Hi,
I've implemented a check for implementations that need a Doppler effect
adjustment to be able to hear them but there might be implementations
that sound exaggerated now. If so, please specify which ones and I'll
update the check procedure.
Erik
James Sleeman wrote
Hi Maik,
Maik Justus wrote:
the effect you are discussing is not the Doppler effect, but just the
Yes, I know it's not a function of the Doppler itself, but I was
thinking more along the lines of the volume drop off, if it were better,
might help the
Hello,
James Sleeman schrieb am 22.01.2009 01:14:
Hi Maik,
...
Just to clarify on the reference-dist, is it that this value is a
diminishing effect, that is for reference-dist of 1 after distance 1 the
volume is half original, after distance 2 the volume is 1/4 original
(half of a half),
Hi,
Maik Justus schrieb am 22.01.2009 13:45:
Hello,
James Sleeman schrieb am 22.01.2009 01:14:
Hi Maik,
...
Just to clarify on the reference-dist, is it that this value is a
diminishing effect, that is for reference-dist of 1 after distance 1
the volume is half original, after distance 2
Hi Vivian,
Vivian Meazza schrieb am 22.01.2009 11:17:
I would think that the attenuation of sound in air is amenable to
mathematical calculation.
Yes it is. (at lest if your distance to the sound source is large
compared to the size of the source).
Surely we shouldn't be guessing at some
* Maik Justus -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
Vivian Meazza schrieb am 22.01.2009 11:17:
I would think that the attenuation of sound in air is
amenable to mathematical calculation.
Yes it is.
But it depends on the frequency pattern, no? So we'd need to
analyze the spectrum ... time to use
Melchior FRANZ
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] doppler volume
* Maik Justus -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
Vivian Meazza schrieb am 22.01.2009 11:17:
I would think that the attenuation of sound in air is
amenable to mathematical calculation.
Yes it is.
But it depends
* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
Melchior FRANZ
I don't see any particular merit is setting the value in preferences.xml,
but it would be nice if the default values worked as designed, no matter
where they are set.
It's always nice to have default values changeable, rather than
The doppler effect (which I currently have working through the
USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER define) has never sounded very real to my ear.
Recently I've wondered if it might be to do with the volume dropoff
not being enough.
It's hard to subjectively quantify the dropoff in the flyby, but for
Hi James,
the effect you are discussing is not the Doppler effect, but just the
volume as a function of the distance. Every aircraft has its own sound
definition including the distance, where the volume is halved
(reference-dist) and the distance where the volume is cutted off
(max-dist). The
Hi Maik,
Maik Justus wrote:
the effect you are discussing is not the Doppler effect, but just the
Yes, I know it's not a function of the Doppler itself, but I was
thinking more along the lines of the volume drop off, if it were better,
might help the convincingness of the Doppler, if you
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
Is there any chance to get to know at compile time, that
openal-soft is used?
I haven't found anything specific in the header files.
At runtime, alGetString(AL_VERSION) should contain ALSOFT .
m.
Csaba Halász wrote:
http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html Some distributions (notably
debian) have switched to this version from the original
implementation.
Ahh I see, using Ubuntu here and yes it appears to be this soft version.
Hi James,
James Sleeman schrieb am 20.12.2008 13:21:
Csaba Halász wrote:
http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html Some distributions (notably
debian) have switched to this version from the original
implementation.
Ahh I see, using Ubuntu here and yes it appears to be this soft
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
#ifndef HAVE_WINDOWS_H
#ifdef AL_VERSION_1_2
#define USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER should work
My openal-soft (svn/head) defines AL_VERSION_1_1 (and _1_0),
but not _1_2. I just defined USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER after that
#if* group, but Doppler
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
I just defined USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER after that #if* group, but
Doppler didn't work.
PS: not just after the group, but instead of it, so the other
optional symbols weren't defined.
m.
Hi Melchior,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 15:56:
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
I just defined USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER after that #if* group, but
Doppler didn't work.
PS: not just after the group, but instead of it, so the other
optional symbols weren't defined.
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
Did you try to
#define USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER
instead?
No, AFAICS that enables your manual Doppler calculations, which
you added for openal implementations with broken Doppler (or with
correct Doppler that doesn't work with our broken setup
Hi Melchior,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 17:54:
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
Did you try to
#define USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER
instead?
No, AFAICS that enables your manual Doppler calculations, which
you added for openal implementations with broken Doppler (or
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
And the manual calculation works quite fine. And if it works with
openal-soft we should use it with openal-soft.
Ah, ok. I re-tried with USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER, and that only worked
for a very short time (less a minute), and then there was no sound
at
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 18:29:
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
And the manual calculation works quite fine. And if it works with
openal-soft we should use it with openal-soft.
Ah, ok. I re-tried with USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER, and that only worked
for a very short
* Maik Justus -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 18:29:
I re-tried with USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER, and that only worked
for a very short time (less a minute), and then there was
no sound at all.
Strange, in this mode I only modify the pitch value in the same
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
Unfortunately, the sound isn't muted when pausing ...
Pfff ...
| /*
| alcSuspendContext
|
| Not functional
| */
| ALCAPI ALCvoid ALCAPIENTRY alcSuspendContext(ALCcontext *pContext)
| {
| // Not a lot happens here !
|
Hi,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb am 20.12.2008 20:01:
Yes, USE_SOFTWARE_DOPPLER works with openal-soft.
Is there any chance to get to know at compile time, that openal-soft is
used?
If not: is there any chance to get to know at runtime, that openal-soft
is used?
if yes: we need to change the
Some time ago there was discussion on the list regarding the loss of
doppler sound effect in the fly-by view, I was sure I read that it had
been resolved? I still have no doppler in the fly-by with a fresh build
last night, am I the only one, or is it still broken?
---
James Sleeman
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:55 PM, James Sleeman flightg...@gogo.co.nzwrote:
Some time ago there was discussion on the list regarding the loss of
doppler sound effect in the fly-by view, I was sure I read that it had
been resolved? I still have no doppler in the fly-by with a fresh build
last
Curtis Olson wrote:
This should be resolved. Can you tell me which aircraft doesn't have
the doppler sound effect? What frame rates are you experiencing when
you have no doppler effect?
I have no doppler on any aircraft and havn't for quite a while. As I
type this I have usually around
* James Sleeman -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
I have no doppler on any aircraft and havn't for quite a while. As I
type this I have usually around 40fps in fly-by. Is there perhaps an
option or something I have inadvertantly switched off?
AFAIK, Doppler doesn't work in fgfs if you are
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 1:04 AM, James Sleeman flightg...@gogo.co.nz wrote:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
AFAIK, Doppler doesn't work in fgfs if you are using openal-soft.
Forgive my ignorance, but as opposed to using what? Is there Open AL in
hardware on some devices?
Melchior is referring to a
On Friday 06 July 2007 18:03, John Denker wrote:
1) Where I'm coming from: Different people are interested in different
parts of FlightGear. I consider it a strength of the project that it
can be put to disparate purposes.
I'm sure we all agree about that, anyway.
1a) As for me
On 07/06/2007 01:08 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
These bugs actually have been worked out already.
Excellent!
The necessary fixes have
been made and with Maik's last patch (which was posted to the dev list, I'm
pretty sure) I'm not aware of any significant problems. Maybe you could try
1) Where I'm coming from: Different people are interested in different
parts of FlightGear. I consider it a strength of the project that it
can be put to disparate purposes.
1a) As for me personally, and for more than a few others, there is
interest in using it as a complex-aircraft
Am Freitag 06 Juli 2007 19:27 schrieb John Denker:
It's been ten days now with no CVS-commit nor even any
discussion of a CVS-commit AFAICT.
That's definitely not true (generally spoken). Which branch are you using?
Thomas
--
PhD Student, Dept. Animal Physiology, HU Berlin
Tel +49 30 2093
On 07/06/2007 01:50 PM, Thomas Förster wrote:
That's definitely not true (generally spoken). Which branch are you using?
CVS OSG, up to date as of late yesterday (the 5th).
Has something happened since then?
With this version I observe:
-- Middle marker audio is strongly shifted.
-- ATIS
Am Freitag 06 Juli 2007 20:33 schrieb John Denker:
On 07/06/2007 01:50 PM, Thomas Förster wrote:
That's definitely not true (generally spoken). Which branch are you
using?
CVS OSG, up to date as of late yesterday (the 5th).
Has something happened since then?
Hmm, rereading your post this
On Friday 06 July 2007 18:27, John Denker wrote:
It's been ten days now with no CVS-commit nor even any
discussion of a CVS-commit AFAICT.
That's probably about right. I and a few others on IRC were testing various
patches for Maik for a while... I thought that the results of that made it to
On 07/06/2007 02:56 PM, Thomas Förster wrote:
Hmm, rereading your post this probably was a misunderstanding. You were
referring to doppler effect related commits, weren't you?
Yes. Perhaps I clipped too much context; I thought
the Subject: line would be sufficient contex. Sorry.
To
Hi John,
I posted the patch which should fix your problem on June 1st, 22:16
(German time).
(If you do not have archived this EMail: just drop me a note, I will
email it to you).
I think the patch will be commited soon. But I am modifying files, which
are not mine, therefore it is ok, to give
Hi,
ups. Is it really July? Please replace June by July in my last post.
Thanks to John.
Maik
Maik Justus schrieb am 06.07.2007 21:23:
Hi John,
I posted the patch which should fix your problem on June 1st, 22:16
(German time).
(If you do not have archived this EMail: just drop me a note,
I got the .diff from Maik Justus.
I merged it into the _Sport Model_.
It works fine; ATIS and marker beacons are no longer Doppler
shifted.
In addition to the two files patched by the .diff, I had
to make some trivial and obvious edits in two other files,
to bring them into compliance with the
Hello Martin,
just didn't got the point of my posting.
Maik
Martin Spott schrieb am 27.06.2007 01:14:
Maik Justus wrote:
[...] But I only will start to work
on that patch if there is a chance to get it into cvs. Therefore I will
wait, if the windows patch will be accepted.
With a cvs build checked out about half an hour ago I've just noticed
something very strange - with external views the doppler shift appears
to be related to the view angle rather than the approach speed. If you
select the chase view then you'll find that the sound is extremely slow
from
Hi Jon,
thanks for pointing that out. And thanks to you and AJ for the debugging
on IRC.
Here is a patch (the same you already got via EMail (ok, one debug
message is different)), which could fix it. If the bug is still present,
please comment out line 56 (#define USE_OPEN_AL_DOPPLER should
Maik Justus wrote:
[...] But I only will start to work
on that patch if there is a chance to get it into cvs. Therefore I will
wait, if the windows patch will be accepted.
The original author of the OpenAL publicly objects implementing things
in FlightGear that OpenAL usually should take
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:14:08 + (UTC)
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maik Justus wrote:
[...] But I only will start to work
on that patch if there is a chance to get it into cvs. Therefore I will
wait, if the windows patch will be accepted.
The original author of the
45 matches
Mail list logo
