On Sunday, 9 November 2003 03:22, Norman Vine wrote:
This scheme may not be optimal but a square degree block even though it is
conceptually simple is far from optimal. Remember we are trying to tile a
sphere and squares don't work, esp. if you want anything approximating
an equal area
This still appears under the /models subdirectory.
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
They have mentioned FlightGear as a candidate simply for the reason that it
can be modified and changed to do whatever we want it to do. No restrictions
on functionality.
Yes, that's the advantage of open source. BTW, I have lately heard
people call Targetware and MSFS/CFS open source
We need some nice development tools.
In particular a full blown scenery editor that one can use to lay down 3D
objects (trees/buildings), taxiways, aprons, roads, rivers, etc.
If it's done in OpenGL then you can make it WYSIWYG.
Look at http://fgsd.sourceforge.net
-Fred
John Barrett writes:
Like to apologize to Curtis for the cvs commits using the cvsguest account
(though I didnt do the ones to the ATC code
That was me - I inadvertantly committed from the wrong tree.
Cheers - Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing
http://www.camelot-software.com/fgfs/fgmps.tar
Here is the patch and source files for the preliminary wire protocol
implementation -- comments and suggestions welcome -- untar in the directory
containing the FGFS source directory, apply the patch, autogen,
configure --with-multiserver, and make
John Barrett wrote:
At the moment, I'm planning to build in my own socket classes to handle the
net connections, as they are designed to handle multiple connections in a
polling environment -- unless someone can point me at existing code in FG /
SimGear / PLib thats up to handling multiple socket
John Barrett writes:
At the moment, I'm planning to build in my own socket classes to handle the
net connections, as they are designed to handle multiple connections in a
polling environment -- unless someone can point me at existing code in FG /
SimGear / PLib thats up to handling multiple
* Sarel Theron -- Sunday 09 November 2003 06:59:
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 23:14, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Sarel Theron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
slDSP: write: Resource temporaliry unavailable
[...]
Or use a recent version of plib/SimGear/FlightGear (if you don't already).
There was a bug
- Original Message -
From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLib/src/net is a 'reasonably' efficient implementation of using
polling in a multiple connection environment :-)
The 'loop' is in netChanel.cxx
SimGear sockets and are built ontop of PLib/Net as is the FGFS
http server,
John Barrett writes:
From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLib/src/net is a 'reasonably' efficient implementation of using
polling in a multiple connection environment :-)
Guess I have enuf to do the server framework and initial handshake between
client and server
Might want to ask any
John Barrett wrote:
Here is the patch and source files for the preliminary wire protocol
implementation -- comments and suggestions welcome
This sounds fun, so I grabbed it and had a peek. One bug report in
messagebuf.cxx, which has some code that I can't figure out:
void
- Original Message -
From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation
John Barrett wrote:
Here is the patch and source files
- Original Message -
From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation
John Barrett writes:
From: Norman Vine [EMAIL
Paul Surgeon writes:
I wonder if TerraGear does automatic texture scaling based on
lattitude ...
Yes.
Regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org
Minnesota
John Barrett writes:
Like to apologize to Curtis for the cvs commits using the cvsguest account
(though I didnt do the ones to the ATC code -- just the configure.ac,
src/Makefile.am, src/Main/Makefile.am, and the src/Server directory)
I should apologize too for inadvertantly leaving the cvs
Paul Surgeon writes:
On Friday, 7 November 2003 02:58, David Megginson wrote:
What release is it? The 172 changed a release or two ago.
0.9.3 - The one with the nice ready to run Windows installer.
It's the 172 with the 3D cockpit and nice yellow tints on the wings. :)
I would run it
Jim Wilson writes:
Recently I aquired a copy of the latest MSFS. It's the first I've
bought since MS took it over from SubLogic! (No I haven't gone
crazy and joined the other side. It was USED and very cheap so my
rational was it would not put money directly into the pockets of the
Norman Vine writes:
Paul Surgeon writes:
I hope FG doesn't tie textures to every single polygon in the scenery files.
(faster rendering because the calculations don't have to be done at render
time but larger scenery files because of all the texture co-ords tied to the
vertices)
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I figured your changes would eventually return through proper channels
so I just left that in for now.
If you want me submitting patches, I will need the correct procedure
for creating patches. I havent had any luck
Paul Surgeon writes:
Obviously FG supports alpha channels in textures used for 3D objects like
trees but is the same true for ground textures?
Yes, that should be supported. It's more a function of the texture,
not where/how it is drawn.
i.e. Can FG do multitexturing (blend two textures
Jonathan Richards writes:
What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simulate* the
real world
and aviation in it. The landscapes and the airports are realistic, the
weather is (can be made) realistic, the celestial objects are realistic, the
flight dynamics themselves are
I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
practicing ILS approaches in my C172 at my local airport.
I guess there ought to be an explicit
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
practicing ILS approaches
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ??
(i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the
multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you would
never see the ordinance)
That sounds reasonable. I would add the
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ??
(i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the
multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but
you would
never see the ordinance)
That sounds reasonable. I would add
- Original Message -
From: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option on the
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option on
On Sunday 09 November 2003 21:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ??
(i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the
multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you
would
never
- Original Message -
From: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On Sunday 09 November 2003 21:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
Though actually -- a single master server could handle all the position
updates without that much trouble given the update limiter code and headless
(no opengl display) operation -- offload the airport and regional ATC to
stand alone apps that interface
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
If each client instance specified I'm only interested in events which
happen within 20deg of my current position (use a square around current
lat/lon offset by the range specified, rather than circular) -- should be
Yeah, it's certainly a much faster
- Original Message -
From: Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
If each client
Curtis L. Olson writes:
If you are running low on video ram, enlarging the window can kill
your performance (due to needing to reallocate and shuffle ram.) You
can try starting with the window maximized and see if that works.
There's also a problem with the NVIDIA drivers on some systems,
John Barrett writes:
If each client instance specified I'm only interested in events which
happen within 20deg of my current position (use a square around current
lat/lon offset by the range specified, rather than circular) -- should be
very fast for the server to do that check before
- Original Message -
From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
John Barrett writes:
If each client instance specified
This may be one for Erik ...
I am using FG 0.9.3 CVS version.
I have compiled fltk and fgrun on SuSE8.2 and both
seemed to go fine.I compiled both with --with-x and --with threads.
On running fgrun I get the following message in the console
linux:~ # fgrunX_DestroyWindow: BadWindow
On Sunday 09 November 2003 22:23, John Barrett wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
- Original Message -
From: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I read your later post after I'd sent that:) I agree that the server
operator choosing the type of world is a good idea.
However, there's potential for quite a wide range of realistic scenarios
including elements of both
John Barrett writes:
Norman Vine writes
Please - remember FGFS is not a flat earth system
whatever works -- if the computation gets too intense, it can always be
handled periodically (every 60-120 seconds perhaps) and keep a list of
entities for which we are interested in their
Could you describe the --headless option (Phase 1 changes)?
Sounds a little like what I'm trying to get Flightgear to do.
/
/I was hoping to have multiple airplanes (each controlled by an individual program), each being updated
once per video render instead of having independent execution
- Original Message -
From: Michael Matkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 12:07 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
Could you describe the --headless option (Phase 1 changes)?
Sounds a little like what I'm
42 matches
Mail list logo
