Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear prerelease
Durk Talsma wrote: On Thursday 22 November 2007 07:36, Durk Talsma wrote: This is a quick note to everybody: I'm planning to build an official FlightGear pre-release tonight. I did a full dress rehearsal last sunday and that all seemed to work well, but I still needed Curt's okay for a few remaining issues. In the mean time, if there are any *urgent* patches remaining please try to get them into CVS ASAP. I hope Jon Berndt will submit patches to the fgfs JSBSim code that 1. Turns off JSBSim modeling of turbulence that plays havoc with the default c172p, and 2. Removes the redundant sense from FGPropellers.cpp. Jon, you indicated #2 should be done. how hard is porting #1 from JSBSim cvs? Another question: we always have a limited number of aircraft that are in the distribution, with the rest being available as separate downloads. We like to keep the number of aircraft constant, and representative of the many types of aircraft supported by FlightGear. Is there any pressing reason to swap one aircraft for another one? IIRC, there have been some suggestions of replacing the 737 by the 787. FWIW, we currently have the following selection of aircraft (Taken from Makefile.am): data/Aircraft/Generic \ data/Aircraft/Instruments \ data/Aircraft/Instruments-3d \ data/Aircraft/UIUC \ data/Aircraft/737-300 \ data/Aircraft/A-10 \ data/Aircraft/bf109 \ data/Aircraft/bo105 \ data/Aircraft/c172 \ data/Aircraft/c172p \ IMHO we should not include the two c310 and replace them with 1. SenecaII (great twin with lots of documentation) 2. de Havilland Beaver - Floats (shows the on-water progress this release and a great bush AC) This exchange leaves a modern light twin and adds the on-water and bush categories to fgfs. data/Aircraft/c310 \ data/Aircraft/c310u3a \ data/Aircraft/Citation-Bravo \ data/Aircraft/f16 \ data/Aircraft/j3cub \ data/Aircraft/Hunter \ data/Aircraft/p51d \ data/Aircraft/pa28-161 \ data/Aircraft/Rascal \ data/Aircraft/T38 \ data/Aircraft/ufo \ data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \ Cheers, Durk -Dave Perry - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft ratings on the download page (was Re: Fair practice autorisations)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: I'm currently writing a script to generate the aircraft download page that will include ratings, so users will be able to see the ratings of aircraft _before_ they download them. Hopefully I'll get it finished this evening in time for the weekend release, and we can use it for the 2.6.0 Download Aircraft page. Of course, many aircraft are not currently rated, but hopefully this will encourage authors to rate their aircraft for the 2.8.0 release. I've managed to get this done, and passed the results to Curt, so the 2.6.0 Aircraft Download page will show ratings for aircraft, or a ? if the aircraft has not been rated. Currently, 34 of the 401 aircraft in fgdata/Aircraft have been rated (8.5%). -Stuart -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear Base Package branch, master, updated. f81456998442b1f30d86c4925a7d000d46ea4f1f
I am in no way picking on any single committer here. This just happens to be the most recent commit message that came through while I was thinking about this (sorry Gijs, we do really love you. I'm mean, not really really really love, but well you know how I always say one sentence too many and paint myself into a corner I can't get out of.) :-) I sense that there have been a substantial number of updates to individual aircraft that are only going into the master branch and aren't getting cherry picked into the 2.8.0 release branch. Perhaps this is intentional or I'm misunderstanding something, but I wanted to at least ask. When I create the downloadable aircraft .zip files for the 2.8.0 release, it will be from the release/2.8.0 branch, but most of the aircraft changes that have been made since the 2.8.0 branch was created are not going in there, and are only going into master. Thanks, Curt. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Flightgear-commitlogs mar...@hypersphere.calit2.net wrote: The branch, master has been updated - Log - commit f81456998442b1f30d86c4925a7d000d46ea4f1f Author: Gijs de Rooy Date: Mon Jul 30 23:12:56 2012 +0200 Issue 824: DC-10-30 and CRJ700-family Rembrandt lights displayed in FGRun. - Summary - Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/beacon.xml|1 + Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/greennav.xml |1 + .../CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-nose.xml |1 + .../Models/Lights/landing-wing-inside.xml |1 + .../CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing.xml |1 + Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/rednav.xml|1 + Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/strobe.xml|1 + Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/taxi.xml |1 + Aircraft/DC-10-30/Models/Lights/greennav.xml |1 + .../Models/Lights/landing-nose-fuselage.xml|1 + .../DC-10-30/Models/Lights/landing-nose-gear.xml |1 + .../DC-10-30/Models/Lights/landing-wing-inside.xml |1 + Aircraft/DC-10-30/Models/Lights/landing-wing.xml |1 + Aircraft/DC-10-30/Models/Lights/panel.xml |1 + Aircraft/DC-10-30/Models/Lights/rednav.xml |1 + Aircraft/DC-10-30/Models/Lights/strobe.xml |1 + 16 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) - Diff diff --git a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/beacon.xml b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/beacon.xml index 4905af8..9f1c262 100644 --- a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/beacon.xml +++ b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/beacon.xml @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ typelight/type light-typepoint/light-type object-nameSphere/object-name + nopreview/ position x0/x y0/y diff --git a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/greennav.xml b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/greennav.xml index f17c5f4..93a2ace 100644 --- a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/greennav.xml +++ b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/greennav.xml @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ typelight/type light-typepoint/light-type object-nameSphere/object-name + nopreview/ position x0/x y0/y diff --git a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-nose.xml b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-nose.xml index 2532748..1b8c65e 100644 --- a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-nose.xml +++ b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-nose.xml @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ typelight/type light-typespot/light-type object-nameCone/object-name + nopreview/ position x0/x y0/y diff --git a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing-inside.xml b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing-inside.xml index 0f1d576..64e62eb 100644 --- a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing-inside.xml +++ b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing-inside.xml @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ typelight/type light-typespot/light-type object-nameCone/object-name + nopreview/ position x0/x y0/y diff --git a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing.xml b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing.xml index e97bcc7..4d7af16 100644 --- a/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing.xml +++ b/Aircraft/CRJ700-family/Models/Lights/landing-wing.xml @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ typelight/type light-typespot/light
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft ratings on the download page (was Re: Fair practice autorisations)
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:49:34 +, Stuart wrote in message cap3ntytjoav9wecmued6fkfczjhrpfqsodmfim3ftmtthcm...@mail.gmail.com: On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: I'm currently writing a script to generate the aircraft download page that will include ratings, so users will be able to see the ratings of aircraft _before_ they download them. Hopefully I'll get it finished this evening in time for the weekend release, and we can use it for the 2.6.0 Download Aircraft page. Of course, many aircraft are not currently rated, but hopefully this will encourage authors to rate their aircraft for the 2.8.0 release. I've managed to get this done, and passed the results to Curt, so the 2.6.0 Aircraft Download page will show ratings for aircraft, or a ? if the aircraft has not been rated. ..a suggestion, tell the truth, bluntly: Unfinished work, not rated, unsuitable for anything but development work!!!, to avoid complaints, bad ratings and whine on FG-2.6+ due to unfinished aircraft etc work. Currently, 34 of the 401 aircraft in fgdata/Aircraft have been rated (8.5%). -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft ratings on the download page (was Re: Fair practice autorisations)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Erik Hofman wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 12:00 +0200, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: Which the rating scheme makes a lot easier now. This makes me think that it may be a nice idea to have the top 10 of best rated aircraft available somewhere as an add-on to the base package. Or something like that. I'm currently writing a script to generate the aircraft download page that will include ratings, so users will be able to see the ratings of aircraft _before_ they download them. Hopefully I'll get it finished this evening in time for the weekend release, and we can use it for the 2.6.0 Download Aircraft page. Of course, many aircraft are not currently rated, but hopefully this will encourage authors to rate their aircraft for the 2.8.0 release. -Stuart -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 2.10.1
Hi all, (2013/03/14 7:11), Frederic Bouvier wrote: With regard to the Windows release, after installing Setup Flightgear 2.10.0.3.exe on Windows XP, when launching fgrun I immediately get the following error/warning: There is no disk in the drive. Please insert a disk into drive D:. It does it upon launch of fgrun, and it will also do it later upon selection of the dhc2 aircraft. After removing all aircraft and cleaning out the fgrun preferences file, fgrun still gripes about no disk in drive D: on launch.Everything still works if one simply selects Continue, though it's a bit annoying. BTW, D: is the drive where Jenkins builds windows binaries, so it should be something like a build path configured in the generated binaries. I might find one possible reason for the issue. Aircraft/dhc2/Models/dhc2.ac includes texture D:/Git_New/my_fgdata/Aircraft/dhc2/white.png on lines 1303, 1740, 3615, 5310 and 7174, which will cause file accesses to drive D. I also checked other aircraft files from git repo, and found other three files include the path to D:/Git_New: Aircraft/Buccaneer/Models/buccaneer.ac Aircraft/Buccaneer/Models/flap.ac Aircraft/Hurricane/Models/hurricane-ver-26.ac Just for reference about how to test. Following advice in http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=284#c66 , I launched process monitor from Microsoft, watched file access of fgrun when dhc2 was selected, and then I got following results: C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\D:\Git_New\my_fgdata\Aircraft\dhc2\white.png NAME INVALID C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\D:\Git_New\my_fgdata\Aircraft\dhc2 NAME INVALID C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\D:\Git_New\my_fgdata\Aircraft\dhc2\white.png NAME INVALID C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\D:\Git_New\my_fgdata\Aircraft\dhc2\white.png NAME INVALID C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\D:\Git_New\my_fgdata\Aircraft\dhc2 NAME INVALID C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\D:\Git_New\my_fgdata\Aircraft\dhc2\white.png NAME INVALID C:\Program Files\FlightGear\white.png NAME NOT FOUND C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Aircraft\dhc2\Models\white.png Cheers, Toshi -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] 787 disappeared from download page
Hi all, I'm new to devel mailing list. After 1.9.0 released, some users in FlightGear forum reported that 787 aircraft disappeared from download page. For more detail, please refer to my post in the forum. http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2t=3242#p29432 I guess either of CVS files need to be modified to fix this problem: - admin/make-aircraft-pkgs.pl - admin/make-aircraft-html.pl - data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml But I don't know which file should be modified. I hope someone can correct this issue and comit to CVS. One more thing that I want to request is to include ATC aircraft, which is excluded to be packaged by make-aircraft-pkgs.pl. At the mean time, users who want to obtain ATC aircraft should use CVS client, or obtain CVS snapshot from git repository browser at http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl?p=fgdata;a=tree;f=Aircraft/ATC;hb=HEAD. You can see many users are in trouble to obtain ATC aircraft: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11t=3179. If we can obtain ATC aircraft from aircraft download page in next release, I'm happy. Cheers, Toshi -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft ratings on the download page
Hi All, The rating system (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status) has now been in place for some time, and a number of aircraft are rated. Additionally Fred B. has added rating information to FGRun, which is excellent. A question for Curt - would it be possible to include the aircraft ratings on the website download page for 2.6.0, and even better, to allow filtering based on rating? Presumably we're already parsing the -set.xml file to determine the aircraft author and status, so this would be straightforward? Doing so would provide additional impetus to get most of the aircraft in the hangar rated for the 2.6.0 release, as well as making it much easier for new users to differentiate between aircraft. -Stuart -- Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:31:17 -0700, Hal wrote in message
201105211431.19074.hven...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been
tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are
actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not
be truly production quality. In fact looking at the list of
production aircraft from my installation I would say that some of
these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT
install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
..browsing the list archive, I see mention of argument order
mattering, i.e. fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
being different to fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft,
has this changed?
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft
screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how
much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the
bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For
example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all
have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although
I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete
yet.Using --min- status=production should include the IAR80 in
it's list but not the p51d- jsbsim (which has a status of early
production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue
of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long
standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was
proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to
produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The
system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status
ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production,
production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.
Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an
idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get
a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears
that only a few of the models are actually using this system.
Hal
..it's also a matter of opinion, some developers are _very_
critical of and demanding on their own work, which is good
for FG release quality but bad for those lofty plans of
release schedules, is why I advocate having the release
dictator play with git until (s)he finds git commit
combinations (s)he likes, and release those on the spot.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Hi all! Calling something a major release is not just a matter of what's possible, but also what's done. There's a lot possible with Rembrandt, but 99% of our aircraft don't use it. And lots of aircraft look ugly with Rembrandt (non-translucent windows and fake shadows mostly). I just checked the few aircraft that I remember being included in the base package: only one has Rembrandt lights (c172p)! I'm afraid we will get a forum-tsunami when we promote this release with support for real time generated shadows and lights, if even the majority of the base package's aircraft aren't showing how nice it can look... On our IRC channel, someone brought up the idea of including Rembrandt in the release, but not mentioning it (explicitly) in the changelog/press-release; and thus versioning it 2.8.0. That'll keep the expectations low, and allow aircraft developers to spend some months (till the next release) on getting their aircraft Rembrandt-ready. As we don't update the aircraft downloads in-between releases, users need to wait till the next release anyway before they can download a fair number of Rembrandt-ready aircraft... The next release could then be called 3.0.0. This would be in line with the Plib-OSG switch. The OSG transition started with 1.9.0. That release was a step back, as we lost shadows, 3D clouds etc. The period thereafter was spent on bringing back some of the features (eg. 3D clouds) and allowed developers to get used to the new possibilities (shaders). FlightGear 2.0.0 was then released with the key-sentence: FlightGear 2.0.0 reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph. 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? Keep in mind that the 777 family got merged, so you'll end up with more aircraft than before, when keeping the same selection. But they share the same model mostly, so I won't consider it as a problem... Gijs -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:04:33 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message
379675.56250...@web29801.mail.ird.yahoo.com:
Hello,
...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o)
I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate
without Google translate.
But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really
meaning.
I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another
aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much
pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are
really all developed further and being usuable later?
In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as
discussed here, wanted by those 1-2 person aren't a pleasure.
Maybe a misunderstood.
..the whole conflict is a product of misunderstandings.
Best cure is write in your own language if you need
translation programs to read or write in the English
language more than once a week.
..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into
the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g.
git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0 for both SG
and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o)
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear
Thanks, I will take a look!
...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o)
Welcome aboard.
I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the
developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in
developement.
..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
So if there is a release they will be add to the
Download page, am I right?
..if somebody puts it there, yes. ;o)
I expected a far smaller number of
aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all
aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that
high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess,
which will hardly be usuable.
..define useable, newbie, then consider
the developer bait context. ;o)
As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity...
*blush*
How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which
aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more
realistic?
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been tagged as
production quality it may miss some aircraft that are actually of very high
quality and some of the listed aircraft may not be truly production quality.
In fact looking at the list of production aircraft from my installation I
would say that some of these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT install as
it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how much
space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the bigger the
aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all have
very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although I don't think
that any of the authors consider them to be complete yet.Using --min-
status=production should include the IAR80 in it's list but not the p51d-
jsbsim (which has a status of early production) or the MiG-15 (which has no
status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue of helping
users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long standing and
significant issue. There was a rating system that was proposed here that would
have made it simple for aircraft authors to produce a consistent and verifiable
status for their aircraft. The system set a very high bar for the higher
status ratings. Status ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early
production, production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.Taking the
p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an idea how well
developed a model under this system needs to be to get a production or
advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears that only a few of the
models are actually using this system.
Hal
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 04:24:38 PM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:31:17 -0700, Hal wrote in message
201105211431.19074.hven...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been
tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are
actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not
be truly production quality. In fact looking at the list of
production aircraft from my installation I would say that some of
these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT
install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
..browsing the list archive, I see mention of argument order
mattering, i.e. fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
being different to fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft,
has this changed?
I used
fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
which did not work. So as a test I tried
fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft
and that worked and it produced a list of 15 production aircraft. This did
not include the IAR80 perhaps because it sets statusproduction/status in
IAR80-base.xml rather than in IAR80-set.xml?
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft
screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how
much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the
bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For
example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all
have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although
I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete
yet.Using --min- status=production should include the IAR80 in
it's list but not the p51d- jsbsim (which has a status of early
production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue
of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long
standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was
proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to
produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The
system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status
ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production,
production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.
Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an
idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get
a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears
that only a few of the models are actually using this system.
Hal
..it's also a matter of opinion, some developers are _very_
critical of and demanding on their own work, which is good
for FG release quality but bad for those lofty plans of
release schedules, is why I advocate having the release
dictator play with git until (s)he finds git commit
combinations (s)he likes, and release those on the spot.
I think a better plan is to have a defined release schedule that includes
things like feature freeze dates and use of branches for the releases. Not
too hard to do once things are setup and it injects some disipline into the
process. But it does take some effort to get this type of thing going as well
as someone willing to be a strong release manager.
But the issue here is not really a release management issue but more of a
documentation issue. Besides those aircraft authors/developers who are very
critical of thier own work are not the ones who have held up the release
schedule nor are they the ones who are causing the issue with poor
quality/incomplete aircraft models.
Hal
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
DurkTalsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. I'm very, very, concerned with this approach, and see a number of significant issues: 1) We're effectively telling new users that they need to be able to install new packages and customize their FG installation to do any reasonable level of virtual flying. With 1.9.1 they could quite happily fly in MP around KSFO and have a pretty good user experience without installing anything else. Frankly, I doubt that our install tools and instructions are user-friendly enough to support this approach. We're requiring a much higher level of computer know-how from our user-base, so this will have significant implications for our documentation and the level of basic help that will be required on the Forums. 2) Only including a single aircraft implies that the simulator is only really designed for that aircraft, and any other aircraft may represent a compromise in quality or capabilities. This will be particular apparent when people do the inevitable comparison with MSFS and X-Plane, which include a wider selection of aircraft with the initial install. 3) New users often want to fly a military jet or commercial jet ASAP, despite this being an un-realistic goal. If we increase the barrier to entry for these people to even get into the cockpit of something that they want to fly, we'll see a lot more people giving up on FG before they get hooked. 4) Adequately documenting how to install the various ADDON packages in a way that can be understood by users, and getting them to RTFM. Martin and I have put quite a bit of effort into providing instructions for Aircraft and Scenery in The Manual, and yet people still have problems. Having to provide additional instructions for AI aircraft as well is going to be a pain. 5) Deciding which single aircraft to include, and ensuring that it is a shining example of what FG can do. Ideally, we should have decided on the aircraft months ago, and encouraged a concentrated effort to make it as complete as possible. If we are really concerned about the size of the base package, I suggest that rather than restrict it to a minimum, we offer two different but complete install images: 1) FG-Lite with a single aircraft, no AI aircraft and a big warning that they won't be able to see more than one or two aircraft in MP! 2) FG-Deluxe with a wider selection of aircraft and a full set of AI aircraft. Much closer to what we provided in 1.9.1 Of course, this requires a lot more effort from our packagers, and may also cause some confusion amongst new users, but if we want to grow the FG community making things more difficult for the user is not the way forward. -Stuart -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building FlightGear under Vista
When I built OSG (from the latest SVN ) using Cmake I did not include tiff libraries. The net result was a similar error message to yours when I tried to use a tiff texture file. Also all my panels were white. I replaced the tiff file with a png equivalent (as used by many FG aircraft models) and both the error message disappeared and my cockpit textures re-appeared. Hence my reply. It may be that an OSG plugin may be the solution under Linux/Cygwin, but with Windows the option was required at OSG�s Cmake/compilation time . Alan OK, I tried this again under a Windows command window. Even after copying all of the dlls, etc., into the FlightGear executable directory, I still get tons of errors, until finally getting a core dump (see below). I do have all of the OSG DLLs, OpenAL, etc., which were installed during the process. I have a sneaking suspicion that somehow I do not have my paths (PATH environment variable, or whatever) set up correctly. Is there an easy way to check that? I do see that there is an osgPlugin-2.9.7/ subdirectory under the OpenSceneGraph/bin/ directory. Is that supposed to be in the PATH, as well? I added it, but it seemed to have no effect. Jon C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgearFlightGear\projects\VC90\Win32\Release\fgfs --fg-root=c:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata Processing command line arguments using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/splash.png Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/splash.png. Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Fonts/Helvetica.txf. ... etc. ... using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/c172-sound.xml using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Models/c172p.xml Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Aircraft/c172p/Models/c172p.xml Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Sky\overcast.png. ... etc. ... Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Sky\outer_halo.png. using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/generic-systems.xml using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/generic-vfr-panel.xml using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/Textures/panel-bg.rgb Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/Textures/panel-bg.rgb. using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/Textures/generic-panel-01.rgb ... etc. ... Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Fonts/typewriter.txf. using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Instruments/Textures/od_wxradar.rgb ... etc. ... init contrail *** NEW LOCATION *** Loading local weather routines... using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/liveries.nas ... etc. ... using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/ki266.nas KI266 dme indicator #0 initialized using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/c172-electrical.nas using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/kap140.nas using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/kr87.nas loading scenario 'nimitz_demo' creating 3D noise texture... DONE failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Terrain\water.png ... etc. ... failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Terrain\water-lake.png Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Models/Maritime/Civilian/ContainerShip.xml Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Models/Maritime/Civilian/SailBoatUnderSail.xml failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Trees\coniferous-summer.png Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Models/Communications/radio-medium.xml failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures.high\Terrain\deciduous1.png ... etc. ... Failed to load object Models/Buildings/factory.ac *** segfault here *** -- This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Weekly CVS Changelog Summary: FlightGear data
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-26_12:49:50 (vmmeazza) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/droptank.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/exhaust.ac Update Seahawk with more accurate FGA6 details, add droptanks. TODO: 1. handle droptank contents properly 2 restore flap blow-in function =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-26_12:49:56 (vmmeazza) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/browncanvas.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/canvas.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/drab_cotton4.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/droptank.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/ejection-seat.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/leath05.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/leather.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/mesh5.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/tube.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/webbing3.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/yellow_black.rgb Update Seahawk with more accurate FGA6 details, add droptanks. TODO: 1. handle droptank contents properly 2 restore flap blow-in function =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-26_12:49:57 (vmmeazza) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/Models/seahawk-subsubmodels.xml Update Seahawk with more accurate FGA6 details, add droptanks. TODO: 1. handle droptank contents properly 2 restore flap blow-in function =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-27_12:34:54 (vmmeazza) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Input/Joysticks/Saitek/Aviator.xml Anders Gidenstam - Joystick configuration for the Saitek AV8R =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-28_10:31:54 (dfaber) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/README /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/jeep-set.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/jeep-yasim.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/jeep.jpg initial release =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-28_10:31:56 (dfaber) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/Jeep.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/current.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/current.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/current.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/fuel.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/fuel.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/fuelgauge.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/jeep.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/pilot-b.ac initial release =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-28_10:31:57 (dfaber) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/pilot.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/pilot1.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/roof.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/speedometer.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/speedometer.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/speedometer.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/transparent.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/jeep/Models/transparent.xml initial release =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-29_13:43:52 (curt) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/COPYING /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Malolo1-set.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Malolo1.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/thumbnail.jpg Josh Wilson: Initial version of the Malolo1 flying wing (R/C or small UAV scale). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-29_13:43:53 (curt) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Engines/18x8.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Engines/Zenoah_G-26A.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Models/DSC01758.rgb Josh Wilson: Initial version of the Malolo1 flying wing (R/C or small UAV scale). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-29_13:43:54 (curt) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Models/Malolo1.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Malolo1/Models/Malolo1.xml Josh Wilson: Initial version of the Malolo1 flying wing (R/C or small UAV scale). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2007-08-29_13:50:46 (curt) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/P-38-Lightning/F-5B-e_Splash.rgb Gerard Robin: I have made a P38L Lightning update which include the F-5B reconnaissance variant. So, we can have, in the same directory P-38-Lightning both version P-38L and F-5B. The full package is available here: http://perso.orange.fr/GRTux/P-38-Lightning.tar.gz
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Hi all! Calling something a major release is not just a matter of what's possible, but also what's done. There's a lot possible with Rembrandt, but 99% of our aircraft don't use it. And lots of aircraft look ugly with Rembrandt (non-translucent windows and fake shadows mostly). I just checked the few aircraft that I remember being included in the base package: only one has Rembrandt lights (c172p)! A very good point, and one I hadn't considered in depth. I'm afraid we will get a forum-tsunami when we promote this release with support for real time generated shadows and lights, if even the majority of the base package's aircraft aren't showing how nice it can look... Rembrandt has been around for quite a few months now, and the changes required to make an aircraft Rembrandt-compatible are pretty small, even if the changes to add proper lights are more involved. If I was being harsh I'd suggest that the aircraft maintainers should man up and do it. There's still plenty of time before the release... On our IRC channel, someone brought up the idea of including Rembrandt in the release, but not mentioning it (explicitly) in the changelog/press-release; and thus versioning it 2.8.0. That'll keep the expectations low, and allow aircraft developers to spend some months (till the next release) on getting their aircraft Rembrandt-ready. As we don't update the aircraft downloads in-between releases, users need to wait till the next release anyway before they can download a fair number of Rembrandt-ready aircraft... You make a very good argument for 2.8.0 rather than 3.0.0. I think we should still mention Rembrand in the release note. I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about it as a development feature that has still to be supported by all aircraft and shaders. I really don't like the idea of not including it in the changelog. After all, we want people to become excited by it and update aircraft/shaders etc. The next release could then be called 3.0.0. This would be in line with the Plib-OSG switch. The OSG transition started with 1.9.0. That release was a step back, as we lost shadows, 3D clouds etc. The period thereafter was spent on bringing back some of the features (eg. 3D clouds) and allowed developers to get used to the new possibilities (shaders). FlightGear 2.0.0 was then released with the key-sentence: FlightGear 2.0.0 reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph. I'm not sure that is correct, but my memory is dim. My recollection was that even after we converted the main cvs branch to OSG, we kept a plib branch that was used for a subsequent release. -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml
Hi Curt, I quickly saw forum posts about some new 787 aircrafts: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=5207. But I couldn't realize which files should be (or planed to be) committed to CVS. So, would you please simply delete the following line in data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml in cvs? aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version Otherwise, your admin/make-aircraft-html.pl will not include 787 in downloads/aircraft/index.shtml. Cheers, Toshi From: YOSHIMATSU Toshihide qzt04...@nifty.ne.jp Subject: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:18:03 +0900 (JST) Hi all, As you may know, 787 aircraft has been disappeared from official aircraft download page. cf. http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21552.html To include the 787 on download page at the next release timing, I'll send a simple patch for 787-set.xml. This patch will also have an effect to prevent to become the same file name of 787_02_2008.zip with different contents, which were committed to cvs after Dec. 2008. Cheers, Toshi Index: 787-set.xml === RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.9 787-set.xml --- 787-set.xml 19 Dec 2008 15:23:39 - 1.9 +++ 787-set.xml 5 Jan 2010 14:45:57 - @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ descriptionBoeing 787-8/description authorJoshua Wilson/author statusDevelopment/status -aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version flight-modelyasim/flight-model aero787/aero fuel-fraction0.10/fuel-fraction -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Le 07/06/2012 18:04, Gijs de Rooy a écrit : There's a lot possible with Rembrandt, but 99% of our aircraft don't use it. And lots of aircraft look ugly with Rembrandt (non-translucent windows and fake shadows mostly). I just checked the few aircraft that I remember being included in the base package: only one has Rembrandt lights (c172p)! Tsss, two now, counting the f-14b (though she lakes fancy afterburners flames and missiles launch nice illuminations). I'm afraid we will get a forum-tsunami when we promote this release with support for real time generated shadows and lights, if even the majority of the base package's aircraft aren't showing how nice it can look... That's why I would like to see it included as an experimental and optional feature, disabled by default, which is the case right now. On our IRC channel, someone brought up the idea of including Rembrandt in the release, but not mentioning it (explicitly) in the changelog/press-release; and thus versioning it 2.8.0. Anders presented that as an easter egg. Xiii likes easter eggs :-) That'll keep the expectations low, and allow aircraft developers to spend some months (till the next release) on getting their aircraft Rembrandt-ready. As we don't update the aircraft downloads in-between releases, users need to wait till the next release anyway before they can download a fair number of Rembrandt-ready aircraft... I must admit that this is a good argument for keeping Rembrandt out of the next release. In this case keeping 3.0 for a later release with ready aircrafts is consistent. Anyway an experimental/optional feature shouldn't trigger a major number. In any case, having a well known roadmap (and a communication policy ?) for 3.0 would be a good thing. Alexis -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Rembrandt has been around for quite a few months now, and the changes required to make an aircraft Rembrandt-compatible are pretty small, even if the changes to add proper lights are more involved. If I was being harsh I'd suggest that the aircraft maintainers should man up and do it. There's still plenty of time before the release... I didn't think it harsh myself , but from my point of view , I'd rather not waste time on something I can't see or use... I get about 5 fps and a brilliant green terrain , with a duplicate black aircraft , not shadow , right beside the main aircraft. I think this is an ATI driver problem here since the view resizes every time a dialog or text pops up on the screen. Syd -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310 - SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). p51d - () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161 - pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should *not* be considered a negative quality judgment. There are many additional
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 Given the introduction of Rembrandt, I'd suggest 3.0.0. It's a major new feature, and is appropriate to bump the major version number up for. it also allows us to side-step the issue of the a future 2.10.0 release. :) Also, release numbers are cheap, and X-Plane, MSFS are already on version 10, so we've got some space to catch up :) 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] I don't see any reason to restrict the distribution to just the c172p, unless the base package has increased in size significantly. I've no opinion on changing the set of aircraft. 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Assuming you mean the version currently defined under the release plan in the wiki, then Yes. I think it strikes the right balance to allow aircraft developers some time to work with the stable binaries. -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml
Hi Curt, Thanks for your reply. Certainly, at the release timing of v1.9.0, 787_02_2008.zip was built and have been distributed via ftp. But it was not included to the aircraft download page, because your make-aircraft-html.pl can't handle aircraft version which includes _ (underbar). Log of make-aircraft-html.pl (generated in Mar. 2009): Extracting info from 787_02_2008.zip dir = 787_02 version = 2008 unzip /home/toshi/fg-cvs/install/fgfs/ftp/Aircraft/787_02_2008.zip '787_02/*-set.xml' '787_02/thumbnail.jpg' Archive: /home/toshi/fg-cvs/install/fgfs/ftp/Aircraft/787_02_2008.zip caution: filename not matched: 787_02/*-set.xml caution: filename not matched: 787_02/thumbnail.jpg dir = 787_02 version = 2008 ls: cannot access /tmp/787_02/*-set.xml: No such file or directory dir = 787_02 version = 2008 And because 787 files in current CVS have been changed since v1.9.0, I think file name of 787_02_2008.zip also should become different name for next v2.0.0 release. c.f. Re: 787 disapeared http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2t=3242#p29432 Cheers, Toshi From: Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:49:06 -0600 Hi Toshi, I think my script will build the 787 just fine (or am I missing something?) I believe the reason it wasn't included automatically in the past was because it didn't exist is CVS. Best regards, Curt. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:49 AM, YOSHIMATSU Toshihide wrote: Hi Curt, I quickly saw forum posts about some new 787 aircrafts: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=5207. But I couldn't realize which files should be (or planed to be) committed to CVS. So, would you please simply delete the following line in data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml in cvs? aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version Otherwise, your admin/make-aircraft-html.pl will not include 787 in downloads/aircraft/index.shtml. Cheers, Toshi From: YOSHIMATSU Toshihide qzt04...@nifty.ne.jp Subject: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:18:03 +0900 (JST) Hi all, As you may know, 787 aircraft has been disappeared from official aircraft download page. cf. http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21552.html To include the 787 on download page at the next release timing, I'll send a simple patch for 787-set.xml. This patch will also have an effect to prevent to become the same file name of 787_02_2008.zip with different contents, which were committed to cvs after Dec. 2008. Cheers, Toshi Index: 787-set.xml === RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.9 787-set.xml --- 787-set.xml 19 Dec 2008 15:23:39 - 1.9 +++ 787-set.xml 5 Jan 2010 14:45:57 - @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ descriptionBoeing 787-8/description authorJoshua Wilson/author statusDevelopment/status -aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version flight-modelyasim/flight-model aero787/aero fuel-fraction0.10/fuel-fraction -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https
[Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Hi, in just a bit more than two weeks from now we reach June, 17th, marking the first milestone for the release of next FlightGear version: the feature freeze period. If you have some great and exciting new features for FlightGear on your local disc but not yet pushed the gitorious repository - now is the time! Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Regards, Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Le 08/06/2012 20:39, Torsten Dreyer a écrit : Thanks for all the replies, summing all up, I end up with the following: The summer release will become v2.8.0. Rembrandt is included but disabled by default and announced as an experimental but cool new feature. We keep the current selection of base package aircraft for 2.8.0. We keep last winter's aircraft commit policy (no feature freeze) for all aircraft but the base package's A/C selection. Is that consensus? Agreed on all 3 points. Alexis Greetings, Torsten Am 02.06.2012 21:36, schrieb Torsten Dreyer: Hi, in just a bit more than two weeks from now we reach June, 17th, marking the first milestone for the release of next FlightGear version: the feature freeze period. If you have some great and exciting new features for FlightGear on your local disc but not yet pushed the gitorious repository - now is the time! Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Regards, Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candidates
Hi Jack, I think the BO-105 could be replaced with either the EC-135 or AH-1. The state of the BO-105 cockpit is not very good at the moment, and a great visual model along with a good FDM is what we want. Interesting. You want to see another aircraft than the 777 because the fdm is not realistic, but you don't want to see a chopper where the fdm is highly realistic and already prooved by a real pilot. As beeing the main author of the Ec-135 and Ec-130 I vote against including of my models due to said reasons. I think I may set up a poll for informational proposes to help see what the majority really wants, as with some of the replies in this thread I cannot tell what some people believe should be done about these aircraft. First this is not what the majority of USERS wants- that's what the majority of DEVELOPER's and release managers wants. Then the base package should show what FGFS is capable of and what's special about. Our realistic helicopter-fdm is special so we include a helicopter model which has a very realistic fdm: currently it is the bo105 and the UH-1. The UH-1 has some issues, so it will be quite sure that it will be the Bo-105! Another developer did a lot of work on the BO-105 cockpit semi- recently, but his work was prevented from being committed to GIT by the BO-105's original author. (His motives for denying the work from GIT were a load of horse manure if you ask me.) We had this dicussion already. Every developer has the right to refuse any contribution. You have the right on your AH-1 as well. And though it is a pity that Horacio's work hasn't been included, the right of the main developer to decide what contribution he will accept is above all. As for the Dragonfly, the performance just seems unreal, thought I've never flown on myself. I think we could replace it with the Dromader, a much higher detail aircraft with a pretty extensively detailed FDM. The Dragonfly seems not unrealistic to me. But yes, adding the Dromader would be good idea though. I would also like to suggest that the MiG-15 be added as a default aircraft, since it's extreme detail and realism is far beyond that of any other aircraft we have. Literally every switch, knob and button works and has an effect, and every airframe limit is in the FDM. Would be also not that bad. I do have one question, though. Every flightgear installation includes an aircraft called FG Video Assistant. It wont even start up. If I select and launch it, flightgear simply crashes at loading aircraft. What is the (intended) purpose of this aircraft? I think it should either be removed or repaired, as any aircraft that causes flightgear to crash may decrease a users opinion of the simulator. -- Bug tracker. The purpose was to have a camera assistent, and it worked quite good in the past. I'll see if I can think of any more aircraft we can replace/add. Proposals are welcome, but it will be decided later with counting all votes given here on the list. At least that way it worked the last years. Heiko -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Thanks for all the replies, summing all up, I end up with the following: The summer release will become v2.8.0. Rembrandt is included but disabled by default and announced as an experimental but cool new feature. We keep the current selection of base package aircraft for 2.8.0. We keep last winter's aircraft commit policy (no feature freeze) for all aircraft but the base package's A/C selection. Is that consensus? Greetings, Torsten Am 02.06.2012 21:36, schrieb Torsten Dreyer: Hi, in just a bit more than two weeks from now we reach June, 17th, marking the first milestone for the release of next FlightGear version: the feature freeze period. If you have some great and exciting new features for FlightGear on your local disc but not yet pushed the gitorious repository - now is the time! Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Regards, Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Cheers, Durk - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Torsten Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in the base package of the next release (2.4.0). We currently have - 777-200 - A6M2 - b1900d - bo105 - c172p - CitationX - Dragonfly - dhc2 - f-14b - Cub - SenecaII - sopwithCamel - ufo - ZLT-NT It's as good a selection as any and I would go with this, but ISTR a decision in the context of the last, abortive, release to include only the default aircraft. If this is the case, I would be more than happy to go back to the principle of a small selection that shows off FG's capabilities. Perhaps we should add a glider? That seems an obvious omission. Vivian -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release 2.8.0: feature freeze starts now
On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:14, Torsten Dreyer wrote: today is June, 17th and this marks our feature freeze for the sources of SimGear, FlightGear and FGDATA. Within FGDATA, only aircraft not being part of the base package are not part of the feature freeze. Maintainers for those aircraft are kindly requested to carefully check not to update _any_ file outside their individual aircraft's root directory. Just to make people aware, I agreed to merge some enhancements to the canvas code during the week, but have been busy with with work / travel until just now. I'm going to merge them /now/ (actually, already merged locally, just testing before I push) since getting the API into this release is useful, and the changes are strictly opt-in - no chance of breakage for aircraft that don't use the canvas. James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml
Hi Toshi, I think my script will build the 787 just fine (or am I missing something?) I believe the reason it wasn't included automatically in the past was because it didn't exist is CVS. Best regards, Curt. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:49 AM, YOSHIMATSU Toshihide wrote: Hi Curt, I quickly saw forum posts about some new 787 aircrafts: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=5207. But I couldn't realize which files should be (or planed to be) committed to CVS. So, would you please simply delete the following line in data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml in cvs? aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version Otherwise, your admin/make-aircraft-html.pl will not include 787 in downloads/aircraft/index.shtml. Cheers, Toshi From: YOSHIMATSU Toshihide qzt04...@nifty.ne.jp Subject: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:18:03 +0900 (JST) Hi all, As you may know, 787 aircraft has been disappeared from official aircraft download page. cf. http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21552.html To include the 787 on download page at the next release timing, I'll send a simple patch for 787-set.xml. This patch will also have an effect to prevent to become the same file name of 787_02_2008.zip with different contents, which were committed to cvs after Dec. 2008. Cheers, Toshi Index: 787-set.xml === RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.9 787-set.xml --- 787-set.xml 19 Dec 2008 15:23:39 - 1.9 +++ 787-set.xml 5 Jan 2010 14:45:57 - @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ descriptionBoeing 787-8/description authorJoshua Wilson/author statusDevelopment/status -aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version flight-modelyasim/flight-model aero787/aero fuel-fraction0.10/fuel-fraction -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:13:51 + (GMT), Stuart wrote in message 305052.62106...@web26005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com: DurkTalsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. I'm very, very, concerned with this approach, and see a number of significant issues: 1) We're effectively telling new users that they need to be able to install new packages and customize their FG installation to do any reasonable level of virtual flying. With 1.9.1 they could quite happily fly in MP around KSFO and have a pretty good user experience without installing anything else. Frankly, I doubt that our install tools and instructions are user-friendly enough to support this approach. We're requiring a much higher level of computer know-how from our user-base, so this will have significant implications for our documentation and the level of basic help that will be required on the Forums. 2) Only including a single aircraft implies that the simulator is only really designed for that aircraft, and any other aircraft may represent a compromise in quality or capabilities. This will be particular apparent when people do the inevitable comparison with MSFS and X-Plane, which include a wider selection of aircraft with the initial install. 3) New users often want to fly a military jet or commercial jet ASAP, despite this being an un-realistic goal. If we increase the barrier to entry for these people to even get into the cockpit of something that they want to fly, we'll see a lot more people giving up on FG before they get hooked. 4) Adequately documenting how to install the various ADDON packages in a way that can be understood by users, and getting them to RTFM. Martin and I have put quite a bit of effort into providing instructions for Aircraft and Scenery in The Manual, and yet people still have problems. Having to provide additional instructions for AI aircraft as well is going to be a pain. 5) Deciding which single aircraft to include, and ensuring that it is a shining example of what FG can do. Ideally, we should have decided on the aircraft months ago, and encouraged a concentrated effort to make it as complete as possible. If we are really concerned about the size of the base package, I suggest that rather than restrict it to a minimum, we offer two different but complete install images: 1) FG-Lite with a single aircraft, no AI aircraft and a big warning that they won't be able to see more than one or two aircraft in MP! 2) FG-Deluxe ...I'd call that FG-Standard... with a wider selection of aircraft and a full set of AI aircraft. Much closer to what we provided in 1.9.1 ...and reserve FG-Deluxe for all the bells 'n whistles etc... Of course, this requires a lot more effort from our packagers, and may also cause some confusion amongst new users, but if we want to grow the FG community making things more difficult for the user is not the way forward. -Stuart -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Release 2.8.0: feature freeze starts now
Hi everybody, today is June, 17th and this marks our feature freeze for the sources of SimGear, FlightGear and FGDATA. Within FGDATA, only aircraft not being part of the base package are not part of the feature freeze. Maintainers for those aircraft are kindly requested to carefully check not to update _any_ file outside their individual aircraft's root directory. Thanks Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
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 first to admit that it works better than my scheme because it contains more information on other aspects. The main problems I see is: * it relies on a large number of people (= almost every developer should do it), otherwise if you create a list and people use it to pick aircraft, they will pick based on who bothered to self-rate, not based on what is good I think if we intended to include these ratings on the download page, developers would be very keen on rating their aircraft. After all, we create them to share with the community, and this will help encourage people to try different aircraft. * different people may have different ideas what for example an 'accurately modelled cockpit' is - the same way as right now 'alpha' and 'beta' ratings on the download page mean very different things dependent on developer So - let's simply see what happens! For comparison, here is a draft for how I would rate systems. I think an important idea is that a model should get full points whenever it is complete, i.e. implements all there is - so gliders are not punished for the lack of an engine startup procedure. In retrospect, I think my points system for systems isn't very well thought out so should be replaced with a sensible object ranking that doesn't discriminate against simpler aircraft. However, I'd like to differentiate between the straight instrumentation, which I think should be included in the cockpit rating, and the systems themselves. So, taking the ranking you proposed and modifying them slightly: 0 - No controllable systems: engine is always on, generic radio, 1 - Generic engine start/stop (}}s), correct size/number of fuel tanks, generic (untuned) autopilot, working flaps/gear 2 - Working electrical system, fuel feed cockpit controls, stable autopilot 3 - Accurate startup procedure, tuned autopilot with cockpit controls matching real aircraft systems, generic failure modelling (Vne, +ve/-ve G, gear limits) 4 - Primary aircraft-specific systems modelled (aero-tow, radar, GPWS). User able to follow normal PoH checklists (e.g. startup, shutdown) in entirety 5 - Some aircraft-specific failure modes implemented (e.g. flame-out, inverted engine limitations). Some emergency procedures implemented (RAT, emergency gear release), able to follow some emergency PoH checklists in entirety. I think this gives a fairly obvious progression in quality that would match how aircraft developers are likely to develop, and allows a glider to be rated accurately. -Stuart -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
On Sunday 05 October 2008 10:13:54 Durk Talsma wrote: While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? I hope to make some serious progress in pushing out a release candidate this weekend. So far I've been given valuable suggestions for potential aircraft to include in the release. I still have a gut feeling that there might be hidden little gems in our CVS repository that haven't received much attention yet. So, if you have your top ten ready, please let me know... Cheers, Durk - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear Base Package branch, master, updated. f81456998442b1f30d86c4925a7d000d46ea4f1f
On Monday 30 July 2012 16:29:28 Curtis Olson wrote: I am in no way picking on any single committer here. This just happens to be the most recent commit message that came through while I was thinking about this (sorry Gijs, we do really love you. I'm mean, not really really really love, but well you know how I always say one sentence too many and paint myself into a corner I can't get out of.) :-) I sense that there have been a substantial number of updates to individual aircraft that are only going into the master branch and aren't getting cherry picked into the 2.8.0 release branch. Perhaps this is intentional or I'm misunderstanding something, but I wanted to at least ask. When I create the downloadable aircraft .zip files for the 2.8.0 release, it will be from the release/2.8.0 branch, but most of the aircraft changes that have been made since the 2.8.0 branch was created are not going in there, and are only going into master. Thanks, Curt. Hi Curt, I've already cherry-picked that commit to release/2.8.0. My impression is some of the contributors have some dificulties/issues with this part of the git workflow and they'd rather not risk messing up the release branch. Maybe we should setup some sort of system (bug category?) for this, so that we're made aware of fixes to aircraft already present in the release branch that should be cherry-picked there. Regards, Emilian -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
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 inners still need a little bit more touch, Martin. Very thanks for that. Not today, but till middle of this week, I should be ready with the interior and the new, really 3d-panel. That is great news. I look forward to trying it out! If you are doing all that work, it might be worth de-coupling the c172p from all the other c172 Aircraft in CVS (c172, c172r), so it is self-contained and we only have to include a single directory. -Stuart - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New release
Seconly, do we want to maintain our current aircraft selection, or do we want to include a (partially) updated selection from our git repository, or -alternatively- do we want to strip the entire selection down to just single aircraft, and make the others downloadable from our main website. Hi Durk, I think the current system of a selection of the best of category is much better than stripping down to one aircraft. Cheers - Dave -- Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New release
Seconly, do we want to maintain our current aircraft selection, or do we want to include a (partially) updated selection from our git repository, or -alternatively- do we want to strip the entire selection down to just single aircraft, and make the others downloadable from our main website. Hi Durk, I think the current system of a selection of the best of category is much better than stripping down to one aircraft. Cheers - Dave Agreed. FG needs to make a presentation to the new user upon first visit, and the 10 included should wet their appetite for more. Having only 1 may turn them away. Peter-- Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Personally I'd leave 3.0 for the new apt 850 support. If that's not in for summer leave it at 2.8. --- On Thu, 6/7/12, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: From: Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012) To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 2:39 PM On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 Given the introduction of Rembrandt, I'd suggest 3.0.0. It's a major new feature, and is appropriate to bump the major version number up for. it also allows us to side-step the issue of the a future 2.10.0 release. :) Also, release numbers are cheap, and X-Plane, MSFS are already on version 10, so we've got some space to catch up :) 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] I don't see any reason to restrict the distribution to just the c172p, unless the base package has increased in size significantly. I've no opinion on changing the set of aircraft. 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Assuming you mean the version currently defined under the release plan in the wiki, then Yes. I think it strikes the right balance to allow aircraft developers some time to work with the stable binaries. -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [patch] 787-set.xml
Hi all, As you may know, 787 aircraft has been disappeared from official aircraft download page. cf. http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21552.html To include the 787 on download page at the next release timing, I'll send a simple patch for 787-set.xml. This patch will also have an effect to prevent to become the same file name of 787_02_2008.zip with different contents, which were committed to cvs after Dec. 2008. Cheers, Toshi Index: 787-set.xml === RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/787/787-set.xml,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.9 787-set.xml --- 787-set.xml 19 Dec 2008 15:23:39 - 1.9 +++ 787-set.xml 5 Jan 2010 14:45:57 - @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ descriptionBoeing 787-8/description authorJoshua Wilson/author statusDevelopment/status -aircraft-version02_2008/aircraft-version flight-modelyasim/flight-model aero787/aero fuel-fraction0.10/fuel-fraction -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building FlightGear under Vista
Please post the result of the set PATH command (under Windows prompt, not cygwin) As said in the updated instructions, you must also have the 3rdParty/bin directory in your path as well To diagnose DLL loading problems, Dependency Walker is your friend. -Fred Le 05/09/2010 18:04, Jon S. Berndt a écrit : When I built OSG (from the latest SVN ) using Cmake I did not include tiff libraries. The net result was a similar error message to yours when I tried to use a tiff texture file. Also all my panels were white. I replaced the tiff file with a png equivalent (as used by many FG aircraft models) and both the error message disappeared and my cockpit textures re-appeared. Hence my reply. It may be that an OSG plugin may be the solution under Linux/Cygwin, but with Windows the option was required at OSG�s Cmake/compilation time . Alan OK, I tried this again under a Windows command window. Even after copying all of the dlls, etc., into the FlightGear executable directory, I still get tons of errors, until finally getting a core dump (see below). I do have all of the OSG DLLs, OpenAL, etc., which were installed during the process. I have a sneaking suspicion that somehow I do not have my paths (PATH environment variable, or whatever) set up correctly. Is there an easy way to check that? I do see that there is an osgPlugin-2.9.7/ subdirectory under the OpenSceneGraph/bin/ directory. Is that supposed to be in the PATH, as well? I added it, but it seemed to have no effect. Jon C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgearFlightGear\projects\VC90\Win32\Release\fgfs --fg-root=c:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata Processing command line arguments using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/splash.png Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/splash.png. Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Fonts/Helvetica.txf. ... etc. ... using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/c172-sound.xml using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Models/c172p.xml Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Aircraft/c172p/Models/c172p.xml Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Sky\overcast.png. ... etc. ... Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Sky\outer_halo.png. using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/generic-systems.xml using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/generic-vfr-panel.xml using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/Textures/panel-bg.rgb Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/Textures/panel-bg.rgb. using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/Panels/Textures/generic-panel-01.rgb ... etc. ... Warning: Could not find plugin to read objects from file c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Fonts/typewriter.txf. using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Instruments/Textures/od_wxradar.rgb ... etc. ... init contrail *** NEW LOCATION *** Loading local weather routines... using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/liveries.nas ... etc. ... using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/ki266.nas KI266 dme indicator #0 initialized using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/c172-electrical.nas using FG_ROOT for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/Generic/kap140.nas using aircraft-dir for:c:/cygwin/home/jon/flightgear/fgdata/Aircraft/c172p/Nasal/kr87.nas loading scenario 'nimitz_demo' creating 3D noise texture... DONE failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Terrain\water.png ... etc. ... failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Terrain\water-lake.png Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Models/Maritime/Civilian/ContainerShip.xml Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Models/Maritime/Civilian/SailBoatUnderSail.xml failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures\Trees\coniferous-summer.png Failed to load model: Failed to load 3D model: from:Models/Communications/radio-medium.xml failed to load effect texture file C:\cygwin\home\jon\flightgear\fgdata\Textures.high\Terrain\deciduous1.png ... etc. ... Failed to load object Models/Buildings/factory.ac *** segfault here
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux (was Re: Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12)
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 on the original. There's not an explicit penalty. but I think Hal has addressed this in the notes for the System criteria: Ignore systems not present on the aircraft IRL. If the real aircraft doesn't have a system (e.g. autopilot), the FG model shouldn't have either and if all systems in the real aircraft are modeled then it scores a 5 even if it is a very simple aircraft. I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. If someone chooses not to disable the generic autopilot for a vintage aircraft, it will have no effect on pilots who choose to fly realistically (they simply won't use it). If the system is exposed in the cockpit, then it is covered by the rating for accuracy of cockpit - a KAP140 in the Sopwith Camel would obviously not be worth a 4 or 5 cockpit rating. That is correct - but it doesn't follow from the criteria quoted above. I don't think it's unreasonable for vintage aircraft to have access to a radio, for example. A modern pilot flying a vintage aircraft would carry a hand-held. Yes - it depends on whether we are modeling the original, or a currently flying example. I've never quite made up my mind on that one. The use of shaders etc. may or may not enhance the realism of the model and in some cases could be used inappropriately. This is a subjective assessment, and perhaps could be removed from the points system. Livery support is not necessarily an enhancement - it is not appropriate for all models. We're talking here about the difference between a 4 or 5 External Model rating, where we're trying to differentiate between a good external model and one that is as realistic as possible. I think we should differentiate between them if possible, but I'm struggling to think up some objective criteria. Photo-realistic? model resolution of 5cm? Perhaps we end up providing subjective criteria, or some additional guidance in this case? I think guidance - livery shouldn't be a criterion for realism, but it might form part of it. Realism is the goal. I'm not clear if you are awarding points for underwing stores and the like. Hadn't thought about that at all. I've added it to the criteria for a 4 rating. We have additional features such as co-pilot/RIO over MP, Wingmen, Formation Control, Tutorials, Aircraft Specific Help, Contrails, Vapour Trails, and there are probably some I missed. Contrails Vapour trails should probably be covered by the external model, I think. I could add them (along with tyre smoke) as criteria for a Model 5 rating? Yes - tyre smoke is a generic facility - there is no reason for it not being added to a model. I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves that enrich the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight itself, but others (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi-crew aircraft. Call them all advanced features. That could be a/the criterion for advanced production And finally - the points system could award a high status to a poor model - there are no points awarded for the accuracy or the fidelity of the 3d model. E.G there is at least one model with afterburners modelled where none existed. I've updated the external model to include the world Accurate for ratings 3-5. Good Of course, we're trusting that aircraft developers are going to apply the rating criteria accurately to the best of their ability. Yes - I think perhaps a bit of spot-checking to keep us all honest? Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so good that the framerate means that it can only be used on high-end systems or away from detailed airports. This limitation should be noted somewhere. I don't have a good answer to that. Does that become criteria for a 5 in External Model? I think this ends up back as something subjective. I think we need some form of bench-mark - perhaps the default model at KSFO with certain (all?) features enabled. The aircraft to be rated scores a % framerate above or below this norm? Thinking aloud here a bit. Perhaps that's a bit too fancy. Let's hope that this tool can help to bring some order out of the current chaos. We can but try. Certainly this seems to have a bit more momentum behind it than previous attempts, based on the feedback here and on IRC. If enough people rate their aircraft and we can use it to provide a better download page for the upcoming release, it will succeed. Let's hope - some aircraft developers have an awful lot of aircraft to rate. Vivian -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Sounds good , I hope someday to be able to see the results . My list of aircraft is: dhc2 dhc6 777 , though there are a number of other commiters now , but dont think this will affect anything a6m2 dc6-b Sikorsky-76C R22 b1900d Citation-Bravo Citation-II Citation-X Aerostar-700 P47 I should be able to figure out your fixes to apply to the as yet uncommited ones. Thanks for the help. Syd On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:59 AM, syd adams wrote: I didn't think it harsh myself , but from my point of view , I'd rather not waste time on something I can't see or use... I get about 5 fps and a brilliant green terrain , with a duplicate black aircraft , not shadow , right beside the main aircraft. I think this is an ATI driver problem here since the view resizes every time a dialog or text pops up on the screen. I'm happy to mark the appropriate objects transparent to make your aircraft Rembrandt-compatible, if you'd like me to. If you could give me a list of the aircraft you maintain I'll work my way through them. It's a 15 minute job per aircraft for me. -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgdata Commitc8a69dffd49a298e01c0e0e1320f4a1d49a0bca4
-Original Message- From: HB-GRAL Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:31 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgdata Commitc8a69dffd49a298e01c0e0e1320f4a1d49a0bca4 Am 21.12.12 11:49, schrieb Gijs de Rooy: Please see http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Git:_splitting_fgdata and feel free to add thoughts/ideas there. A mailing list is not a good place for documenting things. Cheers, Gijs Hi Gijs The problem is that a wiki is not a good place to discuss such things because some people consult this list more frequently than a wiki page. Anyway, when I read this wiki I fear such pages ends up sometimes as cemetery of good ideas which started here and moved over to nowhere ... I´m with Yves on that. The wiki is pretty much stagnant, and seems, to me, to be mainly the ideas of one person. It does not seem like a discussion. There have been several threads on the forum from would be users who are unable to get a working copy of fgdata, which must mean that many mire have just given and gone away. Anyway, here is my suggestion. Firstly populate fgdata with a bare minimum of aircraft . A starting point is those packed in the regular release. Secondly include within flightgear/fgdata a database of other aircraft. This database should be searchable by keyword(s). Fgrun and similar programs will also need access to this database. Maintain the various aircraft in smaller repositories, no more than (say) 50 in each. The allocation to each repo is unimportant as selection is done by the keywords. It may be more convenient to have one aircraft per repo, to avoid difficulties in extracting just one - this depends if SVN, CVS , GIT, HTML, or some combination is used. Add new aircraft repos as the number of aircraft increases. Keywords could be the obvious (military, civil, helicopter, training, transport, vintage, spaceship etc) but could also include fdm, status, author and rating. This system is also adaptable to referring to non GPL private hangars. Alan -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
Durk Talsma wrote: While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Cheers, Durk - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel I don't have a full top ten, but I have these I would like to see with a release: * 777-200ER * Concorde the Concorde is a very detailed aircraft and flyss great, the 777-200ER has a very nice range and is quite realistic. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
On dimanche 05 octobre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote: While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Cheers, Durk could you include the Caudron C684 http://wiki.flightgear.org/images/f/fa/C684-1.png Great Aircraft, Model, FDM, Cockpit ... It should be able to pretend. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear development entered state
Stuart Buchanan wrote: I don't think there's a convincing reason why it can't wait until the next development cycle, but I was unclear as to whether aircraft were considered major features. Ah, well, aircraft are a pretty prominent feature in flight simulation, don't they ;-) While we're at it, two ideas spring to my mind - feel free to discuss, if you see fit: a) With a bit of luck, a shorter development cycle will probably teach every of us to do things more incrementally, where possible. To pick an obvious and very simple example: There's no need to wait four months (!!) for an arcraft panel overhaul to occur just to revert one or two textures to their previous state. As a neat side effect, doing things more incrementally also facilitates debugging, where required - generally speaking :-) b) I'd say we may silently take for granted that those contributors who are committing major aircraft changes _after_ the freeze do expect the respective aircraft not to apply for getting included in the release package. Given that they should be self contained and shouldn't affect any other part of the sim, [...] Quite often aircraft changes _do_ affect other parts - at least in several cases they do affect the frame rate/latency because many 'improvements' also include cool automization features you don't want to miss or the like :-) This is probably not the case for Gijs' proposed panel update of the c172, therefore I'd like to emphasize that decisions about what to include after the freeze should be made on a case-by-case basis. There's always going to be another release, and with the current plan it'll be sooner rather than later! Exactly and since adding major features _now_ also carries the risk of delaying the current _plus_ the next release as well, I'm in favour of taking the release plan seriously. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- 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 Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Hello, Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 Keep it consistent: 2.8.0 My reasons: -Rembrandt is still experimental and Fred's To-Do-list is still big. I would like to see it included, like now we have in 2.7.0. But as it is experimental, it doesn't work on all systems (and it won't as it is deferred shading and so will naturally need some power) and a lot of things missing it isn't a reason to break our version number system. With that I can still see that some shaders doesn't work yet with and without rembrandt and together with the updated other shaders (skydome/ lightfield as an example)- I'm sure there are people who will complain about. -the random buildings are great, but can't remember that we increased version number with the 3d clouds or the trees. 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] b) 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Does not make sense to me to stop commit to aircraft during feature freeze, as long they won't break other important things. Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Durk Talsma wrote: I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310 - SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). p51d - () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161 - pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:09:53PM +, Stuart Buchanan wrote: I've added the following as the synopsis for the changelog, which should be suitable: The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the v2.6.0 release of FlightGear, the free, open-source flight simulator. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements and bugfixes. Major improvements from v2.4.0 include reduced AI aircraft load times, easier graphics tuning, more sophisticated AI aircraft and improved usability. Founded in 1997, FlightGear is developed by a worldwide group of volunteers, brought together by a shared ambition to create the most realistic flight simulator possible that is free to use, modify and distribute. FlightGear is used all over the world by desktop flight simulator enthusiasts, for research in Universities and for interactive exhibits in museums. FlightGear features more than 400 aircraft, a worldwide scenery database, detailed sky modelling, a flexible and open aircraft modelling system, varied networking options, multiple display support, and an open architecture. Best of all, it is open-source so no company controls development. A more positive angle for the last sentence would sound better. Something like 'Best of all, it is open-source so the developers control the direction of the project'. -- James (Jay) Treacy tre...@debian.org -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the v2.6.0 release of FlightGear, the free, open-source flight simulator. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements and bugfixes. Major improvements from v2.4.0 include reduced AI aircraft load times, easier graphics tuning, more sophisticated AI aircraft and improved usability. Founded in 1997, FlightGear is developed by a worldwide group of volunteers, brought together by a shared ambition to create the most realistic flight simulator possible that is free to use, modify and distribute. FlightGear is used all over the world by desktop flight simulator enthusiasts, for research in Universities and for interactive exhibits in museums. FlightGear features more than 400 aircraft, a worldwide scenery database, detailed sky modelling, a flexible and open aircraft modelling system, varied networking options, multiple display support, a powerful scripting language and an open architecture. Best of all, being open-source, the simulator is owned by the community and everyone is encouraged to contribute. Download FlightGear V2.6.0 for free from http://www.flightgear.org. FlightGear - Fly Free! Thank you, Stuart! I just walked through the commit log since 2.4.0 and added some new lines to http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_2.6.0 We will close the collection of changes in that document tomorrow (Thursday) evening (UTC). If anything is missing, please add the relevant changes in time. Those who offered a translation into their language are kindly requested to start. The official announcement of the new version should start this weekend if everything works as expected - keep your fingers crossed: there is still a good bunch of manual work involved in the process... Torsten -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:59:02 -0600, syd wrote in message cabs5ffn+fn_tt2rbcwxp-pcu5ucd-7fmkavdqpgadbmporb...@mail.gmail.com: Rembrandt has been around for quite a few months now, and the changes required to make an aircraft Rembrandt-compatible are pretty small, even if the changes to add proper lights are more involved. If I was being harsh I'd suggest that the aircraft maintainers should man up and do it. There's still plenty of time before the release... I didn't think it harsh myself , but from my point of view , I'd rather not waste time on something I can't see or use... I get about 5 fps and a brilliant green terrain , with a duplicate black aircraft , not shadow , right beside the main aircraft. I think this is an ATI driver problem here since the view resizes every time a dialog or text pops up on the screen. Syd ..maybe. Screenshot url so we can see, and, command line to hang us up there in the same spot so we can post screen shot urls and can compare what we see? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] upcoming release suggestion
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 14:20 +0200, ThorstenB wrote: Am 01.07.2012 14:04, schrieb Gijs de Rooy: Before the next release , maybe it would be a good idea to disable those 'panel' outlines , which show up when you press 'C' to view hotspots. IIRC the bug is not in the displaying of the edges, but in the respective panel configs. The edges were introduced so developers can fix their aircraft. See http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg36695.html Good at least one of us reads/remembers devel posts ;-). But are we sure the panel outlines are accurate? They seem misplaced in every aircraft where they are visible (e.g. check 747 or 777). Possible that all aircraft are using incorrect panel coordinates. But it could also mean the panel outline isn't properly drawn - I see it's bottom left edge always aligned to the 2.5Ds panel's center. Is this working with any aircraft? And it's indeed a bit confusing to users. Maybe we should have a separate switch to enable displaying panel outlines... cheers, Thorsten I think users know that hotspots are yellow, the rectangles are cyan in colour, so that is an indicator to users that it isn't a normal hotspot, so they probably shouldn't get too confused. However I can't work out what the cyan rectangle is supposed to show, I've got some as well on the A380, and it's offset like everyone else says. S. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 My impression is that it would be best to advertize Rembrandt as a new, exciting, but optional and stil experimental development. The reason is similar to what others have said - it seems to do really impressive things with light sources on some systems, it seems to make other systems really slow and it doesn't seem to be guaranteed to work everywhere. Personally, I'm not using it since it makes my system just a bit too slow to enjoy and I can't really see how to port lightfield development to Rembrandt (I guess we're not quite there yet as far as infrastructure is concerned, and I'd have to learn a few things, but also if Rembrandt + lightfield becomes even 20% slower than Rembrandt alone, then I can't fly it any more - Rembrandt costs me more than 50% of my framerate ). So personally, I really need it as optional, and I'd drop out of shader development if it weren't because if I can't enjoy it, I somehow lose the motivation to do it. I have also continuing concerns with 'converting' things to Rembrandt - do they still work for non-Rembrandt? I know some people create optional Rembrandt and non-Rembrandt versions. I'd ask everyone who has no problems with Rembrandt to really be aware that there are people who can't run it on their hardware at all and that there are others who may not want to run it but may want to use Flightgear and their favourite planes nevertheless. Going to a version 2.8 would really expose Rembrandt (lightfields, ...) to a larger user-base so that we can have a much better picture (via Forum response) where the issues are. I think overemphasizing exciting new features will backfire badly if there are issues. I'd really approach this with caution. Rembrandt has been around for quite a few months now, and the changes required to make an aircraft Rembrandt-compatible are pretty small, even if the changes to add proper lights are more involved. If I was being harsh I'd suggest that the aircraft maintainers should man up and do it. Is the implication of this that Rembrandt is considered the default and aircraft maintainers are expected to switch? When did we make this decision? I know all people for whom Rembrandt runs well would like to see everything converted asap, but what for these where it really means a lot of performance drain? 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] I like the DR-400 JSBSim very much - I seem to remember it was offered to the repository by the PAF hangar, I'm not sure if it ended up being committed. Anyway, I think it's a great plane, both in terms of the FDM and the visuals. Otherwise I'd like to see either the IAR-80 or the P-51D. There was also some work on the DHC6 - that's also a really popular plane - we might include that. 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no I would allow to commit aircraft freely up to the last point. It doesn't make any sense to restrict new commits as long as we don't have any effort in place to control quality of the aircraft which are already committed at least to the level where we make sure they run with the new version. We always seem to distribute some non-functional aircraft with a release, and as long as that is the case, what's the point in controlling what happens to new aircraft? Last minute changes are likely to be better than the non-functionals lying around. I would perhaps make an exception for any aircraft in the base package - quality control for those should be better and there should be some time for testing them. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should *not* be considered a negative quality judgment. There are many additional factors that weight in, which include completeness, variety across categories, and first-time use attractiveness (i.e. it's easy, ready to fly, etc etc). There is still room for improvement. Suggestions are welcome. :-) Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHV7lcWmK6ng/aMNkRCshyAJ0ZIZIIBTNAwoPdYqbpB2uFrDCOUQCfR2HN 8GrQTvvY8o5L7JlFkvi3a64= =+wro -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
All sounds good from here, thanks for pulling lead on this Torsten! On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alexis Bory alexis.b...@gmail.com wrote: Le 08/06/2012 20:39, Torsten Dreyer a écrit : Thanks for all the replies, summing all up, I end up with the following: The summer release will become v2.8.0. Rembrandt is included but disabled by default and announced as an experimental but cool new feature. We keep the current selection of base package aircraft for 2.8.0. We keep last winter's aircraft commit policy (no feature freeze) for all aircraft but the base package's A/C selection. Is that consensus? Agreed on all 3 points. Alexis Greetings, Torsten Am 02.06.2012 21:36, schrieb Torsten Dreyer: Hi, in just a bit more than two weeks from now we reach June, 17th, marking the first milestone for the release of next FlightGear version: the feature freeze period. If you have some great and exciting new features for FlightGear on your local disc but not yet pushed the gitorious repository - now is the time! Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Regards, Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Renk Thorsten wrote: Personally, I'm not using it since it makes my system just a bit too slow to enjoy and I can't really see how to port lightfield development to Rembrandt (I guess we're not quite there yet as far as infrastructure is concerned, and I'd have to learn a few things, but also if Rembrandt + lightfield becomes even 20% slower than Rembrandt alone, then I can't fly it any more - Rembrandt costs me more than 50% of my framerate ). So personally, I really need it as optional, and I'd drop out of shader development if it weren't because if I can't enjoy it, I somehow lose the motivation to do it. I don't think anyone is suggesting making Rembrandt anything other than optional, just like all the other graphical features we have. I have also continuing concerns with 'converting' things to Rembrandt - do they still work for non-Rembrandt? I know some people create optional Rembrandt and non-Rembrandt versions. I'd ask everyone who has no problems with Rembrandt to really be aware that there are people who can't run it on their hardware at all and that there are others who may not want to run it but may want to use Flightgear and their favourite planes nevertheless. Converting aircraft to Rembrandt will still mean that they work perfectly well with non-Rembrandt. Making an aircraft Rembrandt-compatible just involves marking transparent surfaces as such, and has no effect on the non-Rembrandt systems. Adding Rembrandt lighting similarly can be done in such a way that there is no effect on non-Rembrandt systems. The c172p provides an example of this. There are only two areas where aircraft maintainers need to be careful IIRC: - Some aircraft have textures with Ambient Occlusion baked into them. Rembrandt provides its own ambient occlusion so the textures used for a aircraft in Rembrandt should not have this included,. - Some aircraft have shadows as additional models. They need to be disabled when Rembrandt shadows are enabled. Is the implication of this that Rembrandt is considered the default and aircraft maintainers are expected to switch? When did we make this decision? I know all people for whom Rembrandt runs well would like to see everything converted asap, but what for these where it really means a lot of performance drain? As mentioned above, it's not a question of switching. Rather it's ensuring that aircraft are compatible by marking transparent surfaces. -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear Base Package branch, master, updated. f81456998442b1f30d86c4925a7d000d46ea4f1f
Curt (love you too), in compliance with our release plan, only bug fixes can be cherry picked into the release branch, now that we've past July 17. This is to make sure that we don't end up having countless of non-functioning/buggy aircraft on the download page. New features and completely new aircraft should not end up in the release branch. See: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Release_plan Gijs -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should *not* be considered a negative quality judgment. There are many additional factors that weight in, which include completeness, variety across categories, and first-time use attractiveness (i.e. it's easy, ready to fly, etc etc). There is still room for improvement. Suggestions are welcome. :-) I have reservations about the 787. It's a super model, and without doubt is our most complete airliner, but it is also no lightweight in system performance terms. In particular it takes an age to load when used over mp, and if it becomes the airliner of choice I fear that mp will slow to a crawl. The reason, I think, is the nearly 8000 lines of code in the model.xml file - and this is in the AI/MP version. Perhaps we need a truly lightweight version to go along with this change. Vivian - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should *not* be considered a negative quality judgment. There are many additional factors that weight in, which include completeness, variety across categories, and first-time use attractiveness (i.e. it's easy, ready to fly, etc etc). There is still room for improvement. Suggestions are welcome. :-) Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should *not* be considered a negative quality judgment. There are many additional factors that weight in, which include completeness, variety across categories, and first-time use attractiveness (i.e. it's easy, ready to fly, etc etc). There is still room for improvement. Suggestions are welcome. :-) Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
I'm usually just a lurker on this list but my choices for the most visually and flyably realistic planes are: * C172P Skyhawk (3d panel, of course) * pa28-161 -- Piper Cherokee Warrior II * Pilatus PC-6 Turbo Porter (with the amazing walk features) * Boeing 787-8 * A-6E Intruder * F-14B Tomcat * A-10 Thunderbolt * Aerostar Super 700 * Cessna Citation Bravo * DHC2 - de Havilland Beaver * EC135My criterion are interior realism (appearance and function), exterior realism (appearance and animation), and overall flying experience (realism first, usability second). These nominations are in no particular order (and yes, I know I listed eleven, LOL)... but I also think they represent the best in a wide variety of types -- commercial jets, military jets, light private class aircraft, and a heli. Cheers, -R. (aka MD-Terp) Robert M. Shearman, Jr. Transit Operations Supervisor, University of Maryland Department of Transportation also known as [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2008 4:13:54 AM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Cheers, Durk - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New release
Hi Durk and all, Durk wrote: After a period of having been extremely busy at work, following a switch of jobs and moving to a different country, I'm slowly coming back to life. December is already well on it's way, and it would be great if we could manage another major release this year. Great news Durk! One thing that came up in my mind: would it be good to write a post at the forum, to stimulate people to put their planes into Git as soon as possible? We have quite some nice (GPL) stuff hanging around, that's not been commited yet and it would be a shame if they won't end up on the official download page... Firstly, what is the next version number going to be. My initial thought would be 2.1.0, but it also makes sense to call if 2.2.0 (thanks for the suggestion, James), so that we can reserve 2.1.0. for bugfixes on the current version But if there comes a bugfix release, it is more recent than the initial release. 2.1.0 would suggest the bugfix was relased before 2.2.0 IMO... Since this new release is a major release, the initial release could be named 2.1.0 and the bugfix could be called 2.1.1. I am not a versioning expert however; there are probably people with much better ideas/knowledge on this list :) Seconly, do we want to maintain our current aircraft selection, or do we want to include a (partially) updated selection from our git repository What exactly is the current aircraft selection? We did welcome some extremely nice aircraft this year (the ASK-13 glider for example and the new Cub), which might replace some of the current selected aircraft in level of completeness/quality... Cheers, Gijs -- Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote: I've just updated the Seahawk in preparation for the release, and noticed a couple of thing: 1. Nav-lights seem to be broken across MP. I haven't been able to fix it, but I note that in multiplaymgr.cxx it's a float, but everywhere else it's a bool. I don't know if this is the cause, but anyway I've put a workaround into the Seahawk. Hi, I'm pretty sure the types have to match for the property to be sent over MP. If most aircraft use bool for nav lights it is probably a good idea to change the type in multiplaymgr.cxx. (Bool does sound more logical to me, but none of my aircraft include proper nav lights yet so I don't know much about these.. :) /Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/JSBSim-LTA/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the v2.6.0 release of FlightGear, the free, open-source flight simulator. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements and bugfixes. Major improvements from v2.4.0 include reduced AI aircraft load times, easier graphics tuning, more sophisticated AI aircraft and improved usability. Hi Stuart Does a new user (or other people not familiar with FlightGear but with other sims) know what AI stands for? Is it probably better to have AI improvements in more universal terms like easier graphics tuning or improved usability? (Just a thought, not important, many thanks for preparing this!). -Yves -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] upcoming release suggestion
Am 01.07.2012 05:52, schrieb syd adams: Before the next release , maybe it would be a good idea to disable those 'panel' outlines , which show up when you press 'C' to view hotspots. I don't think this was intentional. The outlines aren't even properly aligned on any aircraft I checked - so it just looks like a bug. And it's only visible on some aircraft. My guess is it only affects 2D elements - i.e. all the 2D map displays (radar/groundradar/maps) in glass cockpits. Also seems to be a relatively new issue - I hadn't even noticed before. Anyone knows when/how this started? Otherwise we'd need to check git commits. cheers, Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear Base Package branch, master, updated. f81456998442b1f30d86c4925a7d000d46ea4f1f
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Gijs de Rooy gijsr...@hotmail.com wrote: Curt (love you too), in compliance with our release plan, only bug fixes can be cherry picked into the release branch, now that we've past July 17. This is to make sure that we don't end up having countless of non-functioning/buggy aircraft on the download page. New features and completely new aircraft should not end up in the release branch. See: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Release_plan Understood, but it seems (and I could be mistaken) like a lot of small bug fixes and rembrandt compatibility updates are going into master only and could easily be cherry picked into the release branch. If this is due to some aircraft authors not remembering to cherry pick their bug fixes over to the release branch then I wanted to bring it up for discussion. If this is entirely intentional and due to an abundance of caution, then that's perfectly fine too. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux (was Re: Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12)
On Thursday, May 26, 2011 06:31:13 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote: 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 original. There's not an explicit penalty. but I think Hal has addressed this in the notes for the System criteria: Ignore systems not present on the aircraft IRL. If the real aircraft doesn't have a system (e.g. autopilot), the FG model shouldn't have either and if all systems in the real aircraft are modeled then it scores a 5 even if it is a very simple aircraft. I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. If someone chooses not to disable the generic autopilot for a vintage aircraft, it will have no effect on pilots who choose to fly realistically (they simply won't use it). On the p51d-jsbsim I have added a tuned autopilot but it is only available by using the menu system since the real thing (IE. my model is as it would have been in 1945) would not have one. But it is VERY useful for test flights so it was worth the effort to create it. I don't think this should result in a reduced Systems score unless it is exposed in the cockpit. So I agree with Stuart. If the system is exposed in the cockpit, then it is covered by the rating for accuracy of cockpit - a KAP140 in the Sopwith Camel would obviously not be worth a 4 or 5 cockpit rating. I don't think it's unreasonable for vintage aircraft to have access to a radio, for example. A modern pilot flying a vintage aircraft would carry a hand-held. I agree with this and as others have pointed out it depends on what you are modeling - IE. how the aircraft was back in the day or how it might be used today. These are really two different aircraft or at least two differenet configurations. The use of shaders etc. may or may not enhance the realism of the model and in some cases could be used inappropriately. This is a subjective assessment, and perhaps could be removed from the points system. Livery support is not necessarily an enhancement - it is not appropriate for all models. We're talking here about the difference between a 4 or 5 External Model rating, where we're trying to differentiate between a good external model and one that is as realistic as possible. I think we should differentiate between them if possible, but I'm struggling to think up some objective criteria. Photo-realistic? model resolution of 5cm? Setting up for liveries appears to be a significant non-trivial task although I have not looked into it in detail. If the model is intended to be of a specific aircraft as it existed at a particualr point in time then liveries make no sense for that model. On the other hand a particular aircraft may have a long history and using liveries would make it possible to model the same aircraft at different points in it's history. Perhaps we end up providing subjective criteria, or some additional guidance in this case? I'm not clear if you are awarding points for underwing stores and the like. Hadn't thought about that at all. I've added it to the criteria for a 4 rating. I would treat these as just another system. I think the systems catigory is a difficult one because of how much difference there is between very simple aircraft (think sailplane) and a very complex one (think Concorde). This makes it very difficult to have a rating system that results in similar scores for aircraft that have proportionally complete systems but that are of very different complexity. I am not sure how to improve this but I think it is important to keep it simple. We have additional features such as co-pilot/RIO over MP, Wingmen, Formation Control, Tutorials, Aircraft Specific Help, Contrails, Vapour Trails, and there are probably some I missed. Contrails Vapour trails should probably be covered by the external model, I think. I could add them (along with tyre smoke) as criteria for a Model 5 rating? I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves that enrich the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight itself, but others (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi-crew aircraft. And finally - the points system could award a high status to a poor model - there are no points awarded for the accuracy or the fidelity of the 3d model. E.G there is at least one model with afterburners modelled where none existed. I've updated the external model to include the world Accurate for ratings 3-5. Of course, we're trusting that aircraft developers are going to apply the rating criteria accurately to the best of their ability. Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so good that the framerate means
[Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux (was Re: Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12)
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 original. There's not an explicit penalty. but I think Hal has addressed this in the notes for the System criteria: Ignore systems not present on the aircraft IRL. If the real aircraft doesn't have a system (e.g. autopilot), the FG model shouldn't have either and if all systems in the real aircraft are modeled then it scores a 5 even if it is a very simple aircraft. I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. If someone chooses not to disable the generic autopilot for a vintage aircraft, it will have no effect on pilots who choose to fly realistically (they simply won't use it). If the system is exposed in the cockpit, then it is covered by the rating for accuracy of cockpit - a KAP140 in the Sopwith Camel would obviously not be worth a 4 or 5 cockpit rating. I don't think it's unreasonable for vintage aircraft to have access to a radio, for example. A modern pilot flying a vintage aircraft would carry a hand-held. The use of shaders etc. may or may not enhance the realism of the model and in some cases could be used inappropriately. This is a subjective assessment, and perhaps could be removed from the points system. Livery support is not necessarily an enhancement - it is not appropriate for all models. We're talking here about the difference between a 4 or 5 External Model rating, where we're trying to differentiate between a good external model and one that is as realistic as possible. I think we should differentiate between them if possible, but I'm struggling to think up some objective criteria. Photo-realistic? model resolution of 5cm? Perhaps we end up providing subjective criteria, or some additional guidance in this case? I'm not clear if you are awarding points for underwing stores and the like. Hadn't thought about that at all. I've added it to the criteria for a 4 rating. We have additional features such as co-pilot/RIO over MP, Wingmen, Formation Control, Tutorials, Aircraft Specific Help, Contrails, Vapour Trails, and there are probably some I missed. Contrails Vapour trails should probably be covered by the external model, I think. I could add them (along with tyre smoke) as criteria for a Model 5 rating? I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves that enrich the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight itself, but others (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi-crew aircraft. And finally - the points system could award a high status to a poor model - there are no points awarded for the accuracy or the fidelity of the 3d model. E.G there is at least one model with afterburners modelled where none existed. I've updated the external model to include the world Accurate for ratings 3-5. Of course, we're trusting that aircraft developers are going to apply the rating criteria accurately to the best of their ability. Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so good that the framerate means that it can only be used on high-end systems or away from detailed airports. This limitation should be noted somewhere. I don't have a good answer to that. Does that become criteria for a 5 in External Model? I think this ends up back as something subjective. Let's hope that this tool can help to bring some order out of the current chaos. We can but try. Certainly this seems to have a bit more momentum behind it than previous attempts, based on the feedback here and on IRC. If enough people rate their aircraft and we can use it to provide a better download page for the upcoming release, it will succeed. -Stuart -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:36:17 +0200, Torsten wrote in message 4fca6b31.3090...@t3r.de: Hi, in just a bit more than two weeks from now we reach June, 17th, marking the first milestone for the release of next FlightGear version: the feature freeze period. If you have some great and exciting new features for FlightGear on your local disc but not yet pushed the gitorious repository - now is the time! Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no ..4) Check out http://sfconservancy.org/news/2012/may/29/compliance/ http://sfconservancy.org/blog/ http://busybox.net/ http://sfconservancy.org/overview/ a) join forces to stop piracy b) no F* way, let the pirates carry on with their merry freeloading bizneezz. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgdata trouble
-Original Message- From: Torsten Dreyer Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 3:36 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgdata trouble Hi all, there is a WIKI page for this topic: http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Git:_splitting_fgdata Many points have been discussed over and over some time ago. If there is something new that has developed over time, please add it to the wiki page before it gets lost on the mailing list. Torsten -- Sadly http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Git:_splitting_fgdata has been silent all of this year, and only has ideas and comments from 3 or 4 individuals. At the moment the wiki is not being used for this purpose. For a start could we draw up a spec for what is needed? As a user my initial input to this would be. 1. Ability to divide aircraft into categories. The obvious ones include military, light aircraft, civil transport, helicopters, spaceships, comic-book etc. This should be quite flexible. The ability to add categories should be available. Some aircraft will belong in more than one category, so a cross-reference is desirable. Assuming cross-referring is possible, a possible category is author, which would allow authors to have their own easily identifiable collections to showcase. Boolean selection of the categories would also be a plus. 2. A central index, accessible both by Flightgear and by utilities such as Fgrun. 3. Download individual aircraft manually (e.g. by git , http, svn , torrent whatever). 4. Automated download of further aircraft and updates as already managed by the internal and external versions of Terrasync . 5. Aircraft currently in the release version should remain within the existing Fgdata. IMHO including just the Cessna is perhaps going too far. 6. Common/shared instruments, nasal libraries and other utilities should also remain within Fgdata. I have no doubt that core developers and others will have different requirements, but sorting issues like this that is what this forum is meant to be for. The implementation is something which I do not feel qualified to say much about, other than not making the system unmanageable by having too few repositories which are then too large, or having too many repositories making things too fragmented. Assuming cross-referenced categories are available as described above, the sub-division into separate repositories could be done on an arbitrary basis. It could be alphabetical, or simply in batches of 50 or so aircraft at a time. Such a structure would then be invisible to the end user. A central common index, perhaps duplicated by each repo, might be needed to manage this. Alan -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;258768047;13503038;j? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Towards release 1.9.2
Hi Durk, Durk Talsma wrote: FWIW, I would like to build a minimum base package this time, which only consists of one aircraft, no AI, and a minimal set of shared models. AI and other aircraft can be released as a separate ADDON packages, or via CVS. Likewise, shared models are now maintained via terrasync/SVN, so that is also taken care of. The current state of Base Package Scenery (w12[2,3]n37) is referencing just 38 Shared Models only. I'll try to provide a daily list of files to include (I'll have to check which files are being referenced from outside the Scenery), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New release
On 11.12.2010 09:16, Durk Talsma wrote: Firstly, what is the next version number going to be. My initial thought would be 2.1.0, but it also makes sense to call if 2.2.0 (thanks for the suggestion, James), so that we can reserve 2.1.0. for bugfixes on the current version, or at least move toward a versioning system like that (i.e. the next series could be 2.2.0 for stable, and 2.3.0. for development). +1! A scheme which covers stable/unstable (GIT) versions seems a very good idea. Many people are using the GIT version, so it'd be good to have a specific version for such builds. But bugfixes should only affect the third version number then, i.e. a bugfix for the 2.0 stable should be 2.0.1. It sill makes sense to move to 2.2.0 now - stable release versions should be even. Seconly, do we want to maintain our current aircraft selection, or do we want to include a (partially) updated selection from our git repository, or -alternatively- do we want to strip the entire selection down to just single aircraft, and make the others downloadable from our main website. I know that James turner is working towards an infrastructure that should enable this, but I'm not sure whether we are already comfortable enough to just use one single aircraft. The new system allowing multiple aircraft dirs works great. However, it seems not too many people have used it so far. And at some point after the release, we wanted to split FGDATA into several smaller repositories (I know Tim has already been working on this), so we'd be introducing a new system for 2.3 (GIT) / 2.4 (future stable) anyway. So it might be better to stick with the current system for this release and not have another unnecessary intermediate. And we'd get a lot of GIT users testing the new directory and distribution system with 2.3.0 - so that would be rock stable for 2.4. cheers, Thorsten -- Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
Great to hear we gonna have a new release this year! I would like to have the 747-400 in the list, but if I read these two points: - disk space (what is the maximum?) - completeness (when is a plane completed?) I don't think it would be suitable ;)My top 10, in alphabetical order Airbus A380 Boeing 737-300 Boeing 787 C172P Citation Bravo EC135 Seahawk SenecaII UFO Zeppelin NT07 Feel free to adjust the list. Gijs From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:13:54 +0200 Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much).So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Cheers, Durk - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel _ Jouw nieuws en entertainment, vind je op MSN.nl! http://nl.msn.com/- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: 2. What is the state of our changelog? http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_2.6.0 - Please everybody who contributed to the core and fgdata, check the document and fill in the gaps. I've just gone through this, tidied up the grammar and changed the style so that it emphasises what the new release will do for the user, rather than listing features by their internal functions. 3. We need a short official announcement to be sent out to press, fs websites, newstickers, CBS, NBC, al-Arabia, ITAR-TASS et al. I'd prefer a native English speaker to write on or two enthusiastic paragraphs about FlightGear 2.6.0. I've added the following as the synopsis for the changelog, which should be suitable: The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the v2.6.0 release of FlightGear, the free, open-source flight simulator. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements and bugfixes. Major improvements from v2.4.0 include reduced AI aircraft load times, easier graphics tuning, more sophisticated AI aircraft and improved usability. Founded in 1997, FlightGear is developed by a worldwide group of volunteers, brought together by a shared ambition to create the most realistic flight simulator possible that is free to use, modify and distribute. FlightGear is used all over the world by desktop flight simulator enthusiasts, for research in Universities and for interactive exhibits in museums. FlightGear features more than 400 aircraft, a worldwide scenery database, detailed sky modelling, a flexible and open aircraft modelling system, varied networking options, multiple display support, and an open architecture. Best of all, it is open-source so no company controls development. Download FlightGear V2.6.0 for free from http://www.flightgear.org FlightGear - Fly Free! -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
Durk Talsma wrote: While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Hi Durk, I clearly vote for the Concorde here. It is not the easiest plane when it comes to all its functions that are implemented (complete engineers seat with a million of buttons ;-), but exactly a model like this shows what is possible with FG. And the player can always automate Copilot and Engineers tasks via a menu and thus concentrate on flying. Cheers, Chris - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2008, 10:13 +0200 schrieb Durk Talsma: While I'm at it. :-) With each release we include a selection of representative aircraft that highlight FlightGear's capabilities. Inclusion criteria include: Completeness, variability across categories, realism, suitability for demo flights (think of aerotowing, AI/Multiplayer refueling, carrier landing, etc etc.), relative ease of operation (ie don't want to intimidate new users too much), and disk space (we don't want to bloat the base package too much). I'd suggest to exchange the bf109g with the F4U-1. It is easier to handle, has carrier capabilities and is currently undergoing an extensive overhaul. It will have all features the bf109 has now and a more complete cockpit. So, with these criteria in mind, what would be your current top 10 of aircraft? Cheers, Durk - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Detlef Faber http://www.sol2500.net/flightgear - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.2.0 changelog (Concept)
Hi All, In anticipation of the next release, I have gone through last year's log of the git repositories for simgear, flightgear, and fgdata, and went though all the newsletters between March 2010 and December 2010 on the wiki. Based on that, I came up with the following summary of major developments Please have a look and see whether I missed anything. Obviously, I didn't want to list every single entry in the changelogs, and for listing the aircraft/scenery improvements/additions, I tried to list just a few highlights. Obviously, some selections are biased towards those entries that I was involved in merging them to git. Please have a look an feel free to comment on any entry. FWIW, I believe that we are very close to having FlightGear in a releasable state. Unfortunately, however, I won't be able to finish the process right now. Starting tomorrow, I'll be heading out on a five week vacation to the southernmost part of Argentina, including a three-week boat trip to Antarctica, so I there's going to be hardly any internet access for me during that time (and even if there were, I probably wouldn't bother. :-). Anyways, I'm about to call it a day, and prepare for a 14 hour plane ride aboard a 747-400. Cheers, Durk FlightGear 2.2.0 ChangeLog The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the release of FlightGear 2.2.0. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements, bugfixes, and other improvements. By adopting the newly available shader technology, FlightGear’s graphical quality has been substantially improved, compared to the previous release. Assorted highlights of this version include: new shader based water textures, capturing the sun’s reflection, three dimensional city block textures, more realistic rendering of rocks and mountains, a configurable local weather system, many new and improved aircraft, and numerous scenery additions. Some of the major changes include: Aircraft operations: - Indicated Airspeed (AIS) Limitations can be indicated on the airspeed indicator - Wind-up prevention on simple autopilot systems - Improved autopilots - A new head0up display (HUD) system - Updates to the KLN89 - ATC / ATIS improvements - An in aircraft moving map dialog box AI system - Improved AI ballistics behavior - Ballistic Objects can be slaved to any AI object - Approaching aircraft now follow realistic approach trajectories. - More communication / interaction between AI aircraft and ground. Support for multiple frequencies for AI/ATC interaction. - Speed-up for AI traffic initialization by means of an aircraft usage statistics collection mechanism - A standalone AI FlightPlan generator program AI Traffic - General and Commercial Aviation Traffic at LOWI airport - Malaysian Airways / Kuala Lumpur based traffic - Traffic for Adria (Croatia) Bug Fixes - Inconsistencies in Scenery tile scheduling - Fixed many sources of the infamous NaN errors - Improved placement of random objects - Fixed incorrect METAR weather fetching code - The replay system now works again as advertised Flight Dynamics - A new MIL-STD Turbulence model has been added to the JSB Flight Dynamics Simulation Engine - Environment - Discard of outdate METAR weather information sources and improved METAR parsing - New Fog layers with limited elevation - A Local Weather system to simulate physically correct local weather phenomena - Specific Multiplayer pilots can be selectively ignored Interface - Better integration of separate weather systems - Support fo VNC clients. This allows an external application to output its data to a texture placed within flightgear - Unified runway selection code that is shared between user controlled and AI controlled aircraft. - Autopilot controllers can be used for general purpose processing through a “property rule” system Highlighted New and Improved Aircraft - A new Highly detailed piper Cup - A new and highly detailed IAR-80 (a Romanian produced WW2 fighter) - An improved P51-d, completely remodeled and containing improved flight dynamics - Zeppeling L121 Nordstern - CRJ 200 - Mig-15bis - Improvements to the Boeing 787 - Bombardier CRJ-900 - Douglas A-4F Skyhawk - Short S.23 Empire flying boat - PZL-Mielec M18B Dromader - The Douglas DC-8 Series - The Boeing 737NG Series - Boeing 717 and 757 - Bell AH-1 Cobra Helicopter - The Eurocopter EC130 B4 Helicopter - - The Boeing 747-400 has received night lighting effects - Tire smoke effects on many aircraft Navigation - A new route manager - Autopilots can be driven by NAV or GPS instruments - The beginnings of an EICAS instrument are available on a selected number
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM, ThorstenB wrote: Every free, open source project is really driven by active community _participation_, not so much by (passive) user's _requests_. In general, it's not even a matter of economic incentives, though this may be the case with FG. But you can see it with Linux kernel development: loads of companies and individuals involved, all pushing the project forward - each with their own private fun or economic interests. What really matters to an OS project is the community effort and the option for everyone to get involved. Even if this results in the mentioned group hug :) - I think that'd be the really important point to stress, when hinting a comparison with MS Plight (oops, typo ;-) ). I've changed the text to the following: Best of all, being open-source, the simulator is owned by the community and everyone is encouraged to contribute. Full text below. -Stuart The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the v2.6.0 release of FlightGear, the free, open-source flight simulator. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements and bugfixes. Major improvements from v2.4.0 include reduced AI aircraft load times, easier graphics tuning, more sophisticated AI aircraft and improved usability. Founded in 1997, FlightGear is developed by a worldwide group of volunteers, brought together by a shared ambition to create the most realistic flight simulator possible that is free to use, modify and distribute. FlightGear is used all over the world by desktop flight simulator enthusiasts, for research in Universities and for interactive exhibits in museums. FlightGear features more than 400 aircraft, a worldwide scenery database, detailed sky modelling, a flexible and open aircraft modelling system, varied networking options, multiple display support, a powerful scripting language and an open architecture. Best of all, being open-source, the simulator is owned by the community and everyone is encouraged to contribute. Download FlightGear V2.6.0 for free from http://www.flightgear.org. FlightGear - Fly Free! -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release 2.8.0 - closing release/2.8.0 branch
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Torsten Dreyer tors...@t3r.de wrote: This marks our final state of the code for the 2.8.0 release. Please start building our distributables from this tag on the release/2.8.0 branch. Anything pushed to fg/sg/fgdata into the release/2.8.0 branch from how on will eventually go into a 2.8.0.x bugfix release. I'm currently uploading source .tar.gz's and the FlightGear-data.tar.gz to the ibiblio.org mirror. I've finished the windows packaging and once the data tar ball is fully uploaded, I'll begin to upload the official v2.8.0 windows setup.exe I have a preliminary v2.8 aircarft download page created ( http://www.flightgear.org/download/aircraft-v2-8/) but Gijs is working on an improved aircraft download page that should be ready in time for the release. Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Call for aircraft nominations
On dimanche 05 octobre 2008, gerard robin wrote: On dimanche 05 octobre 2008, gerard robin wrote: On dimanche 05 octobre 2008, Heiko Schulz wrote: Hi, We should definitely add one of the airships. Oh- yes, indeed! aAnd with this one JSBSim-aircraft which is capable to start from carrier now! Which won't be possible, because there is missing the Carrier position calculation ( i asked it some weeks ago). The temporary solution is to have a non moving aircraft at a specific place. Here the F-8E on the Cemenceau Carrier. I wanted to say a non moving Carrier It is able to take off (only if it is at the right place) and to land ( only if it does catch the wire ) . Both places are specific = Constant value Lon Lat area on the carrier I hope that tricky solution being replaced by a better solution. http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/tux/Ready_to_Jump.jpg Ask on IRC, or one of the developers per mail (you find their names in the cvs-logs list), or post a link to your aircraft here. (IRC is usually the quickest. :-) O.k. Huh? Nothing disappears here. But some postings here might not find enough attention. Just repost then, or as on IRC. O.k., then it seems to be a problem with my mail provider- yesterday I got a lot of mail from the list, which was sent days ago... Cheers HHS I would like to add a remark, about Carrier. The Foch is broken with OSG, because of Solid definition , i asked some weeks ago, why the group name is not taken within OSG I never got any answer :( So the best would be, to avoid to include it in the AI _demo of that next stable release, it can remain as a Geometry model. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 release process: Update
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:52:40 +0100, Durk Talsma d.tal...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi All, Here's just a quick update regarding the 2.0.0 release. The final release is really close now. We had planned to have a third release candidate by now, which we would promote to the final release within a few days from now, provided that no further showstopping bugs show up. Do you need me to create deb packages for ubuntu (9.10)/debian(5.0) for this release ? if yes I need to know a couple of things: 1) where to get the exact fgfs/simgear/osg code for this realease (I mean I don't think I can get it througt csv). 2) which aircraft to include ? [...] Cheers Francesco -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 release process: Update
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:52:40 +0100, Durk Talsma d.tal...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi All, Here's just a quick update regarding the 2.0.0 release. The final release is really close now. We had planned to have a third release candidate by now, which we would promote to the final release within a few days from now, provided that no further showstopping bugs show up. Do you need me to create deb packages for ubuntu (9.10)/debian(5.0) for this release ? if yes I need to know a couple of things: 1) where to get the exact fgfs/simgear/osg code for this realease (I mean I don't think I can get it througt csv). 2) which aircraft to include ? [...] Cheers Francesco -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] New release
Hi All, After a period of having been extremely busy at work, following a switch of jobs and moving to a different country, I'm slowly coming back to life. December is already well on it's way, and it would be great if we could manage another major release this year. Behind the scenes, James Turner has been working hard to automize many aspects of the release process, so we should be relatively well off. Currently, there are still a few release blocking bugs, but in general, I think that prospect of a release is pretty good. Nevertheless, there are still a few things that we need to make a decision on. Firstly, what is the next version number going to be. My initial thought would be 2.1.0, but it also makes sense to call if 2.2.0 (thanks for the suggestion, James), so that we can reserve 2.1.0. for bugfixes on the current version, or at least move toward a versioning system like that (i.e. the next series could be 2.2.0 for stable, and 2.3.0. for development). Seconly, do we want to maintain our current aircraft selection, or do we want to include a (partially) updated selection from our git repository, or -alternatively- do we want to strip the entire selection down to just single aircraft, and make the others downloadable from our main website. I know that James turner is working towards an infrastructure that should enable this, but I'm not sure whether we are already comfortable enough to just use one single aircraft. On a related note, I would consider shipping the base flightgear distribution entirely without the AI directory, and also make that available as a separate distribution. but again, I'm not comfortable about this as long as we don't have an easy, user friendly way of installing these add-ons). In any case, thought, ideas, and suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Durk -- Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release 2.8.0: feature freeze starts now
Am 17.06.2012 21:14, schrieb Torsten Dreyer: today is June, 17th and this marks our feature freeze for the sources of SimGear, FlightGear and FGDATA. Within FGDATA, only aircraft not being part of the base package are not part of the feature freeze. Maintainers for those aircraft are kindly requested to carefully check not to update _any_ file outside their individual aircraft's root directory. Brief update: Release 2.8.0 is still on downwind. We need people testing and fixing things though. * Curt has published the first release candidates for Windows, see: http://www.flightgear.org/download * Here's a list of things about how you could help: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15136 * Also check the bug tracker, if you can help with any reported bug issue: http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/list?q=-Type%3DFeatureRequest+-status%3ATesting * We also still need Italian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese and German (oops!) volunteers translating the language resources: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16876 Distance remaining is about 1 week to the release branch and about 6 weeks to touch down. cheers, Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FG 2.10 Change Log and Release Announcement
Hi All, The complete 2.10 changelog is available here: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_2.10 I've now made it read-only. If anyone has any final comments/edits they want to make, please let me know. I anticipate using a slightly modified version of the first couple of paragraphs for the release announcement. i.e.: The FlightGear development team is happy to announce the v2.10 release of FlightGear, the free, open-source flight simulator. This new version contains many exciting new features, enhancements and bugfixes. Highlights in this release include improved usability, better terrain rendering and a fully scriptable 2D rendering system. A list of major changes can be found at http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_2.10. Founded in 1997, FlightGear is developed by a worldwide group of volunteers, brought together by a shared ambition to create the most realistic flight simulator possible that is free to use, modify and distribute. FlightGear is used all over the world by desktop flight simulator enthusiasts, for research in universities and for interactive exhibits in museums. FlightGear features more than 400 aircraft, a worldwide scenery database, a multi-player environment, detailed sky modelling, a flexible and open aircraft modelling system, varied networking options, multiple display support, a powerful scripting language and an open architecture. Best of all, being open-source, the simulator is owned by the community and everyone is encouraged to contribute. Download FlightGear v2.10 for free from FlightGear.org. FlightGear - Fly Free! Comments welcome as always. -Stuart -- Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 Announcement text + Summary of ChangeLog
Hi all, FlightGear 2.0 should be out any minute now. While waiting for the official files to appear on the server, I have drafted a short summary of the ChangeLogs. Please have a look and see whether I missed anything or accidentally included incorrect information. cheers, Durk == ANNOUNCEMENT + SUMMARY === FlightGear 2.0.0. reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph port that started with the previous 1.9.0 release. In addition to many internal code improvements, FlightGear 2.0.0. marks the introduction of many new exciting improvements in the graphics and sound system, as well as improved usability of key features, and improved behavior of existing features. Highlights of this new version include: Sound * Complete Overhaul of the Sound Code * doppler effects * distance attenuation * 3D positional sound sources * assignment of sound sources to external objects (i.e. AI controlled aircraft) * User selection of the sound device Visual Effects * Use of Shaders for dynamic textures * Use of Effects files * Improved 3D Clouds * Color changes based on Humidity and other whether effects allow for very dramatic lighting conditions * Dynamic water textures Usability * Allow screenshots in more common file formats * User selectable sound device * More intuitive selection of the weather settings through the GUI and/or commandline Infrastructure * Airport Geometry data can be read from the scenery, allowing for more flexible regeneration of terrain tiles Internals * Improved efficiency of the property tree * A more effient ground cache * Many improvement to the RouteManagement code * Removed many compiler warnings * More realistic Atmosphere model (John Denker) Behavior * More realistic ILS behavior (James Turner) * Autopilot Improvements (Torsten) * A generic autobrake function * Winds over mountaineous areas cause up- and downdrafts that can be used for gliding * More realistic behavior of the route manager * Wild fires, which can be extinquished by firefigherplanes operating across the multplayer server * Navaid frequencies and radials can be transmitted to Atlas Utilities * A python script to visualize Yasim configurations in Blender AI * Allow traffic departing and arriving at the same airport * Add support for High-Speed Trains * ATC interactions between AI aircraft and ground controllers * Performance characteristics of AI aircraft can be specified in a performance database * Push-back vehicles are available for a selected number of aircraft * AI escorts (???: Ask Vivian) * Improved Radar functionality (Vivian) * AI objects are now solid (i.e. users can collide with them) * Some preliminary support for SID/STAR procedures for AI aircraft -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 Announcement text + Summary of ChangeLog
Hi all, FlightGear 2.0 should be out any minute now. While waiting for the official files to appear on the server, I have drafted a short summary of the ChangeLogs. Please have a look and see whether I missed anything or accidentally included incorrect information. Great! O.k.: == ANNOUNCEMENT + SUMMARY === FlightGear 2.0.0. reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph port that started with the previous 1.9.0 release. In addition to many internal code improvements, FlightGear 2.0.0. marks the introduction of many new exciting improvements in the graphics and sound system, as well as improved usability of key features, and improved behavior of existing features. Highlights of this new version include: Sounds good! Sound * Complete Overhaul of the Sound Code * doppler effects * distance attenuation * 3D positional sound sources * assignment of sound sources to external objects (i.e. AI controlled aircraft) How can we do that? So much as I know it isn't documented yet and still in work? * User selection of the sound device Visual Effects * Use of Shaders for dynamic textures * Use of Effects files * Improved 3D Clouds * Color changes based on Humidity and other whether effects allow for very dramatic lighting conditions * Dynamic water textures Usability * Allow screenshots in more common file formats * User selectable sound device * More intuitive selection of the weather settings through the GUI and/or commandline Infrastructure * Airport Geometry data can be read from the scenery, allowing for more flexible regeneration of terrain tiles Internals * Improved efficiency of the property tree * A more effient ground cache * Many improvement to the RouteManagement code * Removed many compiler warnings * More realistic Atmosphere model (John Denker) Behavior * More realistic ILS behavior (James Turner) * Autopilot Improvements (Torsten) * A generic autobrake function * Winds over mountaineous areas cause up- and downdrafts that can be used for gliding * More realistic behavior of the route manager * Wild fires, which can be extinquished by firefigherplanes operating across the multplayer server * Navaid frequencies and radials can be transmitted to Atlas Utilities * A python script to visualize Yasim configurations in Blender AI * Allow traffic departing and arriving at the same airport * Add support for High-Speed Trains *should be: add support for Ground vehicles like trains and cars * ATC interactions between AI aircraft and ground controllers * Performance characteristics of AI aircraft can be specified in a performance database * Push-back vehicles are available for a selected number of aircraft * AI escorts (???: Ask Vivian) * Improved Radar functionality (Vivian) * AI objects are now solid (i.e. users can collide with them) * Some preliminary support for SID/STAR procedures for AI aircraft Cheers HHS __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 Announcement text + Summary ofChangeLog
Durk wrote: Hi all, FlightGear 2.0 should be out any minute now. While waiting for the official files to appear on the server, I have drafted a short summary of the ChangeLogs. Please have a look and see whether I missed anything or accidentally included incorrect information. cheers, Durk == ANNOUNCEMENT + SUMMARY === FlightGear 2.0.0. reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph port that started with the previous 1.9.0 release. In addition to many internal code improvements, FlightGear 2.0.0. marks the introduction of many new exciting improvements in the graphics and sound system, as well as improved usability of key features, and improved behavior of existing features. Highlights of this new version include: Sound * Complete Overhaul of the Sound Code * doppler effects * distance attenuation * 3D positional sound sources * assignment of sound sources to external objects (i.e. AI controlled aircraft) * User selection of the sound device Visual Effects * Use of Shaders for dynamic textures * Use of Effects files * Improved 3D Clouds * Color changes based on Humidity and other whether effects allow for very dramatic lighting conditions * Dynamic water textures Usability * Allow screenshots in more common file formats * User selectable sound device * More intuitive selection of the weather settings through the GUI and/or commandline Infrastructure * Airport Geometry data can be read from the scenery, allowing for more flexible regeneration of terrain tiles Internals * Improved efficiency of the property tree * A more effient ground cache * Many improvement to the RouteManagement code * Removed many compiler warnings * More realistic Atmosphere model (John Denker) Behavior * More realistic ILS behavior (James Turner) * Autopilot Improvements (Torsten) * A generic autobrake function * Winds over mountaineous areas cause up- and downdrafts that can be used for gliding * More realistic behavior of the route manager * Wild fires, which can be extinquished by firefigherplanes operating across the multplayer server * Navaid frequencies and radials can be transmitted to Atlas Utilities * A python script to visualize Yasim configurations in Blender AI * Allow traffic departing and arriving at the same airport * Add support for High-Speed Trains * Add Ground Vehicles - including automobiles, trucks, articulated trucks, trains (including high speed trains) * ATC interactions between AI aircraft and ground controllers * Performance characteristics of AI aircraft can be specified in a performance database * Push-back vehicles are available for a selected number of aircraft * AI escorts (???: Ask Vivian) * Add escorts for AI Carrier - frigates, guided missile cruiser, amphibious warfare ships now make up the Vinson Battle Group * Improved Radar functionality - now detects AI escorts etc. * AI objects are now solid (i.e. users can collide with them) * Some preliminary support for SID/STAR procedures for AI aircraft HTH Vivian -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 Announcement text + Summary of ChangeLog
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 22:48 +0100, Durk Talsma wrote: A very nice, small, but important feature from Torsten (I think from memory) was the text animation using OSG Text. I use this a lot now... S. Hi all, FlightGear 2.0 should be out any minute now. While waiting for the official files to appear on the server, I have drafted a short summary of the ChangeLogs. Please have a look and see whether I missed anything or accidentally included incorrect information. cheers, Durk == ANNOUNCEMENT + SUMMARY === FlightGear 2.0.0. reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph port that started with the previous 1.9.0 release. In addition to many internal code improvements, FlightGear 2.0.0. marks the introduction of many new exciting improvements in the graphics and sound system, as well as improved usability of key features, and improved behavior of existing features. Highlights of this new version include: Sound * Complete Overhaul of the Sound Code * doppler effects * distance attenuation * 3D positional sound sources * assignment of sound sources to external objects (i.e. AI controlled aircraft) * User selection of the sound device Visual Effects * Use of Shaders for dynamic textures * Use of Effects files * Improved 3D Clouds * Color changes based on Humidity and other whether effects allow for very dramatic lighting conditions * Dynamic water textures Usability * Allow screenshots in more common file formats * User selectable sound device * More intuitive selection of the weather settings through the GUI and/or commandline Infrastructure * Airport Geometry data can be read from the scenery, allowing for more flexible regeneration of terrain tiles Internals * Improved efficiency of the property tree * A more effient ground cache * Many improvement to the RouteManagement code * Removed many compiler warnings * More realistic Atmosphere model (John Denker) Behavior * More realistic ILS behavior (James Turner) * Autopilot Improvements (Torsten) * A generic autobrake function * Winds over mountaineous areas cause up- and downdrafts that can be used for gliding * More realistic behavior of the route manager * Wild fires, which can be extinquished by firefigherplanes operating across the multplayer server * Navaid frequencies and radials can be transmitted to Atlas Utilities * A python script to visualize Yasim configurations in Blender AI * Allow traffic departing and arriving at the same airport * Add support for High-Speed Trains * ATC interactions between AI aircraft and ground controllers * Performance characteristics of AI aircraft can be specified in a performance database * Push-back vehicles are available for a selected number of aircraft * AI escorts (???: Ask Vivian) * Improved Radar functionality (Vivian) * AI objects are now solid (i.e. users can collide with them) * Some preliminary support for SID/STAR procedures for AI aircraft -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
Anders Gidenstam Sent: 12 December 2007 14:59 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote: I've just updated the Seahawk in preparation for the release, and noticed a couple of thing: 1. Nav-lights seem to be broken across MP. I haven't been able to fix it, but I note that in multiplaymgr.cxx it's a float, but everywhere else it's a bool. I don't know if this is the cause, but anyway I've put a workaround into the Seahawk. Hi, I'm pretty sure the types have to match for the property to be sent over MP. If most aircraft use bool for nav lights it is probably a good idea to change the type in multiplaymgr.cxx. (Bool does sound more logical to me, but none of my aircraft include proper nav lights yet so I don't know much about these.. :) Yes, I think that's the case, but I've changed the type in multiplaymgr.cxx to bool, and that doesn't fix it. I'm not sure what to do next. Vivian - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release 2.8.0: feature freeze starts now
Am 17.06.2012 21:14, schrieb Torsten Dreyer: today is June, 17th and this marks our feature freeze for the sources of SimGear, FlightGear and FGDATA. Within FGDATA, only aircraft not being part of the base package are not part of the feature freeze. Maintainers for those aircraft are kindly requested to carefully check not to update _any_ file outside their individual aircraft's root directory. In order to prepare building the first 2.8.0 release candidate(s), we have now updated the simgear/flightgear/fgdata version in the git repositories - to version 2.8.0. Note, the release candidate sources are still in the frozen next branches (master for fgdata). On July 17th we'll move 2.8.0 to a separate branch, reopen next for development and bump its version again (to 2.9.0). See: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Release_plan (The version change was pushed to sg/fg/fgdata consistently. If you get a version mismatch, make sure you have pulled all three repos, rebuilt and _installed_ sg + fg. If you still get a version mismatch, try a clean build - and _install_.) cheers, Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 Announcement text + Summary of ChangeLog
Okay, here is an updated announcement text: Thanks everybody for the comments / updates. In addition to those, I also fixed a few typos of my own and fixed some inconsistencies in Capitalization. A couple of replies to selected questions below: Chris Wilkinson wrote: but is there any progress towards getting shadows working? Reimplementation of those in my humble opninion would be the final layer of icing on an already very tasty cake As far as I know, Tim Moore has been working on laying the basis for this. I'm not sure what the exact status is at the moment. Heiko Schulz asked: How can we do that? So much as I know it isn't documented yet and still in work? Erik Hofman replied: Indeed, I haven't looked at that part yet. It is designed to allow easy addition of it though. I'm just wondering: Should I leave the referring sentence in the announcement, or does it need modification? Torsten Dreyer wrote: Just a tiny request: either associate each feature with the respective name or none. I'd prefer the latter. Agreed. The names were only used by way of annotation, as I was going through the log files. Cheers, Durk = FlightGear 2.0.0. reflects the maturation of the OpenSceneGraph port that started with the previous 1.9.0 release. In addition to many internal code improvements, FlightGear 2.0.0. marks the introduction of many new exciting improvements in the graphics and sound system, as well as improved usability of key features, and improved behavior of exsisting features. Highlights of this new version include: Dramatic new 3D clouds, dramatic lighting conditions, improved support for custom scenery, and many many new and detailed aircraft models. Sound * Complete overhaul of the sound code * doppler effects * distance attenuation * 3D positional sound sources * assignment of sound sources to external objects (i.e. AI controlled aircraft) * User selection of the sound device Visual Effects * Use of Shaders for dynamic textures * Use of Effects files * Improved 3D clouds * Color changes based on humidity and other weather effects allow for very dramatic lighting conditions * Dynamic water textures * Text animation based on OSGText Usability * Allow screenshots in more common file formats * User selectable sound device * More intuitive selection of the weather settings through the GUI and/or commandline Infrastructure * Airport geometry data can be read from the scenery, allowing for more flexible regeneration of terrain tiles Internals * Improved efficiency of the property tree * A more efficient ground cache * Many improvements to the route management code * Removed many compiler warnings * More realistic atmosphere model Behavior * More realistic ILS behavior * Autopilot improvements * A generic autobrake function * Winds over mountainous areas cause up- and downdrafts that can be used for gliding * More realistic behavior of the route manager * Wild fires, which can be extinquished by firefigher aircraft operating across the multplayer server * Navaid frequencies and radials can be transmitted to Atlas Utilities * A python script to visualize Yasim configuration files in Blender AI * Allow traffic departing and arriving at the same airport * Add Ground Vehicles - including automobiles, trucks, articulated trucks, trains (including high speed trains) * ATC interactions between AI aircraft and ground controllers * Performance characteristics of AI aircraft can be specified in a performance database * Push-back vehicles are available for a selected number of aircraft * Add escorts for AI carrier - frigates, guided missile cruiser, amphibious warfare ships now make up the Vinson Battle Group * Improved radar functionality - now detects AI escorts etc. * AI objects are now solid (i.e. users can collide with them) * Some preliminary support for SID/STAR procedures for AI aircraft -- SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace, Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Changelog for Release 2.8.0
Hi everybody, we are very close to our release date, just a few days left until we hopefully ship our latest-and-greates-ever FlightGear version. Please check the changelog at http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_2.8.0 and make sure every new feature is noted at a prominent place there. These are not only core features but also new/updated aircraft, scenery improvements, usability changes - whatever made FlightGear better since the last release. The changelog is often copied by online media and might help to attract new user, so please help creating a persuasive advertising for FlightGear 2.8.0! Thank you Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear prerelease
--- Durk Talsma wrote: To follow up on this: It seems like the initial testing round went pretty well, with mostly minor problems being reported, and many of them being fixed already. I'm hoping to roll up the tar files for the release itself this weekend. Is this just the final tarballs for the binary, or are you rolling up the data tarballs as well? I'd _really_ like to include a fix for the MP repeated chat, as it is unusable in it's current state and I have some enhancements as well, so a timescale for the data code-freeze would be good. I also need to coordinate with Martin Spott generating The Manual for inclusion in the release. To generate The Manual, I need a version number. To get a version number we need a decison! I think all the opinions are in, so I think Curt now needs to collate them and tell us what the result is. Of course, the opinions have been so varied that he can pretty much decide what he wants and convince us that the majority agree with him :) Finally, for those of us who have been developing exclusively on OSG for windows, it would be very useful to have a set of binaries available so we can test our aircraft on plib before the data tarball is created, and the 175 aircraft are uploaded to the website. -Stuart __ Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 2.0.0 release process: Update
- John Denker a écrit : 2) which aircraft to include ? That's a different question. I can't help with that. in data : cvs up -Pd -r V2_0_0B in source : make data-tar Or wait the release: official data and source tarballs will be released. -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery - album photo http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/ FlightGear Scenery Designer -- The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim bug fix that should be backported to FG 2.8.0
Am 20.07.2012 11:10, schrieb Anders Gidenstam: Given that there is some risk that the behaviour of carefully tuned flight models change I'd suggest we only update 2.9.0 and do not update 2.8.0 as it is late in its release cycle. Valid point. Can someone with more insight into the patch (Jon/Betrand...) judge whether the patch means a larger/noticeable change in a models flight behaviour? Has anyone observed any noticeable effect? The patch is currently in both trunks - but we can still back off with the release branch, if there's a problem/risk. And we certainly don't have time to adapt any aircraft FDMs for 2.8.0... cheers, Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The next FlightGear release (summer 2012)
Hi Torsten What are the plans now for apt.dat.gz and nav.dat.gz ? Will this prehistorical data files still be shipped with flightgear base package 2.8.0 ? As far as I understand flightgear is ready to read the newer formats and also the airport scenery tools are ready to use the newer formats. And there are some tendencies to keep this data out of the base package anyway and having a new organized data distribution (which is my favorite). I am still comparing 810 data with 850 data for some older airport work done by flightgear contributors. Once this task has finished I will send converted data to the xplane database to be integrated where it makes sense and where I couldn't find original contributor (some airports have already been updated meantime by xplane contributors, so it is necessary to compare every airport and decide which one has more advanced or better data). I think it is a good choice to go for the new data format even because contributors are asked to send their edits to robin peels xplane datacenter since many years. Unfortunately 810 xplane data format will not be updated anymore, so without roadmap for a change there is only the possibility to have a own flightgear data distribution, missing huge updates from the last couple of years probably. On the other hand some terrasynced scenery data will be out of data sync probably for some months with the change, but I guess this is the part which can be updated out of core release cycles and base package anyway. Cheers, Yves Am 02.06.2012 um 21:36 schrieb Torsten Dreyer tors...@t3r.de: Hi, in just a bit more than two weeks from now we reach June, 17th, marking the first milestone for the release of next FlightGear version: the feature freeze period. If you have some great and exciting new features for FlightGear on your local disc but not yet pushed the gitorious repository - now is the time! Two questions have to be discussed and answered until the release branches get created on July, 17th: 1) What's the version number of the new release? a) 2.8.0 b) 3.0.0 2) Which aircraft do we ship in the base package? a) just the c172 b) same as before c) [name your preferred aircraft] 3) Should we keep last year's commit policy for aircraft during the feature freeze? a) yes b) no Regards, Torsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] mp and animations
On Saturday 01 July 2006 18:05, Josh Babcock wrote: Is there some property that plane modelers can use to do LOD and turn off certain animations on aircraft that are being flown remotely? Planes like the bo105 with complex animations look pretty funny when they are not being flown locally, with doors missing, rotor blades all in one spot etc. It would be nice to have some property to key on and just present a low-LOD version of a plane when it is being viewed as a remote mp aircraft. I hoped that the bo105 will look correct with the current release? The network packets include as much additional properties as fit into the one udp packet. They just need to have a unique number assigned in FGMultiplayMgr::sIdPropertyList. For the LOD as such, that is a problem where we can stand help from the scenegraph. Did I already note that osg has built in support for Imposters? Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Could not open file: Segmentation fault;
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote: Hi Csaba, The patch you're proposing indeed saves us/me from the segfault due to a file not being present - which is definitely a good start. That was all I intended. If a file is missing it is a broken airplane config, the best we can do is exit gracefully. -- Csaba/Jester The C310 is one of the aircraft that - in the JSBSim cvs repository - is used for extensive testing of JSBSim operation. There is a need for an autopilot for the aircraft to be able to fly out the tests. The autopilot file is expected to be found in the same directory as the C310.xml file. However, at this time, there has been no work to hook up the autopilot commands in FlightGear to the relevant capabilities in the JSBSim C310, the way it stands in our CVS repository. So, the expected procedure would be to comment out or delete the relevant lines in the C310.xml file before issuing it to the FlightGear CVS repository. Then, the C310 would be controlled by the well-established FlightGear a/p and there would be no confusion. I should have commented out the few lines in the C310 config file that should be removed prior to placing it in a FlightGear release. Removing (commenting out using !-- ... --) the reference to the autopilot /autopilot element is a good start, and then subsequently commenting out any reference to properties that are named with an ap/ prefix should finish the job. These properties are defined in the autopilot file that has been commented out. Eventually, I think there will be a more graceful handling of this situation, which may include leaving in a full-featured a/p capability that is compatible with flightgear needs, and which would provide an alternative a/p if desired, but ignored if not referenced. Jon Jon S. Berndt Development Coordinator JSBSim Project www.JSBSim.org -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
