Hello devel members,
That issue with jsbsim aircraft is back.
It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash with that
message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!
I thought it was solved.
--
Best regards,
Henri, aka Alva
Official grtux hangar maintainer
On 25 Jan 2011, at 09:46, henri orange wrote:
It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash with that
message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!
It was solved, but my was over-written when Erik updated JSBSim (because I
didn't remember to submit it to JSBSim).
Thanks,
I did not noticed the last nigh update.
Will try out it.
2011/1/25 James Turner zakal...@mac.com
On 25 Jan 2011, at 09:46, henri orange wrote:
It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash with
that message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!
It was
It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash
with that message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!
It was solved, but my was over-written when Erik updated JSBSim
(because I didn't remember to submit it to JSBSim). But last night I
re-appllied the fix to Git,
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
It was solved, but my was over-written when Erik updated JSBSim
(because I didn't remember to submit it to JSBSim). But last night I
re-appllied the fix to Git, so it should work again - I spent some time
with the C172 resetting and repositioning and
On 25 Jan 2011, at 10:28, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
What patch?
FIx for #204, the issue Henri is describing:
http://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/commit/c2458a17bf0a8a95caf1a43e37482162ae0100bc
Partial band-aid for #222, the reset-NaN crash: (ugly, but not in the main
JSBSim code)
Hi,
In Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, just did a git pull (SG/FG/DATA), and make,
etc, and on running the default a/c, as someone else also reported,
get the console output :-
creating 3D noise texture... DONE
Trim Results:
Altitude AGL:4.4 wdot: 1.54e-03 Tolerance: 1e-03 Failed
In attempting to place an item on the ocean surface, I came to realize that
it's not the Nimitz that is hovering above MSL, it's that the ocean surface
is about 7 meters below MSL. I was going to suggest simply dropping the
carriers to match, but then looking around I discovered that it was
Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to
have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be
curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons. We have been
using large polygons for the ocean so that leads to some errors depending on
On 24.01.2011 22:49, James Turner wrote:
Perhaps another approach would be to do out-of-source builds. I think
automake/conf should support that, although it's been a while since I've
tried it.
Cmake is very good at out-of-source builds :)
Hmm. The out-of-source builds alone don't really
Tides?
Ocean with LOD?
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to
have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be
curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to
have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be
curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons. We have been
using large
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Peter Brown smoothwater...@adelphia.netwrote:
Does it not seem a bit odd to have a divot like this?
Well odd things result occasionally when we try to represent the physical
world with triangles ... we could discuss how many triangles and where to
concentrate
On 01/25/2011 12:14 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
How about having carriers do a terrain height check and follow the polygon
curvature of the FlightGear world?
Call it a feature.
The real ocean has swells. They make carrier flight operations
considerably more interesting.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, ThorstenB wrote:
You'll also need to keep git from touching any _sources_, so maintain
two sets of matching sources and their objects. Using two completely
separate repos helps - or the magic feature to create two separate
source checkouts from one repository, which James
On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:20 PM, John Denker wrote:
On 01/25/2011 12:14 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
How about having carriers do a terrain height check and follow the polygon
curvature of the FlightGear world?
Call it a feature.
The real ocean has swells. They make carrier flight operations
On 25 Jan 2011, at 19:22, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
I suspect the option --local to git clone might be useful.
I have not tried myself, though.
The thing I was thinking of is:
git-new-workdir
Which essentially symlinks the key pieces of .git between two different dirs.
Documentation
On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Peter Brown smoothwater...@adelphia.net
wrote:
I expected if flat then the polys would only go down until the mid-span of
the ocean surface and then it would rise back up to meet the terrain again.
Carriers are set to 0 ft altitude. However, we were aware of the discrepancy
caused by a flat sea on a roundish world. The wake of the Nimitz is angled
down to form a skirt that conceals the error from most, if not all, normal
viewing angles. We deliberately do not seek the local sea level as this
Am 25.01.2011 12:59, schrieb Geoff McLane:
[... JSBSim trim failure report]
Is this a problem? Certainly do not like seeing 'Failed',
but it seems fg runs ok, and the aircraft seems to fly ;=))
so maybe not a problem...
It is probably not a problem, except for adding complexity when hunting
Is there a problem with maintaining vertical sync with MPCarrier? If there
is please file a report here:
http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/list
Vivian
-Original Message-
From: Peter Brown [mailto:smoothwater...@adelphia.net]
Sent: 25 January 2011 19:33
To:
On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Is there a problem with maintaining vertical sync with MPCarrier? If there is
please file a report here:
http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/list
Vivian
No Vivian,
Curt suggested that carriers do a terrain height
2011/1/25 Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net:
and the vertical movement would
tend to unlatch aircraft on deck from the carrier.
Are you sure of that statement ? Can the carrier vertical speed be
higher than the speed of a falling object ?
My bet would be that the normal reaction forces
Italian Flight Simulator Show:
Weekend of March 19-20, 2011
Verona, Italy
http://www.pvi.it/joomla/eventi/79-flight-simulator-show-2011/210-documenti-sul-flight-simulator-show
I am just passing along information here in case we have FlightGear
developers or users that might be interested in
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
I suspect the option --local to git clone might be useful.
I have not tried myself, though.
Once you get it all figured out, please let us know how, so we can get setup
correctly too. :-)
Thanks,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:08:00 +0100, Bertrand wrote in message
aanlktimqvfcd2zf0ee0gqu7tuzxmop_ygdrnbuavo...@mail.gmail.com:
2011/1/25 Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net:
and the vertical movement would
tend to unlatch aircraft on deck from the carrier.
Are you sure of that
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Curtis Olson wrote:
Once you get it all figured out, please let us know how, so we can get setup
correctly too. :-)
I'm not sure this counts as figuring it all out.. :)
anders@sleipner:/opt/FlightGear$ du -sk fgdata
7930604 fgdata
anders@sleipner:/opt/FlightGear$ git
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:44 PM, ThorstenB bre...@gmail.com wrote:
make isn't smart
enough to notice that the older object files were generated from (older)
sources, which had identical content to the current (newer) sources.
Right. Enter ccache :)
--
Csaba/Jester
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to
have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be
curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons. We have been
using large
The other implication here is that it would be extremely handy to have
multiple branches checked out simultaneously for other reasons. git makes
branching easy, yes, but if you find yourself bouncing between branches with
changes for separate projects, and external events may require you to jump
I have tried to load several AC that did not load with filed to load
file name errors. So I did a survey of the entire up-to-date
fgdata. I used an up-to-date fgrun and went through all the AC.
The following do not load even to the viewer in fgrun:
737-100, 737-300, AG-14, Airwave Xtreme 150,
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:04:37 +, James wrote in message
a0163f8d-7181-4441-a5a5-260f22d5b...@mac.com:
Following on from the release branches of the code, it's now time to
make a release branch for fgdata. (In fact it should have already
been done, since fgdata contains changes incompatible
[PREFACE: I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I an
intellectual property rights attorney. My sole desire is to use FG as a
realistic flight similator, as opposed to using it as a fun game.
Please consider the remarks below in that context. Thanks!]
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:15
HI Chris,
Here are a couple quick comment in reply ...
My sense is that there are very few people who would outright oppose a
vatsim interface to flightgear. I think most people would consider this is
a good thing.
Here is my question/concern. If some developer gets approved by vatsim and
Hi,
Hmmm, I would take it one step further...
You write and operate an FG/VATSIM server running on a dedicated
machine(s) and publish the FG open source interface and protocol. The
VATSIM side and source in the server is closed and operates with an
approved NDA. Anyone may join from the FG
NUTS!!
was working on a draft and hit send by accident. to finish my comments.
waiting on word for a proposal to build a 737NG FTD certified by FAA at Level 5. Should know within the next few weeks, hopefully. That wil wipe me out for the next six months, but can still find some time to get the
OK, here's the first part, apologies for the screw-up
Original Message Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?From: cas...@mminternet.comDate: Tue, January 25, 2011 11:36 pmTo: "FlightGear developers discussions"flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.netHi,Hmmm, I would take
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 01:34:35 Curtis Olson wrote:
The other implication here is that it would be extremely handy to have
multiple branches checked out simultaneously for other reasons. git makes
branching easy, yes, but if you find yourself bouncing between branches
with changes for
38 matches
Mail list logo
