Tim Moore wrote:
Whoops! I've recreated your problem and I'll try to get a fix out soon.
Tim
Durk Talsma wrote:
Hi All,
After today's CVS update (~8:00AM, CET), I'm only seeing approximately 10
meters of scenery around me, using my customized camera setup (attached
below). The more
Tim Moore wrote:
Whoops! I've recreated your problem and I'll try to get a fix out soon.
Tim
Durk Talsma wrote:
Hi All,
After today's CVS update (~8:00AM, CET), I'm only seeing approximately 10
meters of scenery around me, using my customized camera setup (attached
below). The more
Csaba Halász wrote
--
revision 1.3
date: 2008/12/04 18:47:49; author: mfranz; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
Allow negative thrust. This allows a single recoil or vibration
thruster to accelerate in both directions. THROTTLE input still
clamps to 0/1 by default. (OK'ed by
Tim Moore wrote:
I've checked in a fix for this. I believe it also fixes the ordering problems
that Vivian reported.
On my system, this has fixed the problem where the 3D clouds disappeared when
occluded by the moving propeller texture on the c172p/c182
Thanks :)
-Stuart
James Turner wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 19:32, Martin Spott wrote:
Do/merge/leave whatever/however you like, I just wanted to make sure
Daniel's changes don't get lost.
Right, thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to apply the still-relevant
parts of this, and Yon's SGReferenced patch, but I
Tim Moore wrote
Tim Moore wrote:
Whoops! I've recreated your problem and I'll try to get a fix out soon.
Tim
Durk Talsma wrote:
Hi All,
After today's CVS update (~8:00AM, CET), I'm only seeing approximately
10
meters of scenery around me, using my customized camera setup
On 12/31/2008 11:46 PM, Alex Perry wrote:
I've observed this variation in sensitivity in practical operations. We
can get away with using the 0.5 degree rule, but I'd prefer us to
perform the divide-and-constrain that John describes.
I've got most of the code to do this.
In the absence of
Tim,
Tim Moore wrote:
James Turner wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 19:32, Martin Spott wrote:
Do/merge/leave whatever/however you like, I just wanted to make sure
Daniel's changes don't get lost.
Right, thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to apply the still-relevant
parts of this, and
Started the Blackburn Buccaneer at KNZY (San Diego North Island NAS)... a
million CullVisitor NaN messages ensued... I immediately restarted with the UFO
and observed the following METAR...
2009/01/01 14:52
KNZY 011452Z AUTO 0KT 1/4SM HZ 11/08 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP173 60001 T01060078
55001
Sorry, I wrote too soon without thorough testing.
First of all, I should have mentioned:
(1) Fred's win32 build from today (20090101) and updated data via CVS
(2) It was the wingman version of the Buccaneer
Second of all, I just started the Buccaneer at KNTU (Oceana NAS, Norfolk, VA)
and got
Hi All and Happy New Year,
After updating SimGear and fgfs source from cvs yesterday, I noticed
that at low throttle near or on the ground, there is a vertical plane in
the field of view such that all the view beyond the prop disc and beyond
this plane is darker. This is in the pa24-250 which
Martin Spott wrote:
Tim,
Tim Moore wrote:
James Turner wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 19:32, Martin Spott wrote:
Do/merge/leave whatever/however you like, I just wanted to make sure
Daniel's changes don't get lost.
Right, thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to apply the still-relevant
parts
On 12/31/2008 11:46 PM, Alex Perry wrote:
If you want more
detail than the handwave that the AIM contains, go read the FAA
technical manual on how to design and deploy LOC antenna arrays ..
Found it.
In such matters, the FAA defers to the ICAO.
On 1 Jan 2009, at 16:40, Tim Moore wrote:
I may have been confused about what James proposed to commit. My
understanding
is that Yon's patch mostly makes the other one obsolete, but that
there also
seems to be some instability in it. In any case, a 1.9.1 should have
a minimum
of bug
Am Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2009 schrieben Sie:
On 01/01/2009 04:42 AM, you wrote:
The usage of the electrical/outputs nodes is somewhat messy:
I agree.
dme.cxx interprets it as boolean, anything other than 0 is on
adf.cxx interprets it as kind of boolean, anything below 1.0 is off
Hi --
On 01/01/2009 01:17 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Please find attached a patch as a proof of concept that has been in my head
for a while now. Here is a short description of what it does:
Check if /systems/electrical/outputs/dme exists (but don't create)
If yes: use this node's value
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Torsten Dreyer tors...@t3r.de wrote:
Check if /systems/electrical/outputs/dme exists (but don't create)
If yes: use this node's value for guessing if power is available (for b.c.)
If not: check if /instrumentation/dme/supply-voltage-norm exists
If yes: check
Csaba Hal??sz wrote:
I don't think a normalized voltage makes any sense. It should be real
voltage in volts. Then the particular instruments should check for
acceptable input voltage. I must be missing some point, what's wrong
with this approach?
Different aircraft are equippped with
On 01/01/2009 05:05 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
Different aircraft are equippped with electrical systems of different
nominal voltage. You can buy most of the common instruments for at
least two different voltages,
I have no objection to standardizing on real volts so long
as we standardize on
Greatings,
I have made some scenery using terragear-cs and it has built ok except
for it not matching existing scenery. I was told that it was because of
me not using the same arrayfit params that the original scenery was built.
What arrayfit params where used for the 1.0 scenery and how do I
John Denker wrote:
Hi --
On 01/01/2009 01:17 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Please find attached a patch as a proof of concept that has been in my head
for a while now. Here is a short description of what it does:
Check if /systems/electrical/outputs/dme exists (but don't create)
If yes:
Michael Smith wrote:
I have made some scenery using terragear-cs and it has built ok except
for it not matching existing scenery. I was told that it was because of
me not using the same arrayfit params that the original scenery was built.
I suspect it doesn't match because you don't have
John Denker wrote:
On 01/01/2009 05:05 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
Different aircraft are equippped with electrical systems of different
nominal voltage. You can buy most of the common instruments for at
least two different voltages,
I have no objection to standardizing on real volts
Martin Spott wrote:
Michael Smith wrote:
I have made some scenery using terragear-cs and it has built ok except
for it not matching existing scenery. I was told that it was because of
me not using the same arrayfit params that the original scenery was built.
I suspect it doesn't
2009/1/1 Rob Shearman, Jr. rmsj...@yahoo.com:
Sorry, I wrote too soon without thorough testing.
First of all, I should have mentioned:
(1) Fred's win32 build from today (20090101) and updated data via CVS
(2) It was the wingman version of the Buccaneer
Second of all, I just started
Found the feenableexcept() function, so expect more of these :)
Thanks to Ron for his help.
--
Csaba/Jester
Index: src/AIModel/AICarrier.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/AIModel/AICarrier.cxx,v
retrieving
I generally make 3d panels, but I find textranslate etc useful,
indeed vital
within these 3d instruments for example in HIS.
I'm also using them for rain effects on canopies, so as far as I'm
concerned
the 2d panel stuff is still very much in use.
(still trying to collect together
So, it seems like at least Syd may have been assuming the deflection
was in 'dots * 5' rather than 'degrees * 5' - I'd love Syd to confirm
or deny that. The upshot of this is that the GS indicator in Primus
is, **I think**, about 1/3rd as sensitive as it should be. However, I
could easily
On 01/01/2009 06:14 PM, dave perry wrote:
John, I agree completely with pursuing such a standard. Having a
documented standard would make both AC and instrument modeling easier.
:-)
Either approach could work and I could live with either. With the
jumper approach, we should also have
On 01/01/2009 10:05 PM, syd adams wrote:
I think i assumed long ago that the GS deflection had a limit of -10 to 10
like the heading-needle-deflection , and so scaled the needle to the
outermost dot accordingly.
That is not consistent with what is implemented in navradio.cxx
That instrument,
30 matches
Mail list logo
