Hi Guys
I guess this leads to an interesting dilemma of were FG goes.
If you want scenery items and AI aircraft flying all over the place even
with the latest equipment you are going to have a slide show.
So do we continue to develop and hence force people to upgrade to keep up or
do you spilt
I forgot to add details .
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] When you're modelling an aircraft, nothing it that much
likely to vary than the nose and the tail because the manufacturer probably
has modified the plane and there exist different versions with different
noses (this
Kris Feldmann wrote:
Often times upgrading one part means going to a whole new computer,
such as when the new part isn't supported by the motherboard, OS,
or something else. With laptops it's often impossible to upgrade
anything but RAM and disk. This means that a $50 graphics card
isn't really
Martin Spott wrote:
Hey, Jim, I don't want to attack you personally. I'd just want to weigh in
_against_ the aircraft nose as a reference point, because I'm convinced that
it is not suited for the purpose,
How about the center of all (runway) contact points?
In the case of a normal airplane that
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about the center of all (runway) contact points?
In the case of a normal airplane that would be on the the centerline,
ground level and exactly between the maingear and the nosegear/tailgear.
It depends on how precise the numbers are that are
..stretch the plane and the mid point moves...
..the common way to do it, it use the main spar and add some idiot
length vector _way_ out thru the nose, and use that as origo.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
you are doing yourself a ***HUGE*** favor if you keep all the opengl
calls caged in a single thread.
OK, this is obvious. I obviously misinterpreted the original statement:
Threading *within* *an* OpenGL context. I wanted to point out that
threading goes well with OpenGL as long as all OpenGL
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
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:31:22 +0200,
Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
..and are we triggerhappy today... ;-)
..the common way to do it,
...is (not it)
it
use the
...wings...
main spar and add some idiot length vector _way_ out thru the nose,
and
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The nose simply is a point of less relevance to the aircraft compared to
things like wing root for example. After modifications to the wing root of a
(real) airplane you are still able to extrapolate the 'original' reference
point. This is impossible with
Jim wrote:
Before we get too worked up about this... It has absolutely
nothing to do with modeling the aircraft. It is only a reference
point for positioning the 3D model in the scene. All the nose is,
sans pitot tubes and other items that are not centered, is a
location easy to identify
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
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Agreed the naming is not 100% clear and the code needs better
documentation, but it appears that nav_radial is the radial the nav is
tuned to (or the localizer heading if it's an ILS.)
The tuned radial is nav_sel_radial, I think. I noticed Jim's comment,
and I'm
Lee Elliott schrieb:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. And especially I can't expect to slow down development for
the majority of the users.
I simply don't have any money to spend on anything other than bills and food,
and that's tricky.
Well,
Martin Spott schrieb:
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. [...]
I already noticed that there's a new culture on this planet that implies
continuosly upgrading of everything that is upgradable. But I think
David Megginson writes:
Can we back out this patch and then could someone remind me exactly
what appears to be broke or what we are trying to fix?
The property that we publish for the current radial does not actually
show what radial the airplane is on.
I'm working now on a bit of
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!
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
On Friday 04 July 2003 15:18, Jon Berndt wrote:
Jim wrote:
Before we get too worked up about this... It has absolutely
nothing to do with modeling the aircraft. It is only a reference
point for positioning the 3D model in the scene. All the nose is,
sans pitot tubes and other items
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
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
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
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
With this in mind, now, we go back to the stated problem. Let's say we
(FDM/JSBSim) are reporting the lat/lon of the nose of the aircraft to
FlightGear's visual subsystem. We know where our CG is in lat/lon, and we
know where the nose is relative to that. So
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Lee Elliott schrieb:
I simply don't have any money to spend on anything other than bills and food,
and that's tricky.
Well, that's sad.
But I don't expect that there are many people who suffer from the same
problem.
I think the majority
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I became aware of the consequences of disparity between model and fdm
co-ordinates when I first started doing models for FG. When using different
x datums for model and fdm I could clearly see the a/c rotating about
incorrect axis.
What I do now is
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a
need for it. [...]
I already noticed that there's a new culture on this planet that implies
continuosly upgrading of everything that is
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
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
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
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
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]
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
Thank you for your reply and I began to understood the concepts of
the heading hold system in nav mode but some of the autopilot system's
properties are not so solid in my mind so I want to briefly summarase my
understanding of the autopilot systems lateral navigation mode if there are
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)
Mehmet Velicangil writes:
In one of the mails I read something like At 5 miles X 2 degrees
deviation it was commanding a 10 degree turn so the order given by
code to the aircraft is to turn with the amount of difference equal
to the adjustmant part calculated in the autopilot code from
I put FlightGear patch requests, etc., into a TODO mailbox.
Unfortunately, I've done an even worse job than usual of cleaning out
that box, since we've just finished a three-month-long major
renovation at home.
As a result, I've decided to delete the whole thing and start over.
If anyone has sent
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
