James Turner wrote: > On 17 Feb 2009, at 00:49, Curtis Olson wrote: > > >> At one point I think I recall that we had a variant of the C172 with >> a working GPS installed in the instrument panel. I don't see that >> any more now. Does anyone recall if we had such a thing and know >> where it can be found? >> > > I presume you're referring to Dave Luff's KLN89b code. This worked in > the 0.9 / 1.0 era, and while no-one has actively broken it (indeed, > myself and Tim Moore at least have done various pieces of work solely > to keep it alive), I regard it as unmaintained and unused code. Every > time I've asked here or on the forums about people using it, I get a > negative response. > > In the medium term, my plan is to completely replace the KLN89 code > with the generic GPS instrument (combined with an extended route- > manager) but that's a six-month or more project, and stalled until the > second week of March. > > So for the moment, there is no explicit reason (that I'm aware) of why > the KLN89 doesn't appear in the C172, but I would expect some > (hopefully minor) issues with getting it to work as originally designed. > > James > >
Hi Curt, James, Yes, at one point the KLN89b worked in the 2D C172 panel, but I've heard that's it's now broken. I guess there was a kind of negative feedback loop acting there - as a result of the work I was doing on FG, I got the offer of a coding job at a GPS company, which left me without the time to now work on FG. I'm on holiday today with the kids, but they've gone to their friends and it's raining outside, so I can post emails today though. The code was a very faithful simulation of the KLN89b, based on the downloadable simulator from the manufacturer, about 3/4s finished, including the capability to do non-precision approaches, limited only by the availability of data. If a true-to-life representation of an actual aviation GPS unit is desired in FG then it would a shame to chuck it, since it's probably the best shot at getting one (all the later models are much more complex). Obviously, if no-one's bothered about having that capability, then it's a lot of code to have lying about. I definitely won't be returning to the ATC/AI code or the Taxidraw editor in any meaningful way - there's just too much stuff there and it's too open ended to ever finish, but the KLN89 is probably limited enough in scope, with a definite finish point, that I could be motivated to finish it in the evenings if it's still wanted. At the moment I can't get 3D accel working on my linux box with my GF3 and the latest kernel, so I guess I'll try a windows compile. Would I be correct in assuming that the osg branch is now the main branch, and the way to go? Cheers - Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
