> IIRC windows requires commandline arguments (or parts thereof) > to be quoted.
Thanks John, I added localhost and indeed the program opens the channel. Maybe I will add some input- checking on this when I get more experience. I solved the problem with the parameter (Removal of '=' character) by simply hard coding into the runfgfs.bat file. Windows 2000 cannot work with parameters any more.......... Now I wanted to take a look at the property list. When I look with Telnet on port 5500, Telnet states it is connected but the screen stays black ? Do I have to do something more ? kind regards > > 3) I wondered if a so-called mib browser could be used to investigate > the signals from port 5500. In this way making graphs of signals etc. > would be very easy. For example > http://www.mg-soft.si/ (free mib browser). In order to work out the > protocol on port 5500 should be SNMP. > > > kind regards > > > Marcel Wittebrood ADSE > _________________________ > ADSE Consultancy and Engineering B.V. > Tel. +31 (0) 23 554 2255 > Fax +31 (0) 23 557 1069 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Website http://www.adse.nl > P.O.Box 3083 > 2130 KB Hoofddorp > Saturnusstraat 12 > 2132 HB Hoofddorp > The Netherlands > > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --__--__-- Message: 10 From: David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:33:00 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: ..why C++ and not C?, was: [Flightgear-devel] View Oddity Between MagicCarpet and JSBSim Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arnt Karlsen writes: > ..why _is_ FG written in C++ and not C? I'm going to limit myself to one public posting in this thread and will send any further responses offline. I very much doubt that I would be contributing to FlightGear if it were written in C rather C++. I wrote my first large (>10K lines) C program in 1987-88, so this is not from lack of experience. I've noticed in working on large projects for customers that large applications are 2-5 times as fast to develop and debug in Java as in C++, and about 2-5 times as fast to develop and debug in C++ as in C. I'd love to do FlightGear in Java (framerate be damned), but since I get little support, I can settle for C++. You *can* write and debug a large application in C, but it's unnecessarily hard -- just look at Gnome and GTK, which end up reinventing most of C++ in non-standard syntax, to see how ugly things can get. Big programs have to be object-oriented one way or another -- either you use C++'s standard way of doing it, or you reinvent the wheel in C with some goofy macro-based stuff. Note how C-based Gnome development procedes at a snail's pace next to C++-based KDE (I use and like Gnome, but I won't code against it), and Linux kernel development isn't all that fast these days either. Finally, while there may be more C programmers than C++ programmers, the C programmers would have to be very, very good to keep FlightGear from melting down into a formless blob while the C++ programmers need only average skill. In the end, I think we end up with a bigger talent pool this way. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] --__--__-- Message: 11 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:56:27 -0000 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] View Oddity Between MagicCarpet and JSBSim From: "Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I think the doc above is out-of-date. The offsets can be controlled w/ > these properties: > > ****************** > $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/beech99/Models/uiuc/beech99/beech99-model.xml > ****************** > <?xml version="1.0"?> > > <PropertyList> > > <path>beech99.ac</path> > > <offsets> > <z-m>-.2</z-m> > <x-m>-.6</x-m> > <pitch-deg>0</pitch-deg> > </offsets> > Ummm..it isn't out of date (it's only a couple of weeks old). This is exactly what the doc says to do. > Pertaining to the question about where the target spot is located, i.e. > what the viewer code uses as the "reference point" for centering the model > on the screen. This point should be the aircraft c.g. The reason is that > it is about this point that the FDM's define the aircraft orientation, and > I presume that it is this orientation information that the viewer code uses > to position the aircraft/view. For external views, the center should not > be the pilot's eye. > The viewer does absolutely nothing...nada...with the model position. Now that doesn't mean the FDM's aren't getting values indirectly from the viewer, but they shouldn't and won't be very soon. The viewer only defines the eye position and direction of view. Look at Model/model.cxx and Main/location.cxx to see how model positioning is done. This document describes how to configure the viewer: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/fgfs-viewer-howto.html > If the viewer code used the FDM reference point at the tail in this case, > then the tail would be centered on the screen and the aircraft would > rotate about this point --- obviously looking and being very wrong. Well, it'd probably look just like an aircraft with a center of gravity in the tail :-) Best, Jim --__--__-- Message: 12 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:06:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] problem making simgear Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boslough, Mark B writes: > That was the problem. Thanks guys. > I built the current cvs version of simgear > and flightgear with plib 1.4.2, and everything > seems to work. Is it true that the cvs version of > flightgear always use the most recent stable verion of > plib? Or is the cvs version of plib sometimes used? Right now FlightGear/SimGear works with plib-1.4.0 and higher. The cvs version of plib has some features and fixes that flightgear can use to improve sound and visuals in certain ways. So, I guess the answer is that FlightGear/SimGear works with which ever versions we say it works with. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org --__--__-- Message: 13 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:21:43 -0000 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] View Oddity Between MagicCarpet and JSBSim From: "Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > IMHO You need two (2) CG's. > > 1) the 'reference' < static > CG usually determined from manufacturer > specs or something similar for use in FGFS for reference purposes. > > 2) The 'actual' < dynamic > CG of the aircraft, as determined by vehicle > loading for use in the FDM > > Think of (1) above as the 'local origin' of the aircraft frame and think > geometry not gravity. Yes that is correct. If the positon and orientation data as published by the FDM's are based on a center of gravity that moves, then the models would move with it since the model origin is being positioned at the lon/lat/alt reported by the FDM. That said, I would suspect that movement in the center of gravity for a given aircraft would not affect the altitude reference very much (during flight and on the runway) and the tiny shift in lon/lat position would be hardly noticable. Best, Jim --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel End of Flightgear-devel Digest _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
