On 11 Sep 2009, at 06:15, Ron Jensen wrote:
ICAO Annex 10 Volume 1 gives a great amount of information on the nav
radio system in general. Chapter 3 would be a good read for anyone
working on the nav radio code. There is an online version here:
I've updated both of your/John Denker's glideslope/LOC patches against
current trunk, hopefully correctly, and done quite a bit more testing.
It's good practice for my ILS approaches!
I'm reasonably happy that all the numbers coming out are plausible, so
my inclination at this point is to
Please consider whether the snotty supercilious response you have just
given is conducive to encouraging others to help.
This project is only going to grow and will need all the help it can get
at a variety of levels.
Your attitude will do nothing to assist there.
I humbly apologise for not
On Thursday 10 Sep 2009, Csaba Halász wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Randall Green
randall.gr...@wright.edu wrote:
These are the instructions for checking out CVS OSG that are
given:
cvs
-d:pserver:anonym...@openscenegraph.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroo
t/openscenegraph login
Where are the misleading instructions located?
Thanks,
Curt.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, leee wrote:
On Thursday 10 Sep 2009, Csaba Halász wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Randall Green
randall.gr...@wright.edu wrote:
These are the instructions for checking out CVS OSG that
James Turner wrote:
It adds false LOC and GS signals, a better GS deviation computation,
and LOC sensitivity based on the runway dimensions. The last part I'm
not totally sure about - it makes localizers *very* sensitive - maybe
I've adapted the code incorrectly, but this doc:
Although getting osg from cvs rang a bell with me, I'm not sure if
those commands were ever on one of the FG sites: they relate back
to when OSG was still hosted on sourceforge, as the link below
shows...
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openscenegraph/develop
However, OSG moved from
On 11 Sep 2009, at 14:48, dave perry wrote:
I have not flown the patch yet. In this patch, does the region of
reliable signal satisfy Figure 1-1-6 on page 503 of the 2008 AIM?
That
figure shows valid signals for two over lapped archs. Arch 1: +\-35
deg
out to 10 nm. Arch 2: +\- 10
Vivian,
Thank you very much for the reply. I'm afraid I'm somewhat unfamiliar
with MSVC. I see how to add the existing files to a project but how
do I know which project to add them to? Like for FGGyro I think
would be added to the FlightGear Project, Lib_JBSSim but it has
4 folders under it:
I just want to make sure if we (flightgear) have some outdated documentation
that gets identified and fixed. If someone managed to dredge up some really
old information from some other site, there's not much we can do about that.
Curt.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM, leee wrote:
Although
Hey gang. I'm not sure if the answer to this will turn out to be retardedly
simple, or ludicrously complex, but here goes.
I've build scenery for the island of Newfoundland with very high resolution for
the elevation. But now the low-res, VMAP0 looks awful. In many cases, it cuts
canyons and
Sorry, here's the information contained in the html file to accompany my
question:
CanVec
001N10
1. Identification Information
2. Data Quality Information
3. Spatial Data Organization Information
4. Spatial Reference Information
5. Entity and Attribute Information
6.
cullam Bruce-Lockhart wrote:
Hey gang. I'm not sure if the answer to this will turn out to be retardedly
simple, or ludicrously complex, but here goes.
I've build scenery for the island of Newfoundland with very high resolution
for the elevation. But now the low-res, VMAP0 looks awful. In
Randy,
I'm busy right now, but I'll try to sort that out for you later. Meanwhile,
the files pretty much go into the lib relating to their parent folder - so
you you might be able to work it out. The makefiles specify it for you, when
you identify the right one!
Vivian
-Original
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:21 PM, leee l...@spatial.plus.com wrote:
Sure, people can be lazy _and_ stupid, but I can't see that
attacking them for being so is the best way to do anything about
it.
In case you missed it, I *have* provided the relevant information first.
I don't think I can be
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:21 PM, leee wrote:
Sure, people can be lazy _and_ stupid, but I can't see that
attacking them for being so is the best way to do anything about
it.
In case you missed it, I *have* provided the relevant
Csaba,
I am the one who posted the original question and I want to say that
you did help me and I'm just mighty glad that I have all of you
on this mailing list to answer my questions. I would have gotten
nowhere without it. :)
I would rather get a reply with a little chastising than to get no
17 matches
Mail list logo
