[Flightgear-devel] New Website
Its April the first, not a time or day to announce a new FlightGear site in foss, non propriety, php. Includes a portal http://flightgear.simpits.org/ A development version of the website http://flightgear.simpits.org/web.php A web developers guide with class documentation http://flightgear.simpits.org/webdev.php pete -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Rig of Rods
Hi, In the forum someone send a really interesting link to an OpenSource (GNU GPL v3) Simulator, which has features, which are- to be honest- really, really outstanding! http://wiki.rigsofrods.com/pages/Portal/ It contains everyting: Drive-, Sail-, and Flightsimulation. It is based on soft-body physics and Blade-Element-Theory. The graphics are also very nice and allows to use several different terrain-models. I didn't try it yet, the hardware recommendations are pretty hard Cheers and Happy easter Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug #99 (chase view broken)
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, James Turner wrote: I've committed a fix, such that the damping should work regardless of the order of update/recalculation of the view. Any and all testing of view behaviour after this commit would be greatly appreciated. Hi, Good, chase view seems to be back in shape after this bug fix. Unfortunately, some other views seems to have broken: views that are neither from-model or at-model views have stopped to obey the eye-heading-deg-path, eye-pitch-deg-path and eye-roll-deg-path properties. The eye-lat-deg-path, eye-lon-deg-path and eye-alt-ft-path properties still work. A good test case is the MP cockpit-view.xml config add-on here: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/misc/cockpit-view.xml You can make FlightGear load is by adding --config=cockpit-view.xml to the command line (assuming cockpit-view.xml is in the current directory). Change the tracked aircraft with q/Q. The view used to follow both the position and the orientation of the target but now only follow the position. There is an example view configuration (from the above file) below, all multiplayer copilot aircraft use similar views. The views work by updating the -path properties to point to the position and orientation properties for the target AI/MP aircraft. It is not obvious to me why the chase view change affected these views at all but maybe someone else have some idea of where the problem might be. view n=97000 nameModel Cockpit View/name typelookfrom/type config from-model type=boolfalse/from-model from-model-idx type=int0/from-model-idx at-model type=boolfalse/at-model at-model-idx type=int0/at-model-idx eye-lat-deg-path/sim/viewer/eye/latitude-deg/eye-lat-deg-path eye-lon-deg-path/sim/viewer/eye/longitude-deg/eye-lon-deg-path eye-alt-ft-path/sim/viewer/eye/altitude-ft/eye-alt-ft-path eye-heading-deg-path/sim/viewer/eye/heading-deg/eye-heading-deg-path eye-pitch-deg-path/sim/viewer/eye/pitch-deg/eye-pitch-deg-path eye-roll-deg-path/sim/viewer/eye/roll-deg/eye-roll-deg-path x-offset-m type=double0/x-offset-m y-offset-m type=double0/y-offset-m z-offset-m type=double0/z-offset-m heading-offset-deg0/heading-offset-deg pitch-offset-deg0/pitch-offset-deg roll-offset-deg0/roll-offset-deg /config /view Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug #99 (chase view broken)
On 1 Apr 2010, at 11:46, Anders Gidenstam wrote: Good, chase view seems to be back in shape after this bug fix. Unfortunately, some other views seems to have broken: views that are neither from-model or at-model views have stopped to obey the eye-heading-deg-path, eye-pitch-deg-path and eye-roll-deg-path properties. The eye-lat-deg-path, eye-lon-deg-path and eye-alt-ft-path properties still work. Good catch by Anders, will commit a fix later today. James -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rig of Rods
On 4/1/2010 5:44 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote: Hi, In the forum someone send a really interesting link to an OpenSource (GNU GPL v3) Simulator, which has features, which are- to be honest- really, really outstanding! http://wiki.rigsofrods.com/pages/Portal/ It contains everyting: Drive-, Sail-, and Flightsimulation. It is based on soft-body physics and Blade-Element-Theory. The graphics are also very nice and allows to use several different terrain-models. I didn't try it yet, the hardware recommendations are pretty hard Cheers and Happy easter Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel This looks pretty interesting... I will have to give it a try as I have always wanted a free sailing simulator (I just hope that my machine can handle the puppy :)). -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG - Helicopter FAA - AATD
Ron, That was very helpful as we will not waist any time working with JSBSim and jump right into reviewing YASim. Christian Menge FreedomWorks Inc. US: 609-858-2290 Canada: 905-228-0285 Fax: 347-296-3666 christ...@freedomworks.ca www.freedomworks.ca On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Ron Jensen w...@jentronics.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 07:21 -0400, Christian Menge wrote: Hi Guys, Appreciate the comments. We come from the X-Plane and ESP world. Personally I have just over 1000 hrs flight time in many Bell products, Bell 206, 204 / 205, 212 and 412. Currently I'm running a simulation consulting company that is seriously thinking about investing some money into growing with FlightGear. We are at the stage of simply getting a better understanding of FG and it's capabilities. From what I'm reading it looks like FG would be a good procedural trainer but may involve some work to bring things to a point where we could use it for helicopter flight training exercises like auto-rotation. The only real challenge I see is the creation of new aircraft. Has anyone looked into developing a plan maker similar to what x-plane offers? How might we start the process of creating new realistic aircraft simulations? Thanks! Christian Menge FreedomWorks Inc. US: 609-858-2290 Canada: 905-228-0285 Fax: 347-296-3666 christ...@freedomworks.ca www.freedomworks.ca FlightGear currently uses two different approaches to flight modeling aircraft: YASim and JSBSim. YASim http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/YASim takes as its input physical descriptions of the aircraft and data points on stall speeds, approach speeds, throttle settings, etc. It then tries to calculate equations of flight from those physical descriptions. It is aimed at users who don't have a grasp of theoretical aerodynamics. JSBSim http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/ provides a basic frame work and allows the aircraft creator to build up the coefficients and equations of flight. It is aimed at users who have a good grasp of aerodynamic theory. Unfortunately, at this time JSBSim does not provide a rotor simulation module. It might be possible to create rotors in the aerodynamic module, though. It is really that flexible. I have heard a group modeling a quadracopter that did just that, but they did not release their results. Needless to say, since there currently isn't support for rotors in JSBSim all the current flightgear helicopters are YASim. Hope this helped, Ron -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DIY drones virtual UAV competition
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 09:58 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote: Hi, I could use a little help from one of our aerodynamics experts. First a little background. DIYdrones.com is a group of hobbiests with an interest in building hobby / open-source uav's. Actual projects vary widely, but often they are based on small electric powered foam gliders (like an easy star.) For most people hardware costs are in the couple hundred dollar range. One of the interesting things about DIYdrones.com is that it was started by Chris Anderson who is an editor at Wired magazine. Part of his effort is an experiment into open-source hardware as well as open-source software. (And for hardware, it's the design that's open-source and free to copy and modify, it still costs money to build a physical widget.) A couple of weeks ago I did a podcast interview with Chris Anderson and Tim Trueman on the subject of using FlightGear for hardware in the loop testing. This is an area that many hobby level uav-ers haven't considered. If you are *really* bored you can dig around the diydrones.com site and probably find a link to my interview ... it's about 30-45 minutes and was done very late on a Sunday evening, so there are a couple times where the little electrons in my brain ran up against a sleeping brain cell ... I wasn't on my A game, let me just say it that way. :-) DIYdrones.com sponsors a periodic for fun contest and this time around they are thinking about doing something FlightGear based. The DIY drones contests are setup so that individuals can compete on their own and submit their results to the contest coordinator. It's based on the honor system, and avoids requiring people from around the world to travel to a central contest location. There is a thread here: http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/proposed-next-t3-round If you scroll down a bit, you can see that someone found an AC3D model of an easystar glider (this is a relatively cheap and small and light and slow flying RC hobby airplane.) What I am hoping is that someone here could help put together an initial flight dynamics model configuration for the easy star. I don't have any specs, but if we have someone willing to help out, I'm sure we could get answers to questions from the diydrones community. The goal here would be to put together a reference easystar aircraft package (3d and flight dynamics models) that could be used as the basis for the DIY drones contest. Do we have anyone willing to help get an aircraft package together? (I have no idea what the licensing on the easystar ac3d model is, but worst case scenario if it isn't GPL compatible we can distribute the aircraft package separately for the diydrones contest or perhaps one of our 3d modelers would want to create our own GPL compatible easy star.) Thanks! Curt. There is a (very) rough cut of an EasyStar on gitorious: http://gitorious.org/ron-s-hanger/easystar-rc/ It can be had as a tarball from here: http://gitorious.org/ron-s-hanger/easystar-rc/archive-tarball/master The directory must be renamed EasyStar Ron -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DIY drones virtual UAV competition
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 10:22 -0600, Ron Jensen wrote: There is a (very) rough cut of an EasyStar on gitorious: http://gitorious.org/ron-s-hanger/easystar-rc/ It can be had as a tarball from here: http://gitorious.org/ron-s-hanger/easystar-rc/archive-tarball/master The directory must be renamed EasyStar Ron Forgot to mention: this plane must also be started in the air as the current engine doesn't have enough power (70 watts) to overcome the ground drag. It still needs its aerodynamic coefficients tuned, too. It seems rather pitchy. Ron -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] C1 C2
Does anyone have information on aircraft displayed as C1 and C2 on the mpmap? These two user names were on the Salt Flats for quite a long time, using a jeep as an aircraft, 5 ft off the deck. They have now been repositioned in Virginia, at 36.61231, -79.341052, both as C172p's, and about 3300 feet. (Just off 02 Departure path from KDAN) The reason I ask is while I didn't notice it quite as much with the jeeps, if you fly near the 172's it will stall any helicopter flight, as my framerate when from 30+ to 1. From more of a distance you will see the fv drop when looking at them, but as you get close it kills it, even with a j3 cub. Is someone testing some extremely high polygon count aircraft, or what's going on? ORLY hurts my frame rate, but nothing like these two 172's do. Thanks, Peter -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Headtracker ehci Integration in FlightGear
Hello everyone, I am stuck with this. How do we integrate ehci with FlightGear? I have Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty and have installed FlightGear and ehci so far. But, don't know how to integrate them. Can anyone help please! Help much appreciated! -- Sincerely, Arya -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] C1 C2
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Peter Brown smoothwater...@adelphia.net wrote: Does anyone have information on aircraft displayed as C1 and C2 on the mpmap? These two user names were on the Salt Flats for quite a long time, using a jeep as an aircraft, 5 ft off the deck. They have now been repositioned in Virginia, at 36.61231, -79.341052, both as C172p's, and about 3300 feet. (Just off 02 Departure path from KDAN) The reason I ask is while I didn't notice it quite as much with the jeeps, if you fly near the 172's it will stall any helicopter flight, as my framerate when from 30+ to 1. From more of a distance you will see the fv drop when looking at them, but as you get close it kills it, even with a j3 cub. Is someone testing some extremely high polygon count aircraft, or what's going on? ORLY hurts my frame rate, but nothing like these two 172's do. No matter how high poly count the other side uses, you will only see the c172p from your local FG copy. That is, these two should be just the stock c172p. They certainly don't kill my FPS, here. -- Csaba/Jester -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Reducing AI Model complexity
Hi All, A number of people on the forums have mentioned performance issues on lower-spec system on MP, particularly due to loading complex models for other aircraft causing stuttering. In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes: 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This effectively stops the model loader from recursing into model tags, and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits, instruments, pilots etc. Note that this is generally better than having a LOD node on the cockpit, because it doesn't even get as far as loading the file, nor does the cockpit take up any space in the scenegraph 2) A control to set the LOD for AI aircraft. Currently this is hardcoded to 50nm, which is probably too far for most purposes. I've got basic patches that allow these controls to be set by properties at runtime, but which I think requires a bit more work before submission. Comments? -Stuart -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Reducing AI Model complexity
As far as what you have written here: 1) As I understand this, it basically does exactly the same thing as going through the individual model files and removing the cockpits/interiors/etc., correct? If that is the case, I find this to be an excellent replacement for having to depend on each individual modeler to create an AI model file for every plane they generate. This should significantly increase the framerates within the MP environment. My questions are these: a) Would this work on single-player? b) If so, would we still have to maintain the AI model files or, with this patch included, would the AI aircraft be able to be read from the standard models folder thereby eliminating the needs for an AI branch on the FG tree? 2) I don't 100% understand how LOD works, but if I get it basically correctly, LOD reduces the resolution of a model based on the distance from your viewpoint that it is? If this is the case, would it not stand to reason that there should be several different stages of LOD? For example, a model made with 2048x2048 textures would be at full resolution within 5nm. From 5.1nm-10nm, it would be rendered at 1024x1024. From 10.1nm-20nm, it would be rendered at 512x512. Or am I way off-base here? Is this even possible? -Jason On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, A number of people on the forums have mentioned performance issues on lower-spec system on MP, particularly due to loading complex models for other aircraft causing stuttering. In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes: 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This effectively stops the model loader from recursing into model tags, and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits, instruments, pilots etc. Note that this is generally better than having a LOD node on the cockpit, because it doesn't even get as far as loading the file, nor does the cockpit take up any space in the scenegraph 2) A control to set the LOD for AI aircraft. Currently this is hardcoded to 50nm, which is probably too far for most purposes. I've got basic patches that allow these controls to be set by properties at runtime, but which I think requires a bit more work before submission. Comments? -Stuart -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rig of Rods
Actually, their recommended setup is far more than you actually need most of the time. Only on certain terrains (known as maps to you guys) or when you have multiple vehicles present on the map at once in single-player mode, do framerates become a major issue. Keep in mind that RoR works on both DirectX as well as OpenGL, so adjust your settings to see which works better for you (personally, OpenGL gives me a better detail level, but DirectX runs faster - others have had the opposite results). The flight and sail simulations are pretty basic - more game-like than simulation-like, although the potential is there to make it much better. However, the vast majority of their userbase (which is LARGE and VERY active) use this as a game just for the damage modeling and most use it for offroading, so the flight and sail sections are pretty neglected and not much is available at this time. They are also working on incorporating rail simulation into RoR as well, so that may pop up soon. Their goal is to be a good overall simulation system for all types of people and vehicles rather than an excellent simulation for one type of people and vehicle. It is, however, a LOT of fun :) :) -Jason On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Michael Smith mdsmi...@highland.net wrote: On 4/1/2010 5:44 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote: Hi, In the forum someone send a really interesting link to an OpenSource (GNU GPL v3) Simulator, which has features, which are- to be honest- really, really outstanding! http://wiki.rigsofrods.com/pages/Portal/ It contains everyting: Drive-, Sail-, and Flightsimulation. It is based on soft-body physics and Blade-Element-Theory. The graphics are also very nice and allows to use several different terrain-models. I didn't try it yet, the hardware recommendations are pretty hard Cheers and Happy easter Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel This looks pretty interesting... I will have to give it a try as I have always wanted a free sailing simulator (I just hope that my machine can handle the puppy :)). -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Reducing AI Model complexity
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, In an effort to help with this I've been looking at two fixes: 1) A control to disable sub-model loading for AI aircraft. This effectively stops the model loader from recursing into model tags, and therefore stops it from loading any sub-models such as cockpits, instruments, pilots etc. Note that this is generally better than having a LOD node on the cockpit, because it doesn't even get as far as loading the file, nor does the cockpit take up any space in the scenegraph 2) A control to set the LOD for AI aircraft. Currently this is hardcoded to 50nm, which is probably too far for most purposes. Generally I prefer proper LOD and getting rid of specialized AI versions. I want to see AI/MP aircraft in full detail when I am near one - or even inside. Ideally I want to see all the instruments properly working when I hitch a ride using model+cockpit view. In the long run, I hope we will be able to couple animations to MP protocol, so that the required properties (and only those!) would be transmitted automatically as dynamically determined by the current LOD. Speaking of stuttering, another issue reported on the forums and also experienced by me, is periodic (~1s) stutter even with plenty of FPS. That is with AI traffic (both kinds) and replay turned off, single-player. I couldn't determine the cause yet. Anybody have an idea? -- Csaba/Jester -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] C1 C2
On Apr 1, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Csaba Halász wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Peter Brown smoothwater...@adelphia.net wrote: Does anyone have information on aircraft displayed as C1 and C2 on the mpmap? These two user names were on the Salt Flats for quite a long time, using a jeep as an aircraft, 5 ft off the deck. They have now been repositioned in Virginia, at 36.61231, -79.341052, both as C172p's, and about 3300 feet. (Just off 02 Departure path from KDAN) The reason I ask is while I didn't notice it quite as much with the jeeps, if you fly near the 172's it will stall any helicopter flight, as my framerate when from 30+ to 1. From more of a distance you will see the fv drop when looking at them, but as you get close it kills it, even with a j3 cub. Is someone testing some extremely high polygon count aircraft, or what's going on? ORLY hurts my frame rate, but nothing like these two 172's do. No matter how high poly count the other side uses, you will only see the c172p from your local FG copy. That is, these two should be just the stock c172p. They certainly don't kill my FPS, here. -- Csaba/Jester I understand that, so I don't understand why it's happening. I can fly around KSFO with 40 a/c, but if I fly within 1/2 mile of these two it drops. Apparently you flew up them and didn't have any issue? None-the-less.who/what/why are they there? Someone running a longevity test on the server? Peter -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
