching me write this, and even though I told him guns were not in the plans as of yet, I have to ask. It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Aerial Paintball. :-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Jim Wilson wrote: WillyB [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: He asked me to ask you guys if you would make some guns for his airplane becuase he wants shoot dad down! He was on my tail and had me dead to rights a few times too.. lol He's watching me write this, and even though I told him guns were not in the plans as of yet, I have to ask. It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Two ideas: Flying through floating loops, perhaps in a large circuit with a stop watch for time trials; Projecting a beam from the nose of the plane. Beam has finite length. Idea is to touch the other planes with the beam and score points. I think it would be nice to steer clear of guns and blowing things up. You can have perfectly exciting gameplay without those kind of elements. Lawrence ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Lawrence Manning writes: It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Define a zone behind each aircraft, possibly coneshaped and a hundred feet long or so. If you can remain in that zone for (say) ten seconds, you have defeated the other aircraft. 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] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 04 July 2003 14:36, David Megginson wrote: Lawrence Manning writes: It seems we could invent a competitive flying or even dogfighting game that didn't involve guns and actually shooting down aircraft. Define a zone behind each aircraft, possibly coneshaped and a hundred feet long or so. If you can remain in that zone for (say) ten seconds, you have defeated the other aircraft. All the best, David We could also set up a course on some scenery tile .. say in Death Valley or some other remote 'arena area' .. and have races :) 4 to 6 very tall towers could be modeled and put up and put the dir with them in it online for folks to download if they want to race. Have one aircraft like a 747, or even a blimp be a referee and take screenshots and make sure ppl do not cut corners. That would be fun to meet like that once a month or something. I thijk the user base may go up too, with some sort of competetion like the ones suggested. I like the cone zone and the paint ball idea's too :) WillyB ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
