John Barrett writes:
primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
actually resisted is not a strong enough word
I realize project goals evolve but . IMO this is an admirable
feature
Norman
Paul Morriss wrote:
Hiya, since the inclusion of prior e-mails is starting
to make for a long message, I will make my points
about the previous message in bullet points:
6) Al West has started to put a website together for
cumulas (http://www.aurora-solutions.co.uk/~cumulas/),
which is where I
On 11/5/03 at 1:54 PM Andy Ross wrote:
# Download and build SimGear:
#
# (This presumes you already have a working Metakit installation. I
# don't install metakit globally on my machine either, but that's
# because I'm paranoid; it's always been very stable across FlightGear
# releases.)
#
On 11/5/03 at 10:51 PM Richard Hornby wrote:
I understand this - I've done it more than once. The problem persists.
Tks, R
Just to check, you are checking out SimGear-0.3 and FlightGear-0.9, yes?
Cheers - Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
On 11/6/03 at 1:36 AM John Barrett wrote:
3. Initial Radio Message set definition
a. Tower ATC messages
b. Regional ATC messages
c. Ground Traffic Control
There is current ongoing progress in this area within FlightGear. I
haven't quite got my head round what the multiplayer server
On 11/5/03 at 2:42 AM John Barrett wrote:
Any other ideas that I should include in this project ??
It would be nice if current MSFS clients could also connect and
participate. I realise this could be a bit of a pipe dream though given
the amount of work it'll probably take to get off the
hi,
I'm trying to compile last flightgear version,
under windows 2000/xp:
FlightGear-0.9.3
SimGear-0.3.4
plib-1.6.0.tar
I compiled everything succesfully under cygwin, BUT
I'm not able to do the same on MSVC7 (.NET:Microsoft Visual C++ .NET
69586-335-007-18264).I'd like to compile FG
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
John Barrett writes:
primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
(actually resisted is not a strong enough word)
From the FAQ (http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/FAQ.shtml#7.4):
|
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 9:10 am, Norman Vine wrote:
John Barrett writes:
primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
actually resisted is not a strong enough word
What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simulate* the
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
John Barrett writes:
primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
(actually resisted is not a strong enough word)
From the FAQ
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 12:56:
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
(actually resisted is not a strong enough word)
From the FAQ
hello, Frederic
I'm trying to compile FG under MSVC7 but I've
almost the same problems I found on MSVC6
problems with templates and typedefs.
I use
FlightGear-0.9.3
SimGear-0.3.4
plib-1.6.0.tar
can you tell me what
- compiler version (any patch?) do you
use
- FG version (FG+Simgear+plib)
On 11/5/03 at 1:38 PM John Barrett wrote:
I'm aware of the basic raw multiplayer and the OLK code (which I peeked at
and am still trying to figure out the details)
and what is the 3rd one ?? Dont see anything in CVS for it..
I think that was probably the Ace project. It never went into
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 12:56:
If you want to simulate combat please make it a separate project [...]
I'm worried, though, that fighting capabilities could mean
tradeoffs for the civilian simulation, which would certainly
not be acceptable. As long as the
David Luff wrote:
Does anyone know if either the 'raw' multiplayer or the OLK code actually
work at the moment - is it currently possible for 2 FG users to fly
together in any shape or form or not?
The multiplayer code *is* working, I'm not so sure about NetworkOLK.
There is however a reported
On 11/6/03 at 11:32 AM Jonathan Richards wrote:
sky'? The spirit of simulation would rather suggest building in flight
planning, ground- and air-traffic control, and generally relieving the
loneliness. If I thought I could do it (and I might...) I'd begin to see
if
we can have FlightGear
Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the FAQ (http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/FAQ.shtml#7.4):
| 7.4 - Is there support for any military scenarios like dog
| fighting or bomb dropping?
[...]
Doesn't sound like such a strong resistance. :-
We could always add some more detail to
David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/03 at 2:42 AM John Barrett wrote:
Any other ideas that I should include in this project ??
It would be nice if current MSFS clients could also connect and
participate.
VATSIM ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
actually resisted is not a strong enough word
I realize project goals evolve but . IMO this is an admirable
feature
I second that,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 1:05 pm, David Luff wrote:
The very very latest CVS (not the 0.9.3 release) can generate some
situation-relevant messages from the tower to the user - if you'd like to
participate in the ATC development then just shout, there's plenty to do!
David - I was so enthused
- Original Message -
From: David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On 11/6/03 at 1:36 AM John Barrett wrote:
3. Initial
Any other ideas that I should include in this project ??
It would be nice if current MSFS clients could also connect and
participate. I realise this could be a bit of a pipe dream though given
the amount of work it'll probably take to get off the ground full stop.
It's actually not
- Original Message -
From: David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC
On 11/5/03 at 2:42 AM John Barrett wrote:
Any other ideas that I should
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree, though, that what is missing is other inhabitants of the
simulated
planet :) The biggest mismatch with reality is the absence of other air
traffic, or even ground movement, and I know that people have started to
It would be nice if current MSFS clients could also connect and
participate. I realise this could be a bit of a pipe dream though given
the amount of work it'll probably take to get off the ground full stop.
Is there a published specification for the MS FS wire protocol ??
No.
g.
- Original Message -
From: Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:34 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
John Barrett writes:
primary
- Original Message -
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
Seriously -- I'm more interested in WWII dogfight style combat -- guns/wing
cannon, and dropped bombs only :) So we are really talking minimal changes
for that type of combat.
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things - how about being
able
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things - how about being
able to practice your fire fighting skills? (actually, a horrible thought
just occurred to me - imagine trying to model a helicopter with a water
tank swinging about under it :-)
That would be pretty cool. Just imagine
Jonathan Richards writes:
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 1:05 pm, David Luff wrote:
The very very latest CVS (not the 0.9.3 release) can generate some
situation-relevant messages from the tower to the user - if you'd like to
participate in the ATC development then just shout, there's plenty to
I have an account with DMSO so access to HLA is not a
problem, distributing it probably is ;)
Database interface, what I would love to see would be
a 'common' interface (base class maybe?) that the
server sees (so it will have the basic get, put etc
etc, the implementation of the actual db
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
FWIW, I'd argue that exactly 45° is a very bad choice, since octagonal
objects are going to be reasonably common in practice. Setting the
smooth angle at exactly their corner angle means that any amount of
modelling slop or round-off errors in such an object
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things -
That would be pretty cool. Just imagine the fun you could have with a 747
water bomber. :)
Something needs to be done about the terrain though - it's too clean.
g.
Call that phase 4: Extending terrain data for low level and ground level sim
Take a peek here for some great
I now have cubes and cylinders of various colours moving around in the
flightgear world. Currently I specify a starting lon, lat and the roaming
distance in meters in either the lon, lat direction. I can have about 100
vehicles being updated 3 times a second each before my p4 1.4ghz really
John Barrett wrote:
I see no problems here -- everything discussed so far impacts the current FG
code only if you are involved with a server, and having an additional config
option or three to control what gets compiled in is easy enough
Lets see if I can run down the areas of impact:
1.
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 8:13 pm, David Luff wrote:
Jonathan Richards writes:
I loaded up all the /ATC/*.cxx files into KDevelop this morning to see if
I could understand how it all fits together, but rapidly got lost in the
detail. Have you got a paragraph or two to hand which describes
Hi guys
Intro
==
I've been watching the FlightGear project for the last 2-3 years and am
interested in contributing to the project once I get a new video card. (TNT2
is just not cutting it)
Flight
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:22:54 +0200
Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The menu systems could do with some major enhancments.
A nice menu system for picking airports and aircraft, joystick configuration
and key mappings would go down well.
Getting everything menu driven will help a lot.
Suggestion 2
---
We need at least one properly/accurately modeled aircraft that we
can show off.
I'm talking nice visually (high poly count) and with an accurate
flight model.
Most people using recent commercial flightsims are running 1.5
GHz PCs with
at least 64MB
Seamus Thomas Carroll writes:
Is it possible to determine if a vehicle is in the viewing area of the
plane using the lon, lat of the vehicle?
No
FWIW
Using a Lat Lon representation of your position is horribly inefficient
So I recommend doing all your motion relative to a local plane
Paul Surgeon writes:
BTW : I took the Cessna 172 for a flip and was dissapointed. The
visual model is really rough - looks like it taxied into a brick
wall to get into those funny shapes.
What release is it? The 172 changed a release or two ago.
At full throttle and a 1500 fpm decent
At full throttle and a 1500 fpm decent it wouldn't go over 140
knots. In real life it would hit VNE very quickly.
Is that true? I've never taken a 172 that fast in real life, but they
are very draggy. In fact, when someone in a slick gets into a spiral,
one of the recommended emergency
Can you direct me to where i can find HitList::fgCurrentElevation()? i
have run grep on simgear and flightgear plus searched in google and
I still cant find mention of this function.
Seamus
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Norman Vine wrote:
Seamus Thomas Carroll writes:
Is it possible to determine
On Friday, 7 November 2003 02:58, David Megginson wrote:
What release is it? The 172 changed a release or two ago.
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer.
It's the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
I would run it under Linux except that last
Paul Surgeon writes:
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer. It's
the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
That's pretty ancient. Our current 172 looks a fair bit better.
All the best,
David
Here is a quick and dirty 1st cut at a wire protocol definition, and some
requirements for the message handling classes that will implement the
protocolPreliminary FlightGear Server (FGS) wire protocol specification
0xFFEscape prefix for 0xF? bytes in the data
next byte is inverted,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:46 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Preface
==
I would like to see the sim become more friendly to casual users
especially on the eye candy side of things.
This does not need to
48 matches
Mail list logo
