Hi Vivian,
On Friday 06 July 2007 23:31, Vivian Meazza wrote:
After further testing I can confirm that the disappearance is readily
repeatable. If you position your ac on the threshold of 28R at KSFO, as the
AI aircraft are about to trample all over you they obligingly commit
suicide. The
Durk Talsma
Sent: 07 July 2007 08:22
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Today's CVS
Hi Vivian,
On Friday 06 July 2007 23:31, Vivian Meazza wrote:
After further testing I can confirm that the disappearance
is readily
repeatable. If you
On Saturday 07 July 2007 09:41, Vivian Meazza wrote:
OK so it's 2 features, not 1 bug - excellent. I also noted that the route
taken from parking to active runway seemed a bit odd, but then I compared
our taxiways to those on Google Earth - we seem to have bits missing
alongside 28L, which
On Saturday 07 July 2007 09:46, Durk Talsma wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007 09:41, Vivian Meazza wrote:
OK so it's 2 features, not 1 bug - excellent. I also noted that the route
taken from parking to active runway seemed a bit odd, but then I compared
our taxiways to those on Google Earth -
Am Samstag 07 Juli 2007 09:41 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
OK so it's 2 features, not 1 bug - excellent. I also noted that the route
taken from parking to active runway seemed a bit odd, but then I compared
our taxiways to those on Google Earth - we seem to have bits missing
alongside 28L, which
On Saturday 07 July 2007 11:16, Thomas Förster wrote:
Am Samstag 07 Juli 2007 09:41 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
OK so it's 2 features, not 1 bug - excellent. I also noted that the route
taken from parking to active runway seemed a bit odd, but then I compared
our taxiways to those on Google
On Saturday 07 July 2007 10:03, Durk Talsma wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007 09:41, Vivian Meazza wrote:
.. compared our taxiways to those on Google Earth - we seem to have bits
missing alongside 28L, which explains that. Not good for our default
airport though.
Okay, fixed as of a
Hi all,
Today's cvs seems to have solved thru problem of crashes with
traffic-manager when compiled with MSVC8, at least for short runs. My
testing is incomplete, since I have not been able to test for extended
periods, so the longer term memory leak that has been reported may still be
present.
I wrote
Sent: 06 July 2007 12:56
To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Today's CVS
Hi all,
Today's cvs seems to have solved thru problem of crashes with
traffic-manager when compiled with MSVC8, at least for short
runs. My testing is incomplete, since
Hi!
Thomas Förster wrote:
The reason is a wrong return type on FGAirport::getId(). Should be const
string instead of string (which does a local copy that is then referenced in
FGAirportDynamics::getId())
Maybe that's a dumb question (which would be embarassing, because I
typically think of
Am Donnerstag 05 Juli 2007 17:12 schrieb Ralf Gerlich:
const string would only make sense if a string was returned which is
typically stored in the object and should _not_ be copied, e.g. in a
getter-method.
And exactly thats the case here :-)
Thomas
--
PhD Student, Dept. Animal Physiology,
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
const string would only make sense if a string was returned which is
typically stored in the object and should _not_ be copied, e.g. in a
getter-method.
Or rather: I was wondering why a getter method would have to return a
reference to a local variable, until I looked at
On Thursday 05 July 2007 15:39, Thomas Förster wrote:
Am Donnerstag 05 Juli 2007 14:21 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
You need the trafficmanager for testing the ground radar? Else turning it
off should be perfectly ok...
Yesterday, before Durk's latest upload, FG here was running for about 10
13 matches
Mail list logo
