Hi Guys,
First I must say I have not read the past FG-dev discussion on this ...
if someone can point me to a thread title name or date range I will
catch up. The 850 apt.dat format came out of about 3 years of banging
our head on the problem inside LR, but I suspect that the things we've
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
As it seems, the X-Plane authors are not keen to go away from the
apt.dat format, so if FlightGear would go away from bidirectional
compatibility with apt.dat, this would result in a clear split of the
databases and in ceasing the up to now fruitful exchange
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
There was criticism of the physical storage model of apt.dat, as it has
been and probably will continue to be in version 850. I just wanted to
say that, if the FlightGear project were to invent its own format -
let's call it FGAPT for simplicity - and would
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
Well, there is the problem: if you want to database the highest level
layout info, you need to standardize the high level model.
Then that's where we need to work with you and Robin Peel regarding the
next generation database ;-)
Just to play devil's advocate:
Hi,
Sorry to barge in again, but I work with the VATSIM guys and can tell
you: you may have licensing issues...email Lefteris to find out about
such a thing, but you may want to find out up-front if the licensing on
the VATSIM VoIP stuff is compatible with FG (either legally or
Hi Y'all,
GWMobile wrote:
Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
I think the point of VATSIM (and IVAO) is that they are existing
communities with user bases that show up on a regular basis. If you
wrote a pilot client for FG you could then go fly online on any given
Hi Y'all,
One of the things that's come up in the apt.dat discussions is whether
the taxiway layouts should be pre-clipped (meaning there are no
overlapping polygons) or overlapped (meaning polygons can overlap and
there is a well-defined draw order that makes one appear on top of another).
Hi Paul,
For what it's worth, I'm leaning more and more toward overlapping, both
because of your arguments, stuff Curt's said, and just tossing the ideas
around...so this is a bit of a devil's advocate argument...
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Where are you thinking of saving the clipped data?
Back
Hi Guys,
I've been operating under the assumption that load performance for FG is
not a requirement for apt.dat because you guys are already
pre-processing the file to make scenery, and could thus convert the
apt.dat file to something faster to read _if_ you wanted to trade load
time for the
Hi Guys,
We had to put logins onto the X-Plane SDK wiki - we got spammed pretty
hard. Since the auth was put in we've had no problems.
*cheers*
Ben
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Looks like our wiki is the target of a pr0n spam bot. It obviously
uses zombies, and there's no reasonable way to block
We did okay without captchas, but we are not using MediaWiki, rather
phpWiki...it's conceivable that MediaWiki has smarter bots written for
it although I do not know.
Simon Hollier wrote:
On 7/18/06, Vassilii Khachaturov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Guys,
We had to put logins onto the
11 matches
Mail list logo
