* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:29:
The first sounds right (the confusing lock). I'm not sure exactly what the
second idea is about.
The meaning was reversed, which could be fixed by either reversing the value or
the name. The second possibility was to reverse the name, and thus
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Anyone preferring Helicopter View?
Yes, me.
While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I
think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have
the problem of the view
Dave Culp wrote:
After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external
changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get
custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
Karsten Krispin wrote:
[...]
But there would be a better way:
The
Actually, Karsten wrote this:
Dave Culp wrote:
After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making
external changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance
to get custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
And I wrote this:
Karsten Krispin wrote:
Am Mittwoch 11 Mai 2005 09:18 schrieb Martin Spott:
Dave Culp wrote:
I don't believe that cutting holes into the scenery at runtime meets
the performance expectations of FlightGear users. Therefore we already
have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite
airport
Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to
modify
and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them
can
be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different
approach
for animation they build different objects for
Dave Culp wrote:
Therefore we already
have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite
airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw.
Can we put defunct airports into the database?
I already did. I think there are numerous British defunct airports on
the list as well,
Martin Spott wrote:
I already did. I think there are numerous British defunct airports on
the list as well, ^^^
disused airfields,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
disused airfields,
OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists?
I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to the
scenery.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote:
disused airfields,
OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists?
I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to
the
scenery.
Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted to
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Anyone preferring Helicopter View?
Yes, me.
While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I
think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have
the problem of the view
Geoff Reidy wrote:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Anyone preferring Helicopter View?
Yes, me.
While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code,
I think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it
doesn't have the
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 18:34:
I think this is a very minor issue
Agreed. I wouldn't have asked if I had thought that this even is a
controversial topic. I though it's clear which of both are preferred
by the majority of *users*. Developers don't have that 'problem', anyway.
From: Melchior FRANZ
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Anyone preferring Helicopter View?
Yes, me.
While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I
think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think this is a very minor issue
Agreed. I wouldn't have asked if I had thought that this even is a
controversial topic. I though it's clear which of both are preferred
by the majority of *users*.
Maybe an elegant solution would be to write an
On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote:
How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
just so I have an idea.
It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the
less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look
right.
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the aircraft?
If so, I have all of this data already. The problem I see is my lack of
experience with Blender and the fact that I am a computer programmer not a
graphics artist. If someone enjoys drawing models I would be happy to
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Geoff Reidy wrote:
Also I've got some pretty nice screen shots taken at 1400x1050
with anti-aliasing and with the 3d clouds that I could put on a web
page if they could be useful.
Send them over and if they meet some minimal level of aethetics I'll get
them posted.
On May 11, 2005 01:35 pm, Ben Morrison wrote:
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the
aircraft?
Sort of, but dimensions of parts on the aircraft would be a better
description. =)
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
What kind of graphic cards do you have?!
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
* Andy Ross -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 19:19:
* * Melchior FRANZ wrote:
[stuff]
Maybe an elegant solution would be
As I said on the IRC channel (you know, the place where the real decisions
are made :-), I don't think that this is something that people would use.
Even less so if the results
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote:
disused airfields,
OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer
exists? I would think some people would have a problem with having
these
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
What kind of graphic cards do you have?!
Ampere
It's an Nvidia 6600gt, more specifically a Leadtek 6600gt tdh. Nice card
and I think the 6600gts are the best bang-for-the-buck card at the
moment on linux at least. Having said that the first card I got was
defective
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote:
disused airfields,
OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer
exists? I would think some people would have a problem
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
axe'em down on 9/11/2001.
Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected
anyway, and isn't his fault.
Dave
Andy Ross wrote:
Maybe an elegant solution would be to write an interface where
the user could select which views appeared in the V/v cycle.
Then the default list could include the more attractive chase
view, while those interested could re-select helicopter view
if they wanted it. The whole
From: Dave Culp
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
axe'em down on 9/11/2001.
Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected
anyway, and isn't his
---
Martin wrote:
Mostyn Gale wrote:
In the meantime I will just do a few warmup projects, i.e. A Robinson R22,
Piper PA25 Pawnee and Cessna 152.
Luckily you decided to choose the C152. In contrast to the C150 people
already consider the former to be a real aircraft whereas
Jim Wilson wrote:
From: Dave Culp
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
axe'em down on 9/11/2001.
Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected
anyway, and isn't
-
ghours wrote:
I have tried to make two helicopters as close as possible to the
specifications
1/ CH53 seastallion: mass:36700 pounds
2/ AS330 puma : which is 16300 pounds
it is very difficult to give the good delta and rellenflaphinge
parameters according to the real
You might want to post this to the JSBSim mailing list, too. There is a growing
amount of
discussion there about modeling helos in JSBSim, if that is what you are aiming
for.
Jon
-
ghours wrote:
I have tried to make two helicopters as close as possible to the
Ben Morrison writes
The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling
aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if
On Wed, 11 May 2005 14:09:20 -0500, Dave wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
axe'em down on 9/11/2001.
Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
..apologies, my point was we show these
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:59:26 -0400, Josh wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jim Wilson wrote:
From: Dave Culp
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin
Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001.
Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not
On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:46:08 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted
to Robin - there's some of those
Mostyn Gale wrote:
I chose the C152 because it would be fairly easy to model. In any case I
would imagine that the C152 and C150 would be pretty close in performance.
Oh, the C152 has 20 % more engine power. People who know both aircraft
told me this makes a significant difference.
Cheers,
36 matches
Mail list logo
