On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Thorsten R. wrote:
Stuart wrote:
In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria:
- FDM
- Systems
- Cockpit
- External Model.
It sounds very neat and if a large fraction of aircraft ends up rated that
way, then I'll be the the
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
Yes I want to record and playback the controls using the native FDM of the
aircraft. I do not care at all about the lat/lon/height of the plane. I want
to be able to feed my control inputs into the playback and have the FDM
process this
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
Thanks Martin,
I will double check the licence attached to the data I have, but I'm
confident it is free to use and distribute so long as any subsequent end-use
is of personal or private non-profit nature.
Please double-check. That
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Hal V. Engel wrote:
With this in mind I have used the Stuart's rating system and coded the status
line of the p51d-jsbsim-set.xml file with the following:
statusFDM: 5, Systems: 4, Model: 3, Cockpit: 3/status
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Martin - does this address your concern?
Well, at the end of the day it's completely irrelevant if my concerns
are being addressed ;-)
Not at all. Such decisions need to have community-wide
buy-in to have any effect
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:59:30 am Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I also like having a minimum for each individual rating category so that
everything has to have had approx. the same level of work to move up the
status scale.
I could
Hi Jack,
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
Hi,
My development of the Bell AH-1W Cobra is far enough along where
I feel it is time to commit it to GIT, especially in time for the new
release. I use GIT, but I don't know enough about it to commit it
myself. If somebody
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
Everything in the package I have sent is under the GPL.
That's great news :)
I may not get the chance to commit this in the near future, so if
someone else wants to go ahead, they are welcome.
Thanks for your work.
-Stuart
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Argh - 3d-clouds :-P
OK - I have some homework to do...
Anyway - the overcast layer at -200ft is by intention, it's thickness is 700ft
so the upper edge is 500ft. But it currently only works for 2d clouds.
If the weather is changed at
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
IIRC clouds default to 2D if there isn't a 3D definition in
Environment/cloudlayers.xml
That might provide an work around.
Correct. Currently, the layer type is guessed in fgclouds.cxx by looking at
altitude, thickness etc. My fog
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
Everything in the package I have sent is under the GPL.
That's great news :)
I may not get the chance to commit this in the near future, so if
someone else wants to go ahead
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Let me take a virtual needle and deflate the claims a bit. Until recently,
Flightgear's idea of a weather change was that pressure, wind and
visibility instantly jump from one value to another. Hardly what I would
call accuracy. Doing it
Hi Guys,
I've been updating The Manual for the upcoming release, including
updating the command reference to include the changes to the menus. I
came across a couple of menus which seemed mis-named, and for which
I've just committed some changes.
Specifically:
1) The AI menu had AI prefixed on
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Looks good to me Stuart! But I do wonder why people feel the need to
capitilise each single word.
Why isn't it Traffic options, or Tanker controls? I know it's not a big
deal, but to me it looks
cleaner and clearer...
As Jacob pointed
Hi All,
The FlightGear Manual (previously known as the Getting Started Guide),
has now been moved to gitorious under the fg project. It's available
here:
g...@gitorious.org:fg/getstart.git
As always, Martin and I are very keen to receive updates/corrections,
either as patches or pure text.
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Looks good to me Stuart! But I do wonder why people feel the need to
capitilise each single word.
Why isn't it Traffic options, or Tanker controls? I know it's not a big
deal
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
(Why) do we need two buttons to close a dialog? I recently removed the ones
that say Close on most
dialogs, replacing them with small buttons in the top right corner. There
are quite some dialogs that don't
have a normal close button (like
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
If anyone out there has been ripped off by these scammers or charged an
amount they weren't expecting, they should be able to take advantage of the
proflightsimulator 100% no-hassle rock-solid refund offer advertised on
their web site. It
Happy new year everyone !
On 30 Dec 2010, at 23:19, ThorstenB wrote:
I still vote for keeping the original menu ordering in the Equipment
menu for the upcomming release, otherwise we have another
incompatibility - and a very unnecessary one. It's very simple to
avoid this issue for this
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
How about adding
legendX/legend
to the small close button?
I've tried that, but unfortunately the X isn't quite centered in the
box, and looks very much like the character X rather than a cross.
A better solution would be to modify the
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 8:37 AM, I wrote:
Adding symbolic names along with some helper functions for disabling them in
Nasal/gui.nas is pretty easy. I'm happy to take on writing the code etc.
Probably not today though!
It turns out that Nasal/gui.nas already had a menuEnable function for
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Dave L wrote:
The ATIS is now in a releasable state. If as many people as possible could
use it in the next couple of days and report any breakage that would be
good.
Cheers - Dave
Hi Dave,
Doesn't sound quite as good as the real recording we had
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM, James Turner wrote:
On 2 Jan 2011, at 14:56, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
gui.menuEnable(fuel-and-payload, false);
We can add new names for any other menus that we might want to disable
on a per-aircraft basis, but from a quick skim through the menus I
couldn't see
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM, James Turner wrote:
On 2 Jan 2011, at 14:56, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
gui.menuEnable(fuel-and-payload, false);
We can add new names for any other menus that we might want to disable
on a per-aircraft basis
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Hi Melchior,
I was about to send an email to the mailing list asking for feedback, so
thanks for saving
my three minutes :)
Shudder! This patch simply duplicates a lot of code that was meant
to be *re-used*.
Right. So far it was a
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:32 AM, I wrote:
Hi All,
I recently came across http://www.marinetraffic.com/, which tracks
shipping by means of their AIS transmitter, which all vessels over 299
gross tonnes must carry.
The data is transmitted by radio and includes position, speed, course,
rate
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Ron Jense wrote:
On Sunday 23 January 2011 23:25:43 Gary Carvell wrote:
Hi all,
I've noticed that the Catalina has been broken for some time.
FlightGear aborts on startup with this message:
Error loading aerodynamic function in aero/coefficient/CDhump:
On 29 Jan 2011, at 01:30, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..found this wee snippet in my console output:
r300: ERROR: FS input generic 17 unassigned, not enough hardware slots.
Well, that might explain some if the shader problems you are seeing.
My guess is that FS stands for Fragment Shader and your
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2011 10:07:11 Geoff McLane wrote:
Hi Curt,
No probs, now that it seems Ron might have found
something, thus the thread is hovering on closing,
so chat away...
While we argue over how many angles can dance on the head
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM, dave perry wrote:
On 02/11/2011 10:28 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I've also got on my TODO list replacing the Nasal nose gear animation code
with straight XML animations.
-Stuart
Including the link animations? Getting the correct link angle of
rotation
Hi Guys,
Thanks very much for looking at this. I had a play with it myself
yesterday, and have XML interpolation code already working for the
nose-gear in my local copy. I used an oleo length of 1ft as
/gear/gear[0]/gear-compression-ft and
/gear/gear[0]/gear-compression-norm seem to be the same
On 13 Feb 2011, at 19:26, dave perry wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have a clean local c172p ready to push that includes:
- working nose gear link animation in terms of compression-norm using
xml interpolation
- working main gear animation in terms of compression-norm using xml
interpolation
-
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
Hi,
The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release.
Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip
I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about
a simple logo.
It is neither
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote:
This is ridiculous. We have this discussion every so often, when we are not
arguing over FlightPro Sim. Do we have to change every airliner model in the
inventory? Of course we don't. Use the bloody thing. And if ever anyone
complains say:
Hi Curt,
At the risk of being a case of if the hat fits
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
I hate to wade into mud wrestling matches. But for every one who is on
their high horse about being pristine in our non-use of any possible
trademarked items ... have you browsed
Curt wrote:
So why aren't we *removing* all our existing uses of the redbull logo ... or
at least the ones that I can find in 2 seconds? None of the people who are
saying Jack can't submit his helicopter with a redbull livery are saying
anything about the 2 aircraft and several scenery
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
If in doubt – in fact, even if not in doubt – it’s good to ask.
Here’s an actual data point.
snip
I agree with Jon on this - ideally we should be pro-active about
asking for permission, even if we don't like the answer.
We could send out
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
Hi,
The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release.
Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip
Hi Jack,
I had a look at committing this, replacing the existing aircraft in
git, but there seem to be some
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
Hi,
As many of the textures were originally photos, they were edited
in .jpg format and sent to me like that. I made the careless mistake
of simply changing the extension from jpg to png. I will convert these
the proper way in
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Harry Campigli wrote:
Hello Stuart,
Have you gone any further with your AIS scripting?
I have. I've got a quite nice proxy and some very simple heuristics
to make the ship movements seem realistic. Unfortunately they don't
quite work with ships docking from high
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
The local weather menu option is first before the other local weather
options. This does open up a dialog box where you do have to create
clouds
1-by-1. Looking at this, it appears that the intent of this is more for
debugging. Maybe
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
But if people feel that things inside e.g. the Local Weather package (or
somewhere else) should be ported from Nasal to C++ - by all means do so,
don't just complain :-) You have the Nasal code available, I for one am
entirely willing to
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
To follow up Stuart, here are some of my thoughts:
Thanks. Comments below, significantly colored by what I've
managed to implement in a couple of hours of hacking here :)
snip
I) Basic building blocks - texture sheets
I assume the
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Mixing is actually not a problem at all - I can just create 2 overlapping
cloudlets from 2 different texture sheets and place a third with dark
diffuse bottoms below - that doesn't need to be hard-coded as long as I
can ask for a texture
I've just committed (thanks to Torsten) an update to the 3D clouds. As
well as fixing a bug that caused the cloud density to be significantly
less than it should have been, the global 3D clouds now move with the
wind, which looks rather nice IMO.
This update also adds a couple of new commands
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM, thorsten.i.renk wrote:
Now, the placed 3D clouds are wrapped, just like the global clouds, so
if you travel far enough (50km), you'll come across the same cloud
again. For local weather, that probably isn't what we want. So, I'm
thinking of adding a new wrap
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
One function I had on my TODO list was something to return
the cloud
position in lat/lon. However, it's a bit tricky due to the
current
limitations in the command interface. Do you see any need
for it?
Weather Radar?
Good point. The
Hi Curt,
I've been looking at the altitude problem all evening, but haven't
(yet) found the bug.
AFAICT the correct altitude (in m) is being passed down the stack and
used to create an altitude offset, so it's not just a case of the
stack using the height of the clouds rather than the altitude.
Hi Curt,
I've managed to find the problem, and once I get git to play ball,
I'll make a merge request!
If you've got a list of the 3D clouds bugs you've found and not fixed
yourself, I'd be interested in fixing them.
The flying trip was fantastic. We flew just over 1000 miles over 8
days (19
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
gives me almost what I want - except that I don't actually see
deciduous-summer, I see mixed-summer! It doesn't remotely matter what
tree-texture or tree-varieties I specify, I get the same output -
although Flightgear responds correctly
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:13 PM, John wrote:
Hi,
Was also looking over Thorsten's pics and writeup on the FG forum (assume
those were the pics referenced) and wondering how to go about setting up
the cloud scenery.
I think the pics referenced were my photos from a recent RL flying trip.
Hi Victor,
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Repost. Forum topic theme is
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6t=12005
Hi. I am doing Vostok-1 project for FlightGear and have a lot of
problems due to current terrain engine what can not supply high
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took
all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that
get scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is
easy to use and
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:19 AM, I wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took
all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that
get scored and then create the entries in the
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Vivian Meazz awrote:
Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points remain:
There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none existed
on the
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Stuart
Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points
remain:
There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none
existed
Adding to Hal's comments:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote:
I also disagree with Stuart that such advanced
features are nice-to-haves and add little to the simulation - why the hell
are we including them then? Do the
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, ThorstenB wrote:
Hi Stuart and all,
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status
We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials,
i.e. how to start, how to use instruments... I like extremely
detailed/realistic aircraft, and
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, David Van Mosselbeen wrote:
Hi all,
I just download the source code of that magic scam at
http://proflightsimulator.com/source/Source-Files.7z
snip
This was discussed ad naseum quite some time ago on this
list and on the forums.
Those unfamiliar are welcome
http://hsf-sulzbach.de/indexz51X.php
--
EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content
authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image
Editing and ensure content is compliant with
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Short version for the impatient reader:
Please do _NOT_ push any major changes or new features to simgear,
flightgear, fgdata until further advice!
snip
Please refrain from pushing new features or major infrastructure changes
to our
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Martin Spot wrote:
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Please refrain from pushing new features or major infrastructure changes
to our streams. Please note: this includes fgdata, too!
[...]
What's the position
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
Comments on the state of the c172 model went unheard for months,
therefore I'd like to hear a really convincing reason why such major
overhaul can't wait until the tree is open for the next development
cycle.
Not quite unheard - just
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM, ThorstenB wrote:
Hi,
the final GUI bits for a new feature are now in fgdata - the last
feature addition for the 2.4 release from my part... You can
download/update scenery directly from FlightGear now (main menu:
Environment = Scenery). Credit for the idea
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
I just added this to the P-51D this morning. I have this setup so that the
propwash affects Roll_moment_due_to_rudder Cldr, Pitch_moment_due_to_flaps
Cmflap, Delta_Lift_due_to_flaps dCLflap, Lift_due_to_Elevator_Deflection
CLde,
Hi All,
I've been trying to fix bug 340
(http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=340), where
the VS KAP140 display in the c172p mysteriously stopped working about
a month ago.
To fix it partially, I've created a new AP filter converting from the
pressure-rate-target to a fpm
Thanks!
No idea how it could have worked before. I've committed an update as
described above.
However, I'm still seeing some strangeness:
1) Sometimes I'm seeing 99 rather than 100
2) Even with these changes, the -1000 value is incorrect.
I suspect that there's some floating point issue
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
There is a bias element to add an offset to the property value just before
step and scroll are applied. If you pick it small enough, It gets cut off by
the step element but gets you past the roundoff error.
Thanks Torsten. I should have
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM, David Van Mosselbeen wrote:
Depending of the view angle, smoke is showing in white or black. I mean,
if i click twice on the right mouse button, then move the view... But alsoror
sometimes when flying. See the image [1]. I don't know if this is a know
issue, but
Hi All,
I've just done a pass over the GUI making minor changes to clean it up
and make it consistent.
There are a couple of slightly more significant layout changes I'd
like to make, but want to discuss first.
1) Currently there is a wireframe option on the Rendering menu. While
it's of
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 4:29 PM, David Van Mosselbeen wrote:
Hi all,
When feeding fgfs with --dme=115.7 in the radio frequencies settings it
show up as 115.70. See that on the image [1]
[1]
http://dvm.zapto.org:8080/~dvanmosselbeen/fgfs/tmp/command_line_opts.jpg
This is pretty much
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
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
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:24 PM, grth_team wrote:
The answer from these devel team persons, was a joke, at least to us,
they said we will include your project with FG 2.6 ( February ?),
they probably make fun of us ( do you consider newbee are not serious
?).
As one of the people who
Hi Thorsten,
Thanks for writing. I've got a couple of comments.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
I get the impression that some people believe that Local Weather is a
temporary, experimental thing. That's actually not my position. I assigned
a version number larger
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Okay, it isn't plain text (we can easily convert it once it's done, altough
I cannot think of a place where we'd publish
a plain-text-changelog, apparently we stopped updating the fgdata/NEWS
file), but this will allow us to work together
Hi Guys,
While thoroughly enjoying the PC9-M, I noticed that its license is GPL v3.
From a very cursory browse of the Quick Guide to GPLv3,
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html) GPL3 is
apparently compatible with GPL2, but I'm not clear if we can
distribute a GPL3 aircraft as part
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:34:33 +0200, Torsten wrote in message
4e214d19.20...@t3r.de:
..how about historical weather from e.g. air crash reports?
fgfs --metar=add any metar you want here
..replacing METAR IDs with a data file that FG
Hi All,
I've got a small patch to improve the FG forests, along with some
particularly bad C++ I need advice on.
The patch does the following:
1) Fixes the longstanding bug where the first set of tree definitions
in a tile were used for all forests within that tile. This meant that
if you have
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Occasional dropouts and slowing to 1fps and things as that. More and
more bugs with every change what's harder and harder to eliminate, not
linearly, squarely harder. Dramatical lowering of common development
rate, coming to very outdated
2011/7/14 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
While being able to do a croase ground query on such a kind of regular grid
might be beneficial for the weather module. I would prefer the ai module just
using the already available bounding volume tree that is used for the main
aircrafts elevation queries.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM, ThorstenB wrote:
On 28.07.2011 00:30, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On my machine I don't see any performance impact, despite the fact
that more trees are displayed. I'd appreciate it if those with more
graphics-constrained systems than my own would test this and let
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
2011/7/14 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
While being able to do a croase ground query on such a kind of regular grid
might be beneficial for the weather module. I would prefer the ai module just
using the already available bounding volume tree
Hi All,
The July 2011 edition of the FlightGear Newsletter is now available:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Newsletter_July_2011
As always, we are looking for contributions to the next newsletter,
available here:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Newsletter_August_2011
-Stuart
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
Hi Stuart,
On 30 Jul 2011, at 21:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal system geodinfo(),
using the groundcache instead of the current scenery method.
This sounds very interesting: As far
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:48 AM, James Turner wrote:
On 30 Jul 2011, at 20:31, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
So, I quickly wrote an alternative to the current Nasal system geodinfo(),
using the groundcache instead of the current scenery method.
I'm working on a new (C++) navigation display
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM,wrote:
I've finally (I guess you all know the feeling of too much other stuff to
do...) managed to start some tests with Stuart's Nasal interface for 3d
cloud generation. Right now there is only a very rough placement structure
and no real management (no
2011/8/2 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
snip
So I decoupled these two structures somehow. I have put bv-trees of geometry
into the userdata field of the scenegraph. So for the high level operations
like tile loading, the scenery paging is used to load and get rid of the bv-
trees. The whole
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 14:43 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Some visual impressions from the 3 cloud types I've converted to
the new
system so far here:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=7358start=390#p132335
2011/8/2 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
So I decoupled these two structures somehow. I have put bv-trees of geometry
into the userdata field of the scenegraph. So for the high level operations
like tile loading, the scenery paging is used to load and get rid of the bv-
trees. The whole intersectable
2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich:
I have checked in a version of the ground intersection routines that
just use the bvh trees in the scenegraph.
This should improove the run time behaviour for the ground queries.
That should be even faster than the variant you tried since it avoids the
extra
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Upon further reflection - could it be the problem that I'm trying to
assemble a layer rather than fill a volume?
The bottom shading in 3dcloud.vert is controlled by a combination of
'shade' and 'cloud_height'. Your Nasal interface doesn't
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
We should change the maximum to whatever you feel is sensible
(40km?), and leave the default as it is (20km).
I think my current maximum is 45 km, and for much more one needs a
different tile structure anyway, so if we could get 45 km
2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
I have now seen that this has overlapped a question from yours form yesterday
evening. I just got up today morning, took a look outside - still no summer in
mid europe - and decided to hack something. Then I just thought that this
change might be good to
2011/8/7 Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
Hi Stuart,
I have checked in a version of the ground intersection routines that
just use the bvh trees in the scenegraph.
This should improove the run time behaviour for the ground queries.
That should be even faster than the variant you tried since it
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Some progress and minor issues:
I am in the process of redoing textures and cloud definitions for Cu
layers (the toughest nut), about halfway through converting all available
cloud types.
I have implemented tested tile management
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Yes, the sprite is selected from the sheet randomly on the x-axis and
based on it's height in the cloud on the y-axis for precisely this
reason.
The behaviour isn't switchable at present though it could be.
For the relatively small
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Thanks. I have to take a look at the max-cloud-height-m - currently I'm
only setting min-cloud-height-m for the following reason:
It seems to me that the cloud *center* gets placed at (alt-ft +
layer_altitude), such that (0.5 *
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, wrote:
... and yet another issue:
On a first long-range test yesterday, I observed that the cloud base of my
convective layer was continuously rising. At takeoff the clouds were
exactly as specified, later still plausible given terrain, but by the time
the
501 - 600 of 968 matches
Mail list logo
