Arnt Karlsen wrote:
7) Add pitching and rolling deck capability
..heave too.
Someone like to write a Ship Dynamic Model? :-)
Regards
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathias Froelich has also got some work underway, so we can add to the
schedule
project schedule:
1) Derive a new AICarrier class (me, just did it)
2) Refine the carrier visually (Vivian, doing it now)
3) Make the decks solid.
4) Improve FDM gear reactions to accomodate moving
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 October 2004 02:26, Curtis Olson wrote:
People were also impressed with the time of day modeling and
day/night/dusk effects.
You just reminded me of something I wanted to ask.
Is the enhanced lighting in FG still under construction?
It's based on an OpenGL
David Culp wrote:
Hi Erik,
I was wondering if the enable and path properties for the submodel system
should be moved out of /sim/systems/submodels and into /sim/submodels
instead. This will complete the migration out of the Systems code.
Cvs is now updated to put the submodel code under
Boris Koenig wrote:
Well, everybody who wants to give it a try can now do so easily: I've
made a quick stab at it this morning, because I was messing around with
the corresponding files anyway.
I've committed this patch in a slightly modified form:
JSBSim will report only (for config file format v2.0) RELEASE as:
UNRELEASABLE
ALPHA
BETA
RELEASE (or PRODUCTION)
Jon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Hofman
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:38 AM
To: FlightGear developers
Hi all,
RE: FG MAC OS 10.3 binary
Can anyone help with such a beast? Have tried the 0.9.3 (from
Wally's World) and 0.9.4 binary (FlightGear-0.9.4.tgz) with
the current 0.9.6 scenery base, thank you for these, but no
go ... even when the 'version' file is altered to match!
Says missing
Jon Berndt wrote:
JSBSim will report only (for config file format v2.0) RELEASE as:
UNRELEASABLE
ALPHA
BETA
RELEASE (or PRODUCTION)
I think ALPHA and UNRELEASABLE are the same for FlightGear (unless you
refer to unreleasable as non-GPL compliant, in which case I don't even
want to see it :-) )
Jon Berndt wrote:
JSBSim will report only (for config file format v2.0) RELEASE as:
UNRELEASABLE
ALPHA
BETA
RELEASE (or PRODUCTION)
I think ALPHA and UNRELEASABLE are the same for FlightGear (unless you
refer to unreleasable as non-GPL compliant, in which case I don't even
want to
On 28 Oct 2004, at 11:57, Geoff McLane wrote:
Can anyone help with such a beast? Have tried the 0.9.3 (from
Wally's World) and 0.9.4 binary (FlightGear-0.9.4.tgz) with
the current 0.9.6 scenery base, thank you for these, but no
go ... even when the 'version' file is altered to match!
I had this
project schedule:
1) Derive a new AICarrier class (me, just did it)
2) Refine the carrier visually (done, set to Erik for upload to cvs)
3) Make the decks solid.
4) Improve FDM gear reactions to accomodate moving ground (Mathias)
5) Improve FDM to include external forces
3) Make the decks solid.
9) Make island solid
Here's how I think we can solidify the decks and island. First we need to
define some rectangles (2? 3? a variable list?).
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/decks.jpg
Each rectangle is defined in the carrier config file, in carrier body
David Culp wrote:
3) Make the decks solid.
9) Make island solid
Here's how I think we can solidify the decks and island. First we need to
define some rectangles (2? 3? a variable list?).
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/decks.jpg
Mathias Froelich ahs done some work for areas
On Mittwoch 27 Oktober 2004 23:01, David Culp wrote:
Yep. I guess this means that the ground position and velocity
vectors will need to be passed in to the FDMs. I'd also recommend
against passing in orientation and rotational velocity vectors at the
moment - first do the steady level
On Mittwoch 27 Oktober 2004 22:18, David Culp wrote:
The current AI objects are not solid, so landing on the carrier is
impossible until we solidify the deck. One way to do this will be to
define the deck(s) as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but
maybe more. When the user
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 00:59, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On October 27, 2004 04:18 pm, David Culp wrote:
One way to do this will be to define the deck(s)
as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but maybe more.
user aircraft gets close to the deck (using radar range and
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 15:36, David Culp wrote:
When the aircraft gets close (say 1 mile, 300 feet) the carrier will start
checking to see if the aircraft position is within any of the reactangles.
This will require a lot of coordinate transformation, and it would be good
to get the
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 18:36, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mathias Froelich ahs done some work for areas on the ground, and if I
understand his code correctly (I'll send a copy to you) he uses triangles.
I would favour that solution anyway, because it is easy to divide the deck
into triangles
Matthias Froelich wrote:
This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be to
model the braking force as a *distance* over which the
Hi Andy !
Thanks for answering my Nasal inquiry several weeks ago,
regardless of your vacation - Hope you've had a good
time in Japan ;-)
Andy Ross wrote:
I'm honestly looking for something to get me back into FlightGear
development. I can do the YASim integration if you guys have an
interface
Andy Ross wrote:
Matthias Froelich wrote:
This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be to
model the braking force as a
Using that method, it is going to be a pain modelling deck with more complex
geometry. I can't imagine how much work it will take to create a ski jump.
It will be easier in the long run to define an object in a model file as the
solid deck.
Ampere
On October 28, 2004 09:36 am, David Culp
On Thursday 28 October 2004 07:17 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Using that method, it is going to be a pain modelling deck with more
complex geometry. I can't imagine how much work it will take to create a
ski jump.
It will be easier in the long run to define an object in a model file as
Can't.
a) I'm not a programmer, so I will break things.
b) I don't have FlightGear installed, as I am still trying to get direct
rendering to work on my ATI 9200 in Linux. ;-)
Ampere
On October 28, 2004 08:34 pm, David Culp wrote:
Thanks for your input. Forward your code to Erik.
Dave
24 matches
Mail list logo
