Hi,
* Ralf Gerlich -- 11/3/2008 5:29 PM:
why do you take this to the -users list again, where it is obviously
off-topic as a development issue and after I had taken the discussion
where it belongs: to the -devel list?
Sorry, that was an accident. I had intended to stop posting to this
On mardi 04 novembre 2008, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 14:27 +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Ron Jensen -- 11/4/2008 1:15 PM:
I'll shut up now since I've already been told I'm not a real
FlightGear developer and I'm not welcome to create scenery.
I hope that wasn't me. I
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:21:30 +0100, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, because the need to have many files per airport was actually your
only argument. I based my final suggestion on that requirement. But,
ok, let's go with the on-file-per-airport approach. I actually find
On mardi 04 novembre 2008, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:21:30 +0100, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, because the need to have many files per airport was actually your
only argument. I based my final suggestion on that requirement. But,
ok, let's go with the
Ron Jensen wrote:
Managing this in CVS would
add another 9,681 CVS directories and 29,000 (Entries, Repository and
Root) files.
No management in CVS is planned.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
Ralf Gerlich | World Custom Scenery Project
Computer Scientist|
I am still using the old Scenery, can I ask if their is any fixes for London
Gatwick in the new flightgear scenery please?
http://fgfs.i-net.hu/modules/fgtracker/index.php?FUNCT=FLIGHTFLIGHTID=464668
I ended up in the carpark the last time I was there lol
Aerotro
Online FlightGear
* Ron Jensen -- 11/4/2008 1:15 PM:
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:01 +0100, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
I have already provided the arguments in favour of the three-level
hierarchy.
Yes, we were really only arguing over whether a fourth level would
be too expensive, and whether organizing files via
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
Ron Jensen wrote:
Managing this in CVS would
add another 9,681 CVS directories and 29,000 (Entries, Repository and
Root) files.
No management in CVS is planned.
At least not in this structure. This is a means of data transport, not
of data management.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
that. (A listener on sim/signals/nasal-dir-initialized should do the
trick.)
I am not sure - gui.INIT() is called by a timer with a 1 second delay...
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
Ok my turn :)
I found Ron's comment about not being welcome to create scenery a bit
disturbing ... why?
So I'll ask a dumb , non developer question: What exactly is the purpose
of this directory setup ?
Will it affect my own attempt to update local scenery ?Is it meant to
make scenery additions
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 14:27 +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Ron Jensen -- 11/4/2008 1:15 PM:
I'll shut up now since I've already been told I'm not a real
FlightGear developer and I'm not welcome to create scenery.
I hope that wasn't me. I don't label people real or non-real
something. But
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:01 +0100, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
Is there a reason that we split up each airport's data into at least 5
different files?
There is reason to separate the pure airport geometry data from the
AI-network. Those come from different sources and are
It seems, that gui.INIT() is called after glide_slope_tunnel.loop(), which
calls gui.popupTip() that relies on screenHProp set by gui.INIT().
And here is a patch to make popupTip check that INIT has been called.
Index: gui.nas
===
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 21:26:18 Syd wrote:
Hi Syd,
Ok my turn :)
I found Ron's comment about not being welcome to create scenery a bit
disturbing ... why?
Just to make a slightly off thread comment: All I can say is that Ron's
comments on this list have been courteous and professional
Forums Virgin Net wrote:
I am still using the old Scenery, can I ask if their is any fixes for
London Gatwick in the new flightgear scenery please?
As far as I can tell we didn't recieve any submissions which are
somehow specific to Gatwick, so I think the situation/layout/whatever
is still
Syd wrote:
Ok my turn :)
Yeah, yeah, yeah ;-)
I must have missed out on all the discussion about this change , sorry .
Have it here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg17407.html
I'm about to try to finish the airport , so are there any changes in
Thanks guys , I think I understand the purpose now. I was referring to
adding airport building at CYVR , I haven't tried actually modifying the
terrain or airport layout .
Cheers
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 22:19 +0100, Durk Talsma wrote:
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 21:26:18 Syd wrote:
Hi Syd,
Ok my turn :)
I found Ron's comment about not being welcome to create scenery a bit
disturbing ... why?
Just to make a slightly off thread comment: All I can say is that Ron's
18 matches
Mail list logo
