I've recently tested the DG-101G which is (I think) the first JSBSim
glider I've been flying in Flightgear. I've noticed a rather strange
issue:
In Local Weather, I added some amount of turbulence around a thermal
proportional to the strength to simulate the fact that a thermal is not a
laminar
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 14:45 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
I've first suspected that something is fishy with the DG-101G, but since
I've flown all sorts of aircraft through the thermals (as a side note,
it's really interesting that the F-16 instrumentation allows nicely to
trace the
Hi Thorsten,
I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
release, but comments below.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:30 AM,thorsten.i.renk wrote:
2) As it stands, it's very difficult for a new user to understand the
difference between Local Weather and Global Weather. let alone how
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:33 AM, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Sounds logical to me ...the double weather systems are a bit of
nuisance , would be nicer, in my opinion , if they could be combined
in a single dialog but not sure if that's possible.I use real
world weather anyway , so i
Note that the JSBSim environment model is in the middle of a major
overhaul so I wouldn't make too much of it at this point. It would be
more interesting to see how it compares after the rewrite.
Erik
The architecture is, but it should not affect the environment modeling.
Also, the new code
On Monday, July 11, 2011 05:37:06 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Hi Thorsten,
I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
release, but comments below.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:30 AM,thorsten.i.renk wrote:
2) As it stands, it's very difficult for a new user to understand the
Hi.
I am an undergraduate student from IIT, working on a project where I
have to make some changes to the flightgear code to fly an MAV.
I sucessfully compiled flightgear 0.9.11 (i havent used cvs/svn/git)
in MSVC 2008
on Windows 7
When i try to run the Flightgeard.exe file, i get the message -
Hi,
Base package check failed ... Found version [none] at: \FlightGear
Please upgrade to version: 0.9.11
This indicates that you did not set $FG_ROOT properly. It should point
to your data directory.
I couldnt get the data zip file of 0.9.11.
so i used data of 2.0.0 and changed the
Stuart wrote:
1) Currently there is a wireframe option on the Rendering menu. While
it's of moderate interest to developers, I don't think it's really of
any interest to the average user. I'd like to move this option to the
Debug menu.
The reason I added it is that we got quite some
Le 11/07/2011 14:37, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:37:15 +0200
From: Melchior FRANZ mfr...@aon.at
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Base Package branch,
master, updated. 0b8dee0f4611f0e90478f48d58951995fbe87069
To:
* BARANGER Emmanuel -- Monday 11 July 2011:
You placed them under the GPL and it's the very principle of this license.
You completely miss the point. This has nothing to do with the license.
It used to be an unwritten law that contributing an aircraft (or other
subsystem) meant to *give*, not to
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:55:09 +0200
Melchior FRANZ mfr...@aon.at wrote:
* BARANGER Emmanuel -- Monday 11 July 2011:
You placed them under the GPL and it's the very principle of this
license.
The license only meant
that anyone could fork an aircraft, not that everyone could mess with
the
Now I have to clarify: I assume Thorsten just did what he does since
a while: fix bugs. Which is great. He probably either thought the
bo105 is no longer maintained, or didn't know the (now obsolete?)
maintenance principle. But there were certainly no bad intentions.
What I'm more concerned about
Am 11.07.2011 14:47, schrieb Jon S. Berndt:
Note that the JSBSim environment model is in the middle of a major
overhaul so I wouldn't make too much of it at this point. It would be
more interesting to see how it compares after the rewrite.
Erik
The architecture is, but it should not affect
Am 11.07.2011 14:37, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
Hi Thorsten,
I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
release, but comments below.
What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind
of unified weather system. It does not really make sense for an average
Hi,
I have a discussion with the current maintainers of the Catalina which
is going completely into the wrong direction.
I think they feel offended by our current feature-freeze state of the
fgdata tree and I fail to explain that to them.
They are French, I am German and we communicate in
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Am 11.07.2011 14:37, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
Hi Thorsten,
I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
release, but comments below.
What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind
of unified
Hi all,
our first phase of the release progress will end this Sunday with the
creation of the release branch.
Because pilots are unable to perform tasks with more than one step
without having a checklist, I have created one for the branching process at
Am 11.07.2011 22:05, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
[For a moment I thought this post was from Thorsten Renk, and got _really_
worried ;) ]
Hehe - apologies for having so many T(h)orstens around here. The parents
of the mid 60s were not very creative with names...
Do you see this as a problem with
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
To make sure, our streams are in a consistent state when I create and
tag the branches, please make sure not to push _any_ commits to simgear,
flightgear and fgdata after Sunday, July 17th 2011 08:00 UTC until
further advice ( hi Gene :-) ).
Lucky
Le 11/07/2011 21:07, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
Message: 9 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:55:09 +0200 From: Melchior FRANZ
mfr...@aon.at Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel
Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 To: FlightGear developers discussions
Hey Guys,
The era of respect is only over if people choose to abandon it. I think we
can all hope for something better than that.
Let me summarize how things generally have worked and (I believe) should
work.
An author of an aircraft (or a section of code) generally enjoys a certain
level of
On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:05:07 AM BARANGER Emmanuel wrote:
have you tested the script of Pierre NEGRE ? :
http://rene16.dyndns.org/run/ (import/export .AC for Blender 2.58)
Where can this be found? The web page is in French (I think) and I don't find
any links to the AC3D plug-in. I
23 matches
Mail list logo
