--- Csaba Halász wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 12:29 PM, Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be pleasantly surprised if condition worked in materials.xml
Here you go :)
As a side effect, we could get rid of the ugly code that makes
Terrain.season out of Terrain at the expense of
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* R. van Steenbergen -- Friday 15 February 2008:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
...you could abuse that by
launching an invisible, lightweight, and very fast submodel,
and check where and at which altitude it lands.
Don't they call that 'radar' in real life? :)
Hi All,
We currently have a number of aircraft which feature blackout and redout due to
the G-force on the pilot.
Blackout occurs when the pilot is subject to high positive G-loading, as the
blood is drained from the head. Red-out occurs when the pilot is subject to high
negative G-loading, as
--- Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I've just committed a generic, configurable version which means that all
aircraft
now have G-force blackout, and the aircraft-specific versions can now be
retired.
As G-force affects all pilots, it seems appropriate to have a single solution
for
everyone as part
--- SydSandy wrote:
I know the differences between tree species , LeeE ,thats not the problem ...
if I set a certain tree texture for a terrain type ... for example , I have
2
meter high shrub trees for the ShrubCover/ShrubGrassCover/ScrubCover. When I
fly over the area , it is covered by
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
We certainly don't want redundant texture duplicates in
$FG_ROOT/AI/.
Did you scale them down or do anything else that justifies
this step?
If not, then just refer to the original textures
(converting those to PNG if you want).
As I mentioned in my
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Stuart Buchanan -- Wednesday 09 April 2008:
As I mentioned in my reply to Vivian, I don't want
any dependency
on the Aircraft tree,
You don't want that, fine. And *I* don't want a
parallel structure of aircraft with megabytes of duplicated
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Durk Talsma wrote:
I do forsee that adding loads of AI aircraft could add to
the size of the
release version of the base package. That being the case,
we could consider
spawning off a separately downloadable, optional AI
aircraft package
(including not only aircraft,
-- On Wed, 9/4/08, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Wednesday 09 April 2008 16:20:05 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
How about the following
- Maximum size 250KB.
- All textures converted to PNG and scaled to 1/4 size
in both dimensions.
Does that seem reasonable?
I think we have two slightly
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Vivian Meazza wrote:
1. A long time ago in the early days of MP the policy was
agreed: If you
don't have it you don't see it. No glider, no
ufo, nothing. And AFAIK
that's still the case. IF we want to depart from this
long standing policy,
then that's a slightly
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Stuart Buchanan -- Wednesday 09 April 2008:
--- On Wed, 9/4/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
So, please let's discuss that first, before
anyone
dumps more of that stuff into $FG_ROOT/AI/!
Hence my original post - discussion is good.
Yes
Hi All,
Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork
(http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been working on
an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which attempts to simulate
the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by moving the pilot viewpoint
vertically
--- On Sun, 20/4/08, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:55 -0700, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Hi All,
Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork
(http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333),
I've been
working on an extension to the generic blackout/redout
script which
--- On Thu, 1/5/08, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
Jon Stockill - please read this to protect your models
database from copyright problems
On a related note, we're going to have to be careful about textures too - see
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1443
I'll make sure that the
Hi All,
The maintainer of a textures website has offered some of his textures to be
GPL'd and contributed to the project:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10163
On the assumption that we should take up his kind offer, who would like to be
the point of contact?
As anyone who
--- On Thu, 8/5/08, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..maybe he could join us here? ;o)
I don't think he has any interest in FG - he was approached by another forum
member who wanted to use his textures in a building.
..I believe he is wrong in his opinion of being unable to
make a good living off his
Hi All,
Someone on the Forum (or was it here?) mentioned a problem where they couldn't
use the Airport Search dialog easily because some airports in apt.dat are named
in mixed case while some are in all-caps.
Rather than attempt to fix apt.dat (I'm not completely mad ;) ), I've created a
--- On Sun, 1/6/08, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I confirm there in no strcasestr or equivalent in MS
runtime.
The patch below should be portable, although more
convoluted.
From reading the patch, I don't think this does quite what we want either. My
reading is that this ensures that the
--- On Mon, 2/6/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Stuart Buchanan -- Monday 02 June 2008:
Nevertheless, I think these are acceptable numbers for
a 3 character
string. The user can easily perform a more specific
search on receiving
a large number of results.
As I told on IRC already
--- On Mon, 2/6/08, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I will continue looking at this, though if anyone else
would like to jump in with suggestions, that would be very
welcome.
... and here's the patch, based on Fred's original patch.
Assuming it passes muster, could someone review and commit please
Hi All,
For my own amusement, I generated some scenery for Scotland using the GSHHS
coastline and OpenStreetMap for roads. Scotland greatly benefits from using
GSHHS coastline, as the VMAP0 data doesn't include many of the small islands on
the west coast. There are sufficiently few roads that
--- On Wed, 23/7/08, Vivian Meazza wrote:
3d clouds have not been ported to osg. At the current rate
of progress - sometime in the next decade :-).
Progress is marginally better than that - I've ported the code and have even
got it to compile.
I'm now at the stage of crashes-on-startup which
--- On Sun, 27/7/08, Ron Jensen wrote:
http://cvs.flightgear.org/viewvc/data/gui/menubar.xml?view=loghideattic=1
Log of /data/gui/menubar.xml
Revision 1.80 -
Wed Jun 11 21:20:43 2008 UTC (6 weeks, 3 days ago) by
stuart
Branch: MAIN
Changes since 1.79: +2 -15 lines
Collate Dynamic
Hi All,
Just to keep everyone up to date on where I am with porting 3D clouds to FG OSG:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.jpg
Obviously there is still a lot of work to be done before they are complete, but
progress is being made.
I'm hoping that once I've completed the OSG part of
--- On Sat, 9/8/08, John Wojnaroski wrote:
just 2 more cts.
if you're porting to OSG why not consider Mark
Harris' cloud code? far
superior in texture, appearance, extendibility,
transparency, lighting,
etc, etc,might require a tad more work but IMHO the
results are
worth the
--- On Sat, 16/8/08, gerard robin wrote:
Coming back to the Erik, Alexis remark and my crazy first
answer.
Won't it be possible,
to include in the Cockpit view parameters the additional
parameters delay
which gives the delay for 5g blackout and 9 g blackout ?
All the code calculating
Hi All,
I was hoping that I'd be able to provide a positive update on my work on 3-D
clouds this weekend.
Unfortunately, I've hit what appears to be an OSG issue that is beyond my
knowledge to solve.
The problem I've hit relates to Impostors and Billboards. Impostors are used to
reduce the
--- On Thu, 25/9/08, Syd wrote:
I 've been pondering an idea of adding
updraft/downdrafts to the
environment, probably as a part of turbulence , so it can
be
enabled/disabled...
My idea is to calculate wind-speed-from -down , by checking
wind speed ,
direction , and the normal of the
(Resend - my previous reply got lost in the ether)
--- On Mon, 22/9/08, Csaba Halász wrote:
Patch is broken in multiple places (missing line breaks,
parts of lines)
Sorry you are having problems.
I did a comparison between the results of a straight cvs diff and what is in
my patch, and they
--- On Tue, 30/9/08, Csaba Halász wrote:
In flightgear.diff, however, the hunk at line 36 concerning
environment_mgr.hxx doesn't have any modifications even
though the
line count says a line should have been added:
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ public:
virtual void bind ();
virtual void unbind
--- On Sat, 4/10/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Durk Talsma -- Saturday 04 October 2008:
Given that we have an OSG branch that has undergone
significant
development this year, and a PLIB branch, with little or no
development, I would strongly urge that the main release would
be OSG based.
--- On Mon, 22/9/08, Csaba Halász wrote:
Patch is broken in multiple places (missing line breaks,
parts of lines)
Sorry you are having problems.
I did a comparison between the results of a straight cvs diff and what is in
my patch, and they match (apart from date changes, and ignoring some
--- On Fri, 3/10/08, James Turner wrote:
On 3 Oct 2008, at 14:01, Tim Moore wrote:
Stuart has run into a bug in OSG with respect to Imposters, which
manage the cached rendering of the individual cloud sprites.
It's unclear if this ever
worked well in OSG. Unfortunately I haven't had the
Hi All,
As I mentioned in my mail yesterday, I'm taking another look at 3D clouds.
Rather than using Impostors, I instead looked at what I could do by using GPU
shaders - basically offloading as much processing onto the graphics card as
possible. This worked very well for the random-forests,
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Martin wrote:
Durk Talsma wrote:
So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your
current top 10 of
aircraft?
I'd be very happy to see Heiko's overhauled C172
model included in the
release. The outer hull is waaay better than the old one,
yet the
Csaba/Jester wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
Is it possible in Flightgear to chat on mutliplayer though frequencies?
Gijs and Natovr found this line in preferences.xml under the mutliplay
section:
type=string11850
but they changed the line and they
Gérard wrote:
Hello,
Is it only me ? or is there a funny behaviour with the random objects ?
I have found trees into the stadium :)
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/RandomTreesAndStadium.jpg
No, it isn't just you :)
The random objects, including trees, are placed randomly based on
Hi All,
After a lot of effort, and help from Tim, I've finally got some 3D shader-based
clouds that work acceptably:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.jpg
A patch is available from here: http:/www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.tar.gz
I've put quite a bit of effort into making the
LeeE wrote:
On Saturday 25 October 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Hi All,
After a lot of effort, and help from Tim, I've finally got some
3D shader-based clouds that work acceptably:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds.jpg
A patch is available from here:
http
George wrote:
1. I started FG with --enable-real-weather-fetch, then 2. enabled
3-D-clouds in the Rendering Options submenu - and did not see anything
like you.
Until I 3. enabled Environment = Weather scenerio from none to
METAR. Does also work if I enable Thunderstorm or fair weather.
James Sleeman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 23:55 -0400, Ampere K. wrote:
On October 24, 2008 12:38:46 pm Curtis Olson wrote:
1. Do we like the idea of a scavenger hunt type contest? If so, what
types
...
If you want a scavenger hunt, then this is one idea. Through an add-on
Fred wrote:
I missed the Weather scenario thing. But when enabling Fair weather
I got :
VERTEX glCompileShader FAILED
VERTEX Shader infolog:
(1) : error C0201: unsupported version 120
glLinkProgram FAILED
Program infolog:
Vertex info
---
(1) : error C0201: unsupported
Ron Jensen wrote:
I could never see the clouds with --enable-real-weather-fetch set
There's an interaction between the real weather fetch code and the 3D cloud that
I'm still working out. I think the root problem is that the 3D clouds are
bolted onto
the side of the 2D ones, and don't always
Martin wrote:
Surprisingly, if you set another weather scenario via the menu, this is
going to find its proper represenation, as seen in the property
browser, in the /environment/weather-scenario property. If I set a
different scenario via the property browser, this does not have any
effect
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
I try to dig clouds problem and come across to this situation Clouds
particles
are improperly sorted from back to front So DepthRenderBin doesn’t sort cloud
particles Here is to screen shots First I made by manual placing clouds
particles so 1st particle is near to
Hi All,
I've put together an improved 3D clouds patch, available from here:
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/clouds2.tar.gz
It fixes the following issues (to a greater or lesser extent):
1) Performance. Quad trees used to improve culling, and the sprites are placed
on the surface of a
Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
By the way, I found a very interesting thing that the clouds always face to
the
aircraft.
I placed ufo in the middle of clouds and made a spin by pressing left cursor.
Then all the clouds were turning toward me, changing their order.
I don't complain about this.
Heiko Schulz wrote:
For now I which a bit more documentation about making the cloudshapes.
I did understand that there are layers with Boxes with a set of clouds.
But I have problems with these coordinates:
box
x3200/x
y0/y
z2400/z
typest-large/type
/box
Gerard Robin wrote:
I do like that new version , i hope that the next one without that ordering
problem will be perfect.
It appears that Manuel has solved the ordering bug.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/3DClouds-img6.jpg
with that screenshot we may identify where the problem is:
Manuel Massing wrote:
Attached is a small fix for the sorting in CloudShaderGeometry.cxx.
I think the sorting problem stems from the osg idiosyncracy
to store transposed matrices...so the intuitive
osg::Vec4f p = vm * osg::Vec4f(_cloudsprites[i]-position.osg(), 1.0f);
needs to be
Ron Jensen wrote:
Well, that seems to have solved the alpha blending issues! Thanks!
Is this applicable to the trees, too?
The cloud code does a single bubble sort pass per frame, to avoid the
performance penalty of sorting the entire cloud set each frame.
We could do something similar for
Heiko Schulz wrote:
There is only thing I miss, or can't see it really- are the clouds moving due
to
the wind?
I know that the old clouds did this...
Not yet.That's on my list of things to solve next.
-Stuart
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I'll be able to build Unix binaries for the most common platforms.
Would someone do us the honour of providing a standalone 'terrasync'
binary for Win32 - statically linked against libsvn in order to save
the users from installing yet another dependency ?
Heiko Schulz wrote:
I began with making new cloud textures and shaping via xml. Creating clouds
is
easier than I thought though it is a lot of work- like building an aircraft!
;-)
Here is a video featuring the 3d-clouds with new textures. I need still work
on
shaping and creating
--- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote:
Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into
the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link
here to get some more eyes on it.
http://flight-aviator.com/
One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to
Hi All,
Attached is a small patch for 3D clouds.
It provide the following:
1) Proper spherical distribution of sprites (previously they were distributed
cylindrically - whoops)
2) Better shading, so the bottom of the cloud is darker than the top.
3) Fixed a couple of texture sizing bugs.
I
James Sleeman wrote:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
[a whole bunch of stuff cut]
Sigh, I'm sorry Arnt but trying to debate this with you seems to be a
waste of time, and it's just getting off topic in my opinion.
For once and for all, I have nothing to do with this other than as an
observant
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I applied your patch. I noticed this message being repeated endlessly
when clouds are activated :
Warning: detected OpenGL error 'valeur non valide' after RenderBin::draw(,)
I'm not sure what is going on here. I'm seeing the same warning, but I haven't
yet
managed to
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Stuart Buchanan a écrit :
Hi All,
Attached is a small patch for 3D clouds.
It provide the following:
1) Proper spherical distribution of sprites (previously they were
distributed
cylindrically - whoops)
2) Better shading, so the bottom of the cloud
Heiko Schulz wrote:
To: FGFS Developers Mail List flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, 24 November, 2008 23:24:52
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] 3d-clouds- Texture updates
Hi,
There is a lot of improvement left- some days ago I used for testing the
cloudstextures from
James Turner wrote:
On 24 Nov 2008, at 20:30, Curtis Olson wrote:
I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list
so all our UK based developers can see.
Assuming the packs are free, worth considering. We have enough people
in the UK (or close to it). Depends if
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
And I have yet to see any 3d clouds. Any clues on where I should be looking
(yes the box is checked :-))
Something has changed in the environment manager which means that clouds
generateion is now inconsistent. I'm still tracking it down
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I cheched your patch in but I still have the checkerboard :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs_clouds_checker.jpg
but only when the weather scenario is set to none.
-Fred
Thanks for checking in all my patches.
I'm aware that there are still checkerboard issues.
Hi James,
James Sleeman wrote:
Sorry if this has already been noted, I don't remember seeing it in the
recent discussions. A picture is worth 1000 words...
http://sirius.gogo.co.nz/fgfs-invisible-cloud.png
Taken from about 7000ft, 1500 ft thick overcast layer at low level,
scattered
Tim Moore wrote:
The 2D layers are drawn in that order, relative to each other. I didn't
consider
3D clouds when I implemented that in OSG.
Grep for setRenderBinDetails in simgear/scene/sky/cloud.cxx to see how to
insert
the 3d clouds into the cloud layer rendering order.
Tim
Durk Talsma wrote:
I just placed the sources and base package for the pending FlightGear 1.9
release on my webserver:
http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/SimGear-1.99.5.tar.gz
http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/FlightGear-1.99.5.tar.gz
http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/FlightGear-data-1.99.5.tar.bz2
Hi All,
Attached is another clouds patch. This does the following:
1) Puts the 3D clouds in a cloud rendering bin, to reduce the transparent edge
problem. Viewing 3d clouds against a 2D layer _above_ it now blends correctly.
There is still a problem when viewing a layer below the 3d clouds, and
Hi Guys,
On some systems (in particular Windows I think), if an aircraft refers to a
.wav file in another, not installed aircraft, OpenAL prints the following error
and FG exits:
(AL_INVALID_VALUE): constructor (alBufferData)
Fatal error: Failed to buffer data.
This makes diagnosis
James wrote:
A light sport aircraft or something close would be good, there is a
big gap between the Dragonfly and a 172, this in fact is probably the
biggest growth area of aviation these days so seems a shame to skip over
it.
Likely candidates (one of):
Lionceau
Skyranger
James Turner wrote:
On 30 Nov 2008, at 22:23, gerard robin wrote:
For instance, yes, the Stampe is easy to fly but not realistic
regarding the FDM.
Don't forget we don't make a Game.
I think the Stampe has fairly good FDM. From my limited experience,
it flies as described here:
gerard robin wrote:
Hello,
I recently succeeded to build FG CVS with osg 2.7.5 and boost ( ouf , but on
only one computer) .
I get that strange 3D clouds mapping , is it just me ?
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/checkboard.jpg
No, it's not just you. It is a (rather poor) attempt by
Geoff Air wrote:
(AL_INVALID_VALUE): constructor (alBufferData)
Fatal error: Failed to buffer data.
I think the ONLY reason you would get this not very helpful specific message
is that the FG/SG is compiled against an ALUT previous to version 1, if it
still exists?, or the header alut.h has
Hi All,
Attached is yet another patch for 3D clouds. Could someone please apply it to
CVS?
This provides the following enhancements bug fixes
- Fix the chequer-board bug.
- Add proper cloud coverage function - so scattered clouds are now truly
scattered.
- Add real-time control for visibility
Curt wrote:
I did think of that after scratching my head a while ... the metar reported
several cloud layers and
I did try to switch to a new location as well as switching to fair weather
and thunderstorm ...
I did get snow and rain, but with a perfectly clear sky.
I think there's a
Hi All,
Attached is what I'm hoping will be the final 3D clouds patch.
It does the following:
- Replaces simple shader attributes with vectors (this was missed out of the
last patch by mistake)
- Includes Yon's Fog update code (Thanks!)
- Fixes a bug since 1.0 where --enable-real-weather-fetch
I wrote:
Hi All,
Attached is what I'm hoping will be the final 3D clouds patch.
Nope, it wasn't attached, because I hit Send rather than Attach.
This time it is attached.
Sorry for the noise.
It does the following:
- Replaces simple shader attributes with vectors (this was missed out
Heiko wrote:
The clouds looking great now- the order problem is 99% solved so much as I
can
see!
Yes - I think we're pretty much done.
I see only some few problems still:
-against a second 3d-clouds layer, the problem with z-drawing appears again
I don't know how to solve this at the
Dave Perry wrote:
The 3D cloud appearance is much improved. Thanks to all involved!
Several questions and comments.
1. At night, the emmissive seems very very bright.
2. Are you intending that the 3D cloud base should match the lowest
level in the current METAR? I just flew with a KDSM
Curt wrote:
I wonder if there is some sort of floating point resolution / rounding
problem with the sort?
I see a lot of flickering myself. Also if I look some particular direction
and the clouds get
sorted ok, then look away for even a second, and then look back (by changing
the view
gerard robin wrote:
However i am , now, a bit disappointed with these flickering ( too often,
may be it is my graphics cards NVIDIA 7800 GS 512 mo) which decrease
dramatically the result (mainly with Metar) . And which make me to come back
to the 2D clouds, with the GUI preference.
I
dave perry wrote:
You were correct. I had not set the weather scenario to METAR. I ran
fgfs once with 3D clouds and once w/o 3D clouds, both with
real-weather-fetch and scenario METAR. I only got 1 fps with the 3D
clouds. Earlier with 3D clouds, I got about 21 fps.
I assume you
Hi All,
Those keeping an eye on CVS will notice that Tim Moore has committed some
changes to the clouds code. His changes massively improve performance - way
above what I've been achieving with my attempts to re-use cloud definitions. I
am very grateful to Tim for showing me once again how
Heiko wrote:
since when are the 2d-clouds moving?
Well exactly- the clouds aren't moving- but there is something between the 2d
and 3d-clouds - maybe this explains some renderings bugs Gerad found?
This is the weather being interpolated between METAR states.
Rather than immediately changing
Heiko wrote:
Flickering -o.k. I can live with that. I noticed the same issue on the MSFS
x-Demo with their clouds. But it seems that they interpolate the color and
alpha
values of the sprites which makes the clouds soft and maybe prevent this
visible
sorting we still have. And well-
Csaba wrote:
Also, add one new bug reported by Jano: even if you are using METAR
scenario, METAR updates don't affect the visuals. That is, if you fly
to another airport, or wait for the 15 minute update interval, nothing
changes even though the new values show in the property browser.
The
Martin Spott wrote:
Not meaning to complain or trying to urge anyone, I just wanted to
report back that setting:
--prop:/environment/weather-scenario=METAR
either on the command line or in the ~/-fgfsrc file still does neither
set the Weather source to METAR in the Weather Scenario
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* James Turner -- Wednesday 17 December 2008:
+ var KT2MPS = 0.51; # knots to m/s
Personally I think all these constants would be easier to
read if they were written the same way as the Simgear ones,
i.e MPS_TO_KT, NM_TO_M and so on.
I find
Hi All,
Attached is a very small patch that fixes the issue reported by Martin where
--prop:/environment/weather-scenario=METAR had no effect.
I think this is a pretty safe patch that should be included in the release.
-Stuart
flightgear.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed
I wrote:
Subject:
Hi All,
Attached is a very small patch that fixes the issue reported by Martin where
--prop:/environment/weather-scenario=METAR had no effect.
I think this is a pretty safe patch that should be included in the release.
-Stuart
Sorry for the lack of subject.
John Denker wrote:
On 12/17/2008 08:04 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
I assume you are not using sync-to-vblank or fps throttle.
That's a correct assumption. Forsooth, I've never heard of
sync-to-vblank or fps throttle in this context. The names
sound nice, but
-- They are not mentioned
Durk Talsma wrote:
Okay, of the people who responded, the vote was unanimously against this
idea.
If it's up to me, I vote for going back to our original consensus, and
releasing this version as 1.9.0. As far as I can tell, this number has the
majority vote, and although not Curt's
Vivian wrote:
I hope I'm doing something wrong with cvs-head source and data as of this
morning. I'm seeing this (using METAR at KSFO):
ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.dyndns.org/fgfs/Screen-shots/clouds.jpg
apart from this the recent cloud update is working well. Cumulus looks
particularly well,
Vivian wrote:
Of course, by the time I looked the METAR had changed. No matter - this
gives a very similar effect:
SCTO36 BKN047 OVC060
Don't suppose that helps much
Yes, it helps. I can put together the appropriate cloud layers from that
information.
Thanks,
-Stuart
Curt wrote:
I just did a cross country flight with the latest CVS cloud/weather/metar
changes and I noticed that the weather interpolation that smoothed out
abrubt changes to wind and clouds when a new METAR report comes
in seems to have now been lost. We are back to abrubt wind and cloud
Csaba wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
The patch below backs out that change. Unfortunately this means the change
to the cloud coverage due to changing METAR will not be reflected in the 3D
clouds
(2D clouds are unaffected). Unfortunately I don't think
I wrote :
Csaba wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
The patch below backs out that change. Unfortunately this means the change
to the cloud coverage due to changing METAR will not be reflected in the
3D
clouds
(2D clouds are unaffected
Heiko Schulz wrote
Hi,
Here are some of my screenies for the gallery! Feel free to take one or more
of
them.
http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie/FGFS1.9.0/index.htm
Absolutely superb!
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all!
HHS
And to you too.
-Stuart
Tat wrote:
I'm very happy that we finally released 1.9.0.
Thanks for your hard work in making it happen!
According to the discussions before the release, I believe that many of us
are
willing to release FlightGear more often, like semiannually or quarterly (or
even more often). To
James Turner wrote:
I'm noticing quite a few people on the forums with difficulty running
1.9.0 - either long delays on startup, hangs while loading scenery,
crashes or rendering issues. Some of these are certainly driver
issues, especially with ATI and the dreaded Intel chipsets. And
Durk wrote:
In the mean time, here is the changelog.
A couple of comments on reading this again.
rendering bugs). The switch to OpenSceneGraph marks an important milestone
for FlightGear, as it allows us to make full use of the advanced rendering
options already available in
201 - 300 of 968 matches
Mail list logo
