On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
>> Maybe we should consider moving to a different OpenSource scenery
>> package.
>
> I'd be happy to read a more elaborate statement of what you're having
> in mind. What is the term "scenery package" supposed to mean ?
An Open-Source package i
Maybe we should consider moving to a different OpenSource scenery
package. Nothing met our needs in the late 1990s, but I'm sure
they've progressed since then.
David
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Peter Morgan wrote:
> Is there a begginers guide ?
> I've been down this path before got stuck w
It's been a long time, but in addition to any issues with your
altimeter setting I *think* I might have added code ~8 years ago to
simulate the effect of temperature on altimeter readings. In real
life, even if you have exactly the correct altimeter setting for the
ground below you, and the altime
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, syd adams wrote:
> This is news to me. Which instrument models the drift ? I thought none did ,
> so I created a nasal gyro
> that drifts at 3 degrees/15 minutes for my own use. Apparently I haven't
> looked close enough at the instrument code .
After I got my PP
our machine.
- FlightGear has been around for 14 years of active development!
Regards,
Curt.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:39 PM, James Sleeman wrote:
>
> On 23/04/10 08:44, David Megginson wrote:
> > Easy to set up for the command line, so you can l...
--
We actually try to emulate the aircraft's systems (vacuum, pitot,
static, electrical, etc.), so failure modes are much more realistic.
Instruments update more realistically, with suitable lags and other errors.
MSFS X has improved its flight models, but in general, I still find
that both JSBSim a
All the Cessna 172's I've seen have had protruding rivets, but the
heads don't stick out much, and the paint smooths out the edges to the
point that they're just gentle bumps -- a 172's wing doesn't look like
a steam boiler.
IIRC, the Mooney has countersunk rivets, which is why it can go so fast.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
> It is already removed from CVS. It's just a matter of running cvs up -Pd
> to also remove it from your local repository.
I always do cvs -z3 update -d -P, but when I replied, I hadn't checked
to see if it was still on my machine (it's not).
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> What I wonder- if David Megginson gave permission- why we have now the same
> aircraft with two different models in CVS? One named "j3cub" and one named
> "Cub".
No, pull the old one. It was a lot of fun to
Cool, but wouldn't it make sense to support common portable aviation
GPS's first? As far as smartphone-type-things go, it's hard to get
any wireless coverage in the air (they started blocking upward
transmission about 3-4 years ago), and the iPad is so big it would
block most of the primary instru
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> Your card or driver advertise support of geometry shader but doesn't
>> behave correctly with them. If the extension wasn't supported, the
>> effect would have fallbacked to technique number 9 that doesn't use
>> them.
>>
>> I think there
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Peter Brown wrote:
> I see. So that brings us back to magnetic vs true, as I was originally
> referring to. But, that's somewhat irrevelant as it _appears_ the mpmap is
> sourcing the data from the actual runway placement. My opinion is there
> should be an d
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Peter Brown
wrote:
> David, yes, as I have as well. The localizer for 33 as you listed above is
> on a 326 heading per the approach plate, but the mpmap shows ILS data as the
> runway heading in degrees - as if for users to use as the ILS data. I'm not
> sure
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Peter Brown
wrote:
> Perhaps this has been brought up before, but I see that the ILS "beam" data
> for each airport on the mpmap is derived from the runway alignment (as
> verified in taxidraw). This doesn't allow for magnetic deviation, and
> therefore all th
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> I have just commited the add-on from the forum user gooneybird to the CVS-
> data. If you enable the balloon_demo scenario in your preferences.xml, you
> should see some balloons ahead of you aircraft after starting FlightGear.
> They get
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> I presume it's the geometry shader support that is causing this. Try to
> disable technique number 8 in landmass.eff
> regards,
That was it -- no crash after commenting it out. Is it likely a
problem with my graphics card driver, or the
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Peter Brown wrote:
> In terms of simplicity, I would like to offer a suggestion of using one (or
> more) of the parking positions at airports with (current) parking positions.
> If the user spawns at an airport without any preset parking positions, a
> position
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, James Turner wrote:
> My concern is touching the dreaded position init code, which is already
> baroque and complex. There's also the question of guessing a parking position
> when we don't have parking stand data - eg picking a point some distance away
> from t
When I enable landmass effects in a FlightGear binary built from
today's CVS (and using today's base package), my entire computer
freezes and I can reboot only by cutting power. Urban effects still
work, however.
With a binary built from the March 13 CVS, I can enable landmass
effects -- still usi
I temporarily moved my .fgfsrc file and .fgfs/ directory to see what a
new user sees on first startup, and I think what's there is not the
best idea (unless there's still some local configuration that I'm
missing):
1. it's normal to have a plane sitting on the runway threshold with
the engine idli
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Pete Morgan wrote:
> I've packed it up in a slide show. Here's the results.
> http://flightgear.daffodil.uk.com/slide_shows/
Excellent! Thanks.
David
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio
I noticed this TODO issue on the Piper Warrior wiki page
(http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Piper_Cherokee_Warrior_II):
"flaps are moving in steps, they are not fluxional animated"
This is true, but might also be a bit confusing. Flap movements do
appear almost instantaneous on a PA-28 compar
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Pete Morgan wrote:
> Fanstastic.. had a wuick look and its cool.
>
> Can I please lift the page and format it as a slideshow ?
All yours -- consider it public domain. It might be worth capturing
screenshots with newer 3D models and scenery, though.
I wrote that
Here's one that I wrote back in 2002:
http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/Tutorials/circuit/index.html
All the best,
David
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Pete Morgan wrote:
> Problem I got with newbies..
>
> Is there a simple set of instruction we can create (and laminate) of ::
>
> how to take
Wow -- looks amazing! I wonder what that would do to my framerate
with my laptop's poor little ATI HD 3200 card?
All the best,
David
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Vivian Meazza
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lauri Peltonen and I have been working on a reflection effect:
>
> ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre2.org.
Very nice work! I remember when all land cover in FlightGear (other
than runways) was desert -- not sure why Curt picked a desert texture
(I think it had something to do with Prescott, AZ). Next, we were
able to separate land (always forest) from water. It's come a long
way since then.
All the
don't remember for certain, and I
don't know what FlightGear is using now.
All the best,
David
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Slocombe wrote:
> On Sunday 2010-03-28 David Megginson wrote:
>> Now, quite a few years later, the Great Lakes are still
>> broken in ou
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> In the meantime we've made a polygon set to seamlessly fill The Great
> Lakes Void - which is likely going to address the issue you've
> mentioned. But there are still a few other places which are presumably
> affected by the same cause (Casp
When I originally added ground-use support to TerraGear many years
ago, the Canada/US Great Lakes worked fine: we simply treated the
water as a special ground use, used the DEM to get the elevation,
clipped it against the VMAP0 coastlines, and for good measure, Curt
had written code to average out
Looks fantastic!
David
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> visible. Now I think I managed to get it right with 3d objects. See :
>> http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs-city-relief-4.jpg
>
> Even more impressive!
>
> Erik
>
> ---
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 9:41 PM, John Denker wrote:
> There was a bug reported under the Subject:
> [Flightgear-devel] Setting OBS on command line/.fgfsrc
> a couple of weeks ago ... but it only affected nav1 IIRC.
> And it had nothing to do with magnetic variation IIRC.
Perhaps not, but try th
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:22 PM, James Turner wrote:
> There's another bug (in 2.0.0) to do with the GPS interaction with the nav[0]
> selected radial - I must say I've assumed all problems with --nav1 options
> misbehaving are ultimately caused by this bug, but it sounds as if you think
> the
the heading now
sets the azimuth to a VOR or airport, and may also set the selected
radial on a VOR). I used to help a lot with this stuff, but I don't
think I have the energy now.
All the best,
David
> Curt.
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM, David Megginson wrote:
>>
It's actually even more confusing than that: the initial value seems
to depend on whether the --vor option is selected, what the heading
is, etc.
All the best,
David
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:09 PM, David Megginson
wrote:
> There's a bug in the /instrumentation/nav/radials
There's a bug in the /instrumentation/nav/radials/selected-deg
property: the code mistakenly assumes that the selected radial is in
true degrees, but isn't a bearing -- it's just a number. You could
design a VOR where radial 180 was north of the VOR, if you wanted to
(though usually it's close to
I'd like to encourage everyone to put properties where they would
belong in real life -- I took a look at the properties for the nav
radio, and they gave me a bit of a headache.
Think of what a nav radio and indicator do and don't know in real life:
Does know:
- what frequency is tuned in on the
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> I noticed the same problem with roads and 3d buildings -- they're
>> floating above the city. Is it possible to make the bump maps go up
>> instead of down?
>
> In Shaders/urban.frag, change line 57 :
>
> vec2 dp = gl_TexCoord[0]
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> First of all: That's a really cool eye candy, good work!
Seconded. This is the coolest addition I've seen to FlightGear in a long time.
> What I noticed from a close up is, that it seems that the floor of the
> "buildings" is below eleva
This kind of thing happens sometimes -- not much we can do unless we
want to spend tens of thousands of $$ going to court, so there's no
point getting stressed. I did go to Google Sidewiki and leave a
comment on the page, so that anyone using the Google toolbar or a
sidewiki add-on in their browse
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Wel,, I would see this as a bug, if the frontside with the letter can't be
> read then anymore. But your pics shows it can bes till, it is just the
> backside which changes the color.
>
> Not a serious bug or showstopper for
FWIW, when
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:22 PM, syd adams wrote:
> I could probably get a decent yasim FDM built , but someone else would have
> to do a JSB fdm , I still dont know what Im doing when it comes to jsbsim .
JSBSim works best when you already have aircraft data (derivatives,
etc.) and want to stic
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> From time to time people mention that our j3cub model in FlightGear is
> rather simplistic and dated by today's standards. It was a nice model for
> the time when it was built, and it still flies great, but visually it hasn't
> been updated
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:27 PM, syd adams wrote:
> Ive switched back to the generic adf for the time being , I hadn't noticed
> the kr-87 problem before . I also tried settiing the adf-btn to true in the
> set file , but apparently that gets overridden .
> I guess a quick fix would be to set the
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:15 PM, syd adams wrote:
> Actually I think it might be a problem with kr-87.cxx , but I havent quite
> sorted that out yet ... as far as the ADF needle goes .
>
> Even with power , it doesnt appear to come alive until you toggle the ADF
> button on the radio .
If you pu
Wow!
David
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> What do you think of this effect :
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUyH-4c0-qM
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYb1Vy-uTS0
>
> and a screenshot : http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs-shader-test.jpg
>
> Regards,
> -Fred
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:10 PM, syd adams wrote:
> Its already pretty easy to point the section to a different
> instrument , and the one Im currently working on , Im creating several panel
> files with different layouts that can be selected in the set file , but I'd
> hate to see instruments b
Something I'd love to see, in the long term, is a GUI that allows
users to customize their panels, just like real aircraft owners do. I
could decide to install a different brand of TC (the default late
1970s Cessna 172P now has a vintage 1950s needle and ball instead of a
TC -- cool, but what's up
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ron Jensen wrote:
>> I still support the idea common shared directories idea for such things as
>> instruments
> This is a nice, happy thought. But in the real world it hasn't worked
> out so well. Since we model such a huge variety of aircraft, and
> differe
On 19/12/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On mer 19 décembre 2007, Pavel T wrote:
> > Hello Flightgear Developer(s),
> > I was thinking of this idea and I thought you might like it.
> > You might have guessed already by the subject of the e-mail. I was thinking
> > of maybe someone
On 02/12/2007, Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mentioned the "5" key only as an example. I am not proposing to put a filter
> on that command.
In general, then, as others have mentioned, this belongs in the flight
models rather than the input layer. The input layer *requests* a
On 02/12/2007, John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In real life, in a small airplane, if I decide to stomp on the
> rudder pedal, the rudder is going to move real fast. The
> realistic time scale is not long compared to 1/30th of a
> second i.e. the inverse frame rate. That is to say, any
>
On 02/12/2007, Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think moving a control surface, like for example the rudder, from full left
> deflection to rull right deflection in an instant is unrealistic. To make
> this more realistic I think we should put in a low pass filter somewhere in
> th
On 28/11/2007, Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given this, we don't need to worry any more about MS patents than we did
> before the announcement, i.e. hardly at all. All the I/O stuff they've
> announced
> is already present in FG.
Software patents have no force in Canada in any ca
The Economist once had an article suggesting (I'm not sure how
seriously) that languages like German or Japanese could be a
competitive advantage precisely because they're not widely spoken. In
an international business meeting, English speakers have no language
to switch to for a private discussi
On 14/11/2007, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * David Megginson -- Wednesday 14 November 2007:
> > I think you've just made FlightGear into Emacs.
>
> I detest emacs. The script is inspired by vi! :-P
Now you're making me n
On 14/11/2007, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a more sophisticated and useful toy:
>
> http://members.aon.at/mfranz/keyboard.nas [5.0 kB]
>
> It is started with the '/'-key and then waits for the input of a
> property path, optionally followed by "=" or "?":
Gott im Himmel!
On 09/11/2007, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... f there are general objections (from DC-3 users?) I can
> swap the two around so that tailwheel lock goes back to 'l'.
>
> Let me know what you think.
There doesn't seem to be a consensus ar
On 12/11/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> probably i misunderstood the rule, didn't you modify cvs before getting
> decision about *what* functions need keybindings.
I promised to put it back if there were objections -- there were, and
I plan to put it back, but I can't connect to
On 12/11/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean wait and see ?
No, just that it makes sense to decide *what* functions need
keybindings before we decide *where* to bind them. Have you had a
chance to edit the wiki page yet?
All the best,
David
-
On 12/11/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to say first which mains features will not have an
> official KEY dedicated ?
I think it's shorter to decide which ones *will* have an official key
dedicated -- that's what the list is for.
All the best,
David
---
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far. Just to get back on
track, we have to start by seeing if we can come up with a short,
priority list of stuff that's (a) applicable to most aircraft, and (b)
important enough to have a key assignment. We can decide exactly what
those key assignments w
This is a good discussion that we've started. Way back when, we
didn't have menus (or scripting), so every function had to be
accessible from the keyboard (and all the assignments were hard-coded
in C++ to boot).
I think that we need to take a few steps:
1. Come up with a prioritized list of fun
On 10/11/2007, dave perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just looked at the changes in cvs. There is a significant problem
> with at least this implementation of one "key" to turn on all the lights
> for all AC. There is no standard followed for how to implement nasal
> electrical systems. The
On 10/11/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can notice the update has been done , before we could give any opinion on
> the topic.
> Does it mean , that there is not any other alternative, and the CHOICE is that
> way nothing else :) :) :)
>From my original message:
I just moved
On 10/11/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A stupid question:
>
> Why is it necessary to have a key for lights, isn't it a cockpit feature with
> hotspot, and switch ?
Switches are hard to find, especially (a) if you're not a real pilot,
or (b) if you're not familiar with the aircra
I just moved tailwheel-lock from lowercase 'l' to uppercase 'L', and
reassigned lowercase 'l' to toggle lighting (for easy night starts
without searching for switches). I assigned lighting to the lowercase
'l' because I think it would be much more commonly used than tailwheel
lock, but if there ar
On 15/04/2006, Ron Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do have libopenal-dev installed as well as libopenal? It should
> work. I got it to compile under sarge two weeks ago...
libalut-dev has just been spun off into a separate package, at least
in Ubuntu, so you have to install it as well.
On 03/11/2007, Vivian Meazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I said before, but perhaps you didn't notice, we already have a force
> based system working on the input of pilot g. It moves the pilot's eye
> position according to this input. And as Melchior pointed out, we probably
> need to stabili
On 03/11/2007, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should do something similar for planes. Of course, this is
> still configurable per aircraft, too. Just not via properties,
> but by defining a Nasal handler. I'll review that.
>
> And again: I appreciate suggestions for improvements or
On 03/11/2007, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * David Megginson -- Saturday 03 November 2007:
> > I wasn't looking at any NASAL code. Is the NASAL code enabled
> > by default?
>
> While you were away, we got support for automatically saving GUI
>
On 03/11/2007, Vivian Meazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Melchior said, the head-shake mechanism does indeed regard the head as a
> mass and a (damped) spring, but it's a bit more sophisticated than that -
> the resistance of the neck muscles are modelled as well.
Which is enabled by default -
On 03/11/2007, Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at videos taken by passengers , you can certainly see these forces
> ... and as a passenger , I have definately sunk in my seat ( no head
> springs involved ), so I still use it myself ...
Yes, that's much more realistic, and in
On 03/11/2007, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure if you are talking about "dynamic view", but this *isn't*
> supposed to change the view based on physical forces. The first
> three lines in $FG_ROOT/Nasal/dynamic_view.nas are:
>
> # Dynamic Cockpit View manager. Tries to simul
I think it's great that FlightGear added head lag to the sim -- it's a
good alternative when the pilot can't feel forces -- but I think we'd
do better to model it based on perceived forces, not on roll/yaw/pitch
damping. For example, simply entering a coordinated bank gently
shouldn't cause any hea
On 01/11/2007, Sergey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as FlightGear moves to osg there is a nice virtual terrain project which is
> integrates with osg.
> The site for the project is http://www.vterrain.org/ and some papers are
> here http://www.vterrain.org/LOD/Papers/.
Excellent. It looks like a
On 01/11/2007, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... we should concentrate on aircraft models
> > and flight dynamics, and try to interface with an existing engine.
> That depends on where your interests lie, I suppose.
By "we", I meant the Flightgear project, not the individuals in it.
On 31/10/2007, Christian Buchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to get a few pointers where to look for information about the
> terrain engine that is currently used by
> Flight Gear. In particular about the irregular terrain mesh - how is it
> created (at runtime or offline) and how do
On 25/10/2007, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can adjust it in flight if you bind some keys to the trim
> > properties, but it would be pretty unrealistic -- I doubt that any J3
> > Cub has ever had rudder or aileron trim.
>
> Or have a joystick.
Actually, the J3 does use a stick i
On 25/10/2007, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks! You mention the nonadjustable rudder and aileron trim - is
> that nonadjustable in theory only or does flightgear also enforce
> this? If not, can it be made to? It wasn't clear from the j3cub.xml
> file.
You can adjust it in flight i
Since I came back to FlightGear a few weeks ago, I've flown the J3 Cub
mainly with the mouse (for short breaks from work), so I hadn't
noticed how badly out of trim the plane has been flying. I've just
checked in changes to fix the (non-adjustable) rudder and aileron trim
to get rid of the strong
On 25/10/2007, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if it is really that hard to see the compass in the real
> plane. Maybe so, but combined with the small size and the various
> reasons why it's hard to make out the magnetic compass in FG even at
> regular size I have to think maybe i
On 25/10/2007, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be possible to change the default position for the j3cub to
> sitting in the front seat instead of the back seat? That would make
> the instruments (especially the compass) actually readable. Maybe have
> a second -set file for back s
On 12/10/2007, AnMaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe add tow truck to flightgear? I wouldn't want to pull an English
> Electric Lightning for example
> (would it even be possible?)
It's fun to see the variety of tow vehicles at airports. For
airliners, of course, there are the white tugs
On 12/10/2007, gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only one generic property switch is necessary.
> We must only, all together decide which name and where (/sim/ ??)
[snip]
> For instance looking at one of my model
>
> to have the right flying conditions, i need:
>
> Canopy => Down
> Wi
On 12/10/2007, drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have my .fgfsrc file set up so I start on the run-up area just off the main
> runway at KSFO:
>
> --lat=37.612451
> --lon=-122.357858
> --heading=026
>
> so I have the time to do pre-flight checks (and explore the cockpit and
> README's of new and
On 12/10/2007, Vivian Meazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can have your aircraft any way you want, but don't force it on other
> designers without some real thought. Start the Spitfire and forget to zero
> the throttle, you will start on your nose. That doesn't give a good
> impression to newc
On 12/10/2007, dave perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Welcome back. I am the one that made all the changes to the Warrior.
> Starting directions and keyboard switch equivalents are under the help
> menu-Aircraft help, just like with the pa24-250. It was after you had
> commented on how you like
On 12/10/2007, AnMaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I prefer starting with engine off (and not at threshold) so why not add
> support for starting
> somewhere else than end of runway? Starting at the gate for example (makes
> sense for 787 but not for
> the warrior) or in a hangar (if such exis
On 11/10/2007, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't the only plane that starts in cold configuration. I think
> it would be best to be consistent - either leave it up to the plane
> designer in every case (I believe in this case at least it was a
> conscious decision on the part of t
As I mentioned earlier, the Warrior model is looking great. However,
because it was starting with the engine and fuel off and the brakes
on, it took a while to get started (and wasn't realistic sitting on
the threshold with the engine off), and I don't think it was possible
to do an in-air start,
On 08/10/2007, Jon S. Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are two gains that come into play. One is from FlightGear (0.0 to 1.0,
> as Dave M. pointed out), and the one eventually sent to JSBSim, which is in
> ft/sec. It looks like the one set in JSBSim can vary from 0.0 to 100.0
> ft/sec. Th
On 08/10/2007, Jon S. Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know what typical values are for these two properties:
>
> /environment/turbulence/magnitude-norm
> /environment/turbulence/rate-hz
>
> The fact that the first property is named magnitude-norm (emphasis on the
> *norm*) makes me
On 07/10/2007, Jon S. Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked at the configuration file for the Seneca II in flightgear cvs. It
> appears to me (at least given the quick glance I took) that adverse aileron
> yaw (Cnda) is turned off - the data is all zeros.
I'm not sure about the exact deriv
On 05/10/2007, Bohnert Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doe any body have a picture of the VOR at KSFO? I have not been able to
> find one.
Here it is from the top:
http://maps.google.com/?q=37.619,-122.375&ie=UTF8&ll=37.619494,-122.373772&spn=0.000935,0.002103&t=k&z=19&om=1
All the best,
On 05/10/2007, drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. I've actually had the "pleasure" of pushing a crate with a shonky donk
> back to the hanger.
There is an alternative, sometimes. If the plug isn't completely dead
but just misfiring a lot, you can often clear the lead by doing a
high-power, l
On 05/10/2007, drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In "real life" flying of the Cessna 172/152/150, you run the engine up to 1700
> rpm then check the health of each ignition system by switching off the left
> then right magnetos in turn and watch for a corresponding drop in rpm
> (typically 50-75 r
What are the issues with OSG around dynamic scenery (trees, non-static
randomly-placed buildings, 3D clouds, etc.)? Is it just a matter of
spending a few hours coding, or is there something in the OSG APIs
that makes dynamically-generated scenery difficult?
All the best,
David
---
On 19/09/2007, Heiko Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastian Bechthold is working on that- he is working
> about a implemention of an "object placer" which
> automatic places buildings to right textures/
> materials. If there is a town, so there are buildings
> depending of it is industrial
On 19/09/2007, Durk Talsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Welcome back and thanks for the compliments! As for versions: No, there isn't
> a 1.0 in sight yet, but I'm currently trying to help Curt in getting ready
> for a new release soon. This will be a plib based release, called 0.9.1[1].
I didn't
I have a new notebook (an HP TX1220, which is a stunningly beautiful
machine), and decided to try compiling the latest CVS osg FlightGear
instead of using the old precompiled plib version from the Ubuntu
distro. Here are some comments:
1. Wow! The program is looking great. It was a very nice su
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
