On Saturday 05 January 2002 19:38, throttle1000 wrote:
I think rj? is better. He seems to have lot of knowledge about the matter.
I am bretty busy with my moving map project at the moment. And I have
no idea about what is done in the FG project so far. To me it looks a bit
messy. I would
The idea would be to use the graphichs
part of MS files.
They have lot of nice airplane outside
and panel graphics.
That alone would take 1000 years to
do.
Butthe problem is:FGFS doesn't support moving
parts,jetsandpropelleron/off, ...
When you plot the model, all of these
Butthe problem is:FGFS doesn't support moving
parts,jetsandpropelleron/off, ...
When you plot the model, all of these things appear
together!
Try with this FS98 model: http://www.simviation.com/files/military/f14a9801.zip
What is not supported (yet) is left out. If no moving parts
then the parts don't move. Until sombody makes them to move?
Use what can be used? That is anyway better than nothing.
I know, but plot all together...
Marcio Shimoda
___
: [Flightgear-devel] Why not
use FS2002 aircraft files?
This
assumes that MS is doing things correctly and/or the way things should be
done. This is an invalid assumption. This is one of the reasons I, personally,
wanted to begin writing an FDM.
You
may some day see MSFS
throttle1000 wrote:
*The idea would be to use the graphichs part of MS files.*
*They have lot of nice airplane outside and panel graphics.*
*That alone would take 1000 years to do.*
*Yes. They have errors! But one should only use what is*
*good and ignore what is not correct. I am
That's it! Keep them separate. Just add what is missing. The user then
downloads these two parts and gets a nice airplane. The source package
needs only couble of planes .. as a demo. Rest could be downloaded from
several sites that support MSFS files. FGFS would only add the physics
file.
It is
We should not care about that! Just support the format! It would then be
the USER's problem - what he downloads and where from. Same as
with Autocad dwg files! Some are free to download and some are not.
But a common format helps to transfer IDEA's around the world. And
is better than 1000
throttle1000 wrote:
Any gauges '.gau' files are normally copied into the 'FS2002/gauges' folder.
But always make sure you follow the installation instructions given with
your
panel.
Comments:
I just wonder if .gau files cannot be descrambled?
Even if it could be done it's
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (throttle1000) [2002.01.05 07:15]:
That's it! Keep them separate. Just add what is missing. The user then
downloads these two parts and gets a nice airplane. The source package
needs only couble of planes .. as a demo. Rest could be downloaded from
several sites that
Comments:
I just wonder if .gau files cannot be descrambled?
JOJ
The inside part won't work, because the gauges are compiled binary
objects for Windows.
Actually, the .GAU files are just DLLs. They call specific functions
within the FS2k/SDK (unreleased yet) to perform
At 10:49 PM 1/4/2002 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
This assumes that MS is doing things correctly and/or the way things
should be done. This is an invalid assumption. This is one of the reasons
I, personally, wanted to begin writing an FDM.
A heavy assumption indeed. The MSFS flight model is
Can I see a candidate here? :-)
JOJ
The .gau files are just .dll's. Up through FS5 they were popularly
believed
to be scrambled, but actually were simply compressed by an absurd
Lempel-Ziv on top of run-length scheme that enlarged more of them than
it
compressed. In FS2000 they switched to
I would not like to start to mess with this project too much. There seem
to be lot of peoble writing code already! Too many peoble messing
around just makes it worse.
JOJ
Okay, I see what you mean. The problem is that someone has to care
enough to write the code. So far, you seem to the
throttle1000 wrote:
I would not like to start to mess with this project too much. There seem
to be lot of peoble writing code already! Too many peoble messing
around just makes it worse.
FlightGear is very modular. So you can easily have your own little spot
that you work on without getting
I agree! The geometry (contact points) is maybe usefull too? And the names
and makes data. As said all what is good could be used. It takes lot of time
to draw nice airplanes. And there is lot of none programmers who want to
do that. Why not let them to do it .. and consentrate on the physics?
On Saturday 05 January 2002 10:51 am, you wrote:
Borrowed text:
Panel.cfg
This file is a plain text file that can be edited using any text editor.
This file gives FS2000 information about the model's panel.
In FS2000 if you released a model without including a separate panel,
you would
On Saturday 05 January 2002 01:17 pm, you wrote:
I agree! The geometry (contact points) is maybe usefull too? And the names
and makes data. As said all what is good could be used. It takes lot of
time to draw nice airplanes. And there is lot of none programmers who
want to do that. Why not
throttle1000 writes:
I am bretty busy with my moving map project at the moment.
Got a URL
Have you seen http://atlas.sf.net
And I have no idea about what is done in the FG project so far. To me it
looks a bit
messy. I would start by making it more solid. There seems to be lot of
coded ideas
I say what I think! And I think what I want! Realistic feedback is
never too bad. I am just realistic about my ability to produce code.
It's not too many lines a day. If I have too many projects - nothing
gets never done.
Hey
All I read is a lot of 'gripes' about why we aren't doing this and
Thanks for the link. My project is more to use real scanned
maps. Calibrate them and show position etc. information on
them. Using GPS and other data.
The maps can be aeromaps, roadmaps or any special maps
with special information on them. The user scans the maps and
uses computer to keep track
throttle1000 writes:
I have been reading this FGFS stuff about a year now!
and after lurking for a year decide to make 15 posts or so
in the first 24 hours after decloaking, rehashing a very well
discussed topic !
(And programming 25 years)
You apparently have the skill but not the will
Thanks for the link. My project is more to use real scanned
maps. Calibrate them and show position etc. information on
them. Using GPS and other data.
The maps can be aeromaps, roadmaps or any special maps
with special information on them. The user scans the maps and
uses computer to keep track
throttle1000 wrote:
I say what I think! And I think what I want! Realistic feedback is
never too bad. I am just realistic about my ability to produce code.
It's not too many lines a day. If I have too many projects - nothing
gets never done.
All of us are working as a hobby on teh project.
I just try to find a sim that makes the job. Hard to find!
And I really want to reuse those planes available in MSFS.
FGFS is still a demo. Not yet a usable product!
JOJ
happy flying your self - alone!
and after lurking for a year decide to make 15 posts or so
in the first 24 hours after
On 2002.01.05 16:46 throttle1000 wrote:
Thanks for the link. My project is more to use real scanned
maps. Calibrate them and show position etc. information on
them. Using GPS and other data.
The maps can be aeromaps, roadmaps or any special maps
with special information on them. The user
Wolfram Kuss writes:
BTW, I didn't get an answer from the C310 guy :-(. I think I will ask
the other C310 author, although I don't like his model as much.
Yes, please -- and a C172 3-D model (*any* C172 model) is critical.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigh ...
I just try to find a sim that makes the job. Hard to find!
Different people have different goals for use of a simulator.
If you can't find the simulator you want, then you have to write it,
or pay someone to write the code you want to have available.
There's a dozen projects out there
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:24, you wrote:
That would add about 2000 different aircrafts
in one night to the FGFS. There should only be
an additional FGFS file which would give those
parameters that are not found in MSFS files.
And that could be some default file for most
new planes until the
Not to disagree with what you said
lowsy physics.
I think the word is lousy meaning infested with lice. Appropriate ?
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 12:42, you wrote:
Not to disagree with what you said
lowsy physics.
I think the word is lousy meaning infested with lice. Appropriate ?
Yep that too. :-) well maybe no lice, but it;s not great.
David
___
Flightgear-devel
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (throttle1000) [2002.01.04 21:26]:
That would add about 2000 different aircrafts
in one night to the FGFS. There should only be
an additional FGFS file which would give those
parameters that are not found in MSFS files.
And that could be some default file for most
new
32 matches
Mail list logo
