Re: [Flightgear-devel] Boost problems
Erik Hofman wrote: clib is new to me too, but I'm no irix expert. My guess is that it provides cstdlib style headers which was reported as a problem by Erik. STLport appears the way to go though. While I agree that STLPort may be a good thing, I'm a bit worried about the fact that there are a *lot* of IRIX related fixes in the code, end we may need even more fixes to support STLPort (also). I'll take a look at both clib and STLport and see what might be best. STLport is no option. I would need the latest MipsPro compiler from SGI (for about $750,-). I havn't found clib anywhere. I'm lost now. :-( Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
Norman Vine writes: all figures are for at rest no HUD or Panel Default location at Noon Brakes on MingW32 compiled on Win2k Geforce2 GTS No model shown ie. View[0] March 16 ~78 fps last week ~71 fps today ~66 fps this is a negative change of 15% :-((( You've been at this long enough that I don't have to ask about same date, time of day, view direction, etc. Is anyone else seeing a similar change? We're doing a lot of refactoring of the view code (Norm's skipping the model code), so some optimizations might have been lost temporarily. You can rule out FDM problems by testing with several FDMs, including the magic carpet. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Moving carrier, and Repositioning questions
Jon S Berndt writes:
Yeah, I've considered that for some time, just haven't
gotten around to it. But, I guess if it's causing so many
problems, maybe we need to just go ahead and do it.
Another reason I have waited is because even though I know
how to use stuff in other namespaces, I'm not positive
that I know how to go about putting our stuff into a
namespace. Can anyone explain this to me?
Put
namespace jsbim {
at the start of every file, and
}
at the end. If you want, you can #ifdef them for older compilers, but
I don't think anyone's having a problem with Andy's YASim code.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Boost problems
Bernie Bright wrote: clib is a compatability library that comes with boost. I wasn't aware of it until now. Its purpose is to provide the cxxx form of C standard headers. Since its only 3K gzipped I've attached it here. I've also had a quick look at the boost regression test suite and the command line it uses for compiling is: CC -c -LANG:std -OPT:IEEE_NaN_inf=ON -woff 1234 -I../boost/compatibility/cpp_c_headers This doesn't mean much to me but it may be of some use. I have a feeling though that your compiler may be too old to compile boost. Is gcc 2.95 an option? No, it took away endless hours of my life just to get things working. gcc (actually g++) will never be en option for me anymore. (And Richard Stallman knows about it ...) Anyway, I'll try clib and see what it can do for me. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, I went up today for a CA$45.00 (US$30.00) introductory flight in a 100HP Cessna 150 at the Ottawa Flying Club at CYOW (there's a separate north field for small aircraft so that we don't have to worry about wake turbulence from all the big jets). My instructor was younger than I am but had 1,600 hours flying experience -- I think this is the first time I've ever been formally instructed in anything by a younger person. After reading over the log book then walking around the plane, checking the surface movements, examining fuel samples, checking the oil level, etc. etc., we plugged in our headsets, climbed in, and sat down. The interior of a C150 is very small, and the instructor suggested that I leave the door open until I had my shoulder strap fully fastened or I wouldn't have room to do it. He was right -- it made economy class on a commercial aircraft seem roomy by comparison. I had expected that in an introductory flight the instructor would fly to altitude, take me to the practice area, then let me take the yoke for a few minutes and maybe try a few turns. In fact, he put me in the pilot's seat immediately, and after we ran the checklist, he had me fire up the engine and (after we listened to ATIS and he radioed for clearance for our flight) asked me to taxi. Even though I *knew* to use the rudder pedals, he still caught me trying to steer with the yoke once, out of pure reflex (it doesn't matter how much you practice at home with the computer -- you still want to steer a moving vehicle with a wheel). In FlightGear, neither JSBSim (either before and after my patch of yesterday) nor YASim has taxiing quite right from my limited experience. On the C150, at least, the nosewheel has more turning authority than JSBSim used to allow it, but not so much as I gave it yesterday with my patch (or YASim gives it) -- you really have to use the toe brake a little in most turns. Unfortunately, JSBSim pretty-much stops all forward movement with even a little differential braking, while the real C150 keeps on moving forward. I was pretty clunky taxiing at first, but it's a small plane and I got the hang of the steering and differential braking fairly fast, at least in time to hold short for the runway. We watched one of the club's C172s land, then the instructor radioed the tower and got clearance, and I taxied out onto runway 22 and lined up (well, pretty close) with the centreline. Winds were light and variable. He simply told me to push the throttle all the way in and to steer only with the rudder pedals (no brakes), then, after a few seconds, he told me to pull back on the yoke. I was prepared for a heavy propeller effect and probably overcompensated with right rudder when we lifted off; actually, I didn't notice any p-effect at all, period (I had my feet on the rudder pedals, so I would have noticed them moving if the instructor were compensating for me). Obviously, this was a small aircraft with a much weaker engine than the C172R's 160HP IO360, but I'm willing to guess that both JSBSim and (to a lesser extent) YASim are *way* overdoing it with their propeller effects on takeoff. One other reason for the absence of noticable propeller effects might be the fact that I did a very shallow climb (fortunately, there are no significant obstacles after the runway). Things were happening far too fast -- I had had no idea that I would be flying the plane right at the start -- and I found it very hard psychologically to keep the nose up, since it covered my forward view. Imagine driving fast down the highway with the front of the windshield entirely covered with snow and ice, so that you can see only out the side windows -- that's what it's like climbing in an airplane. It took me a long time to get to 2000ft (the airport is around 335ft), but the instructor was patient. He gave me a new ground reference to aim for, and I turned the plane right and tried to hold 2000ft (+/-10%, in the event). Scanning the instruments in a C150 is *not* like watching the instruments on the screen of a PC simulator, were everything's visible in the same focal plane. I was sitting very close to the panel and above it, so even checking the airspeed indicator or tachometer (way over on the copilot's side) required a head movement and eye refocussing, as well as a slight pupil adjustment from the sunny exterior to the darker interior. It's not like scanning the speedometer and gas gauge in a car either, where you're sitting low and further back -- I'd say it's about as disruptive as looking down at the car radio. It's probably easy for an experienced pilot, but I, with only a few minutes' flying experience, growing vertigo from the aircraft's motion, and a total inability to read motion cues, was very unwilling to tear my eyes away from the outside. The best way to similate this in FlightGear, I think, is to set up the view so that you have to use the mouse to tilt the
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Boost problems
Erik Hofman wrote: Bernie Bright wrote: clib is a compatability library that comes with boost. I wasn't aware of it until now. Its purpose is to provide the cxxx form of C standard headers. Since its only 3K gzipped I've attached it here. I've also had a quick look at the boost regression test suite and the command line it uses for compiling is: CC -c -LANG:std -OPT:IEEE_NaN_inf=ON -woff 1234 -I../boost/compatibility/cpp_c_headers This doesn't mean much to me but it may be of some use. I have a feeling though that your compiler may be too old to compile boost. Is gcc 2.95 an option? I'll gibe SGI's STL a try also: http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/download.html Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
David Megginson wrote: Will I do it again, and pursue a private pilot's license? I don't know. One problem was that it wasn't fun or exciting really -- during the flight, I felt like I was just driving a very difficult car around the city, and being in the air didn't seem a lot different than being on the ground except that I got much more motion sick and felt an enormous (almost crushing) weight of responsibility being at the controls, even with the instructor ready to take over. I've flown the F-16 simulator of the Royal Dutch Airforce more than once No I'm not an airforce pilot, but a dad who works there comes in handy sometimes ;-) ), I've flown PC simulators and such, but the first time I was in a real simulator (!) I had exactly the same feeling. About responsibillity and not taking my eyes fo the control panel and such. Though I have the feeling that that comes from the fact that it is the first time (I reme,ber driving for the first time with the same feeling) and I guess it just takes to time to get comfortable with the situation, just to get to enjoy it. In fact, I have decided to get my pilots license whenever possible, despite the first experience in the simulator. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Erik Hofman writes: In fact, I have decided to get my pilots license whenever possible, despite the first experience in the simulator. I was surprised by how inexpensive an intro flight is (much less than a modest dinner out). All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Wow. Thanks for the feedback. This is really the only _best_ way to making sure the feel of the flight modeling is right - getting the qualitative reports from many people is even better. P-Factor is definitely one of those effects we need to adjust based on the qualitative judgment of people who have flown the type. If we had good data on the phenomena it would be good, but we don't. We knew full well that in our model we'd need to adjust it. Feel free to do so until it matches your recollections. Landing gear steering *gain* is another one of those things. As far as the differential steering with braking, I don't know what to say other than we may have to take another look at that section of code. Thanks for the impressions. Jon Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, I went up today for a CA$45.00 (US$30.00) introductory flight in a 100HP Cessna 150 at the Ottawa Flying Club at CYOW (there's a separate north field for small aircraft so that we don't have to worry about wake turbulence from all the big jets). My instructor was younger than I am but had 1,600 hours flying experience -- I think this is the first time I've ever been formally instructed in anything by a younger person. ... smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
David It sounds like you certainly got your money's worth from the test flight. About the vertigo thing: I used to think I had a fear of heights, but I could never work out why that didn't affect me when flying (as a passenger that is - I've never flown a plane). I've finally realised that rather than having a fear of heights, I actually have a fear of falling, which really isn't the same thing. I can be as high as you like, but if I feel I'm in a secure environment, the height doesn't bother me. I mention this because it may be relevant to the cramped cockpit/small plane thing. You don't really say why you think a larger plane might be better, but it could be related to my experience. I find it difficult to imagine myself flying an open-frame microlite, whereas a large aircraft would pose no problems. Towards the smaller end of the scale, there might be a problem - I don't know, but maybe that's what you experienced. Regardless of whether you decide to continue flying for real, your report highlights one positive thing: Flight simulation can be a very real alternative to real flying, rather than a substitute. I remember reading about a guy in Germany (I think) who had build a multi-screen cockpit for himself. On his web site he explained that for him flight simulation was not a substitute for the real thing - he loves to fly through the Alpine mountains and valleys, and if he did this in real life he would most likely end up dead. He didn't have the least inclination to do it for real. Thanks for that (literally) gripping report. Mally - Original Message - From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, I went up today for a CA$45.00 (US$30.00) introductory flight in a 100HP Cessna 150 at the Ottawa Flying Club at CYOW (there's a separate north field for small aircraft so that we don't have to worry about wake turbulence from all the big jets). My instructor was younger than I am but had 1,600 hours flying experience -- I think this is the first time I've ever been formally instructed in anything by a younger person. After reading over the log book then walking around the plane, checking the surface movements, examining fuel samples, checking the oil level, etc. etc., we plugged in our headsets, climbed in, and sat down. The interior of a C150 is very small, and the instructor suggested that I leave the door open until I had my shoulder strap fully fastened or I wouldn't have room to do it. He was right -- it made economy class on a commercial aircraft seem roomy by comparison. I had expected that in an introductory flight the instructor would fly to altitude, take me to the practice area, then let me take the yoke for a few minutes and maybe try a few turns. In fact, he put me in the pilot's seat immediately, and after we ran the checklist, he had me fire up the engine and (after we listened to ATIS and he radioed for clearance for our flight) asked me to taxi. Even though I *knew* to use the rudder pedals, he still caught me trying to steer with the yoke once, out of pure reflex (it doesn't matter how much you practice at home with the computer -- you still want to steer a moving vehicle with a wheel). In FlightGear, neither JSBSim (either before and after my patch of yesterday) nor YASim has taxiing quite right from my limited experience. On the C150, at least, the nosewheel has more turning authority than JSBSim used to allow it, but not so much as I gave it yesterday with my patch (or YASim gives it) -- you really have to use the toe brake a little in most turns. Unfortunately, JSBSim pretty-much stops all forward movement with even a little differential braking, while the real C150 keeps on moving forward. I was pretty clunky taxiing at first, but it's a small plane and I got the hang of the steering and differential braking fairly fast, at least in time to hold short for the runway. We watched one of the club's C172s land, then the instructor radioed the tower and got clearance, and I taxied out onto runway 22 and lined up (well, pretty close) with the centreline. Winds were light and variable. He simply told me to push the throttle all the way in and to steer only with the rudder pedals (no brakes), then, after a few seconds, he told me to pull back on the yoke. I was prepared for a heavy propeller effect and probably overcompensated with right rudder when we lifted off; actually, I didn't notice any p-effect at all, period (I had my feet on the rudder pedals, so I would have noticed them moving if the instructor were compensating for me). Obviously, this was a small aircraft with a much weaker engine than the C172R's 160HP IO360, but I'm willing to guess that both JSBSim and (to a lesser extent) YASim are *way* overdoing it with their propeller
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Build Problems using MSVC and gcc
Jim Wilson writes: Jonathan Polley writes: make: Making all in src-libs make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jwpolley/SimGear/src-libs' make[1]: *** No rule to make target `all'. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jwpolley/SimGear/src-libs' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1*** [all-recursive] Error 1 I got this same error today and just removed the src-libs from the Makefile in SimGear/. Sorry I didn't report it, but src-libs doesn't need to be in the Makefile.am. It is only needed there for make dist to work correctly, but not for a basic make to work since there's nothing to build in that directory. Regards, 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Landing gear steering *gain* is another one of those things. As far as the differential steering with braking, I don't know what to say other than we may have to take another look at that section of code. Jon, add it to the to-be-measured list. I can go and taxi in circles on the transient ramp, first slowly, then fast (so the torque straightens the nose wheel) and tell you what the turning radius is. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Boost problems
This doesn't mean much to me but it may be of some use. I have a feeling though that your compiler may be too old to compile boost. Is gcc 2.95 an option? Erik put _huge_ effort into the project because GCC is definitely _no_ option on IRIX/MIPS. I know what I'm talking about because I spent a bunch of hours to figure out how to generate reliable and perbformant binaries with GCC. It would be more than sad if FlightGear would loose a platform and contributors just for the sake of including another tool like boost. In the last days I've read several voices worrying about the inclusion of another external dependancy and it appears these voices were right :-(( Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, Grin ... sounds like you had a good (and generic) intro flight. I had expected that in an introductory flight the instructor would [...] Nope; what you got is pretty standard. A good flight instructor tends to blend into the background. You hardly notice him (except when being explicitly taught something) but there is someone ready to rescue you from your dangerous blunders. Any non-dangerous blunder, however, is generally allowed to continue as part of the learning experience. I was prepared for a heavy propeller effect It's proportional to engine power (you had a little one) and angle of attack (you were in a shallow climb). You really notice it with 180hp and a best angle Vx climb, but the effect is mild, otherwise. I found it very hard psychologically to keep the nose up, since it covered my forward view. Exactly, and that feeling gets worse as you start doing traffic scanning. Scanning the instruments in a C150 is *not* like watching the instruments on the screen of a PC simulation [...] That's a good description of the situation. One of the reasons I wear heavily tinted sunglasses is to get the sky and the panel into the brightness range where pupil adjustment is as rapid as possible. It's probably easy for an experienced pilot, but I, with only a few minutes' flying experience, growing vertigo from the aircraft's motion, and a total inability to read motion cues, was very unwilling to tear my eyes away from the outside. If you were moving your head to switch from exterior to panel, that will contribute to the vertigo. Similarly, stress and adrenaline accentuate sensitivity to motion, as does dehydration and the like. For VMC flying, most instructors teach you to do almost everything without reference to the instruments. You perform the maneuver entirely using outside information, and only glance at the instruments to determine whether you are performing to the desired standard. Your simulator experiences may also be causing you to concentrate on the forward view excessively, which reduces the ability of your brain to subliminally pick up visual attitude cues from the horizon line. The truth was that I was terrified to let go of the yoke and was feeling more and more motion sick You may have been trying too hard, equivalently to the cars that zig and zag down highways because the driver isn't looking ahead enough. This generates a lot of bumps, due to the aerodynamics and controls. If flying level, with practice you should be able to fly without touching the yoke and merely reaching out with a toe and touching a rudder pedal occasionally to keep the course line straight. If you're stressed out, as a flight student, your ability to learn is degraded. Give the plane back to the instructor, who has more practice at this and will fly smoother than you, sit back and enjoy the view for a bit ... that's part of the fun of being there. The motion sickness was a big problem -- I was still experiencing vertigo 6 hours after the flight, and feel slightly unsteady even this morning even after a good night's sleep. We hit rough air twice, but I don't think that was the main reason. The vertigo didn't interfere with my ability to fly (I knew it was there, but was able to focus through it), but it hit hard once I was on the ground and out of the plane, and even harder once I had driven home. Right after the flight, I was thinking I might not want to go up again; and hour after, I was sure I wouldn't. That sounds to be mostly a stress reaction as a result of trying too hard. I still feel disappointed that I felt no excitement at all from actually being in the air, though (I enjoyed taxiing and the preflight more, if you can believe it) -- I was like a kid looking forward to Christmas and then getting nothing but socks. If you think about it, you were too busy trying to fly the plane to enjoy the fact that you could fly the plane and enjoy the view. I'm going to think things over and perhaps try one proper lesson in a bigger plane (like a C172) -- if I'm less crowded, the vertigo might not be so bad, though lessons will be slightly more expensive. If the cramped space makes you uncomfortable, the impairment in your learning effectiveness will cost you more money than the bigger plane. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Moving carrier, and Repositioning questions
David Megginson writes: When we get around to modelling ships, we can impose on Norm Vine to share some of his expertise, since this is his specialty. Although I have experienced a LOT of it I have done VERY little modelling of ship motion. Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Tower View
Thanks to Jim Wilson, we have a working tower view in CVS: the 'v' key cycles among pilot view, chase view, and tower view, rather than just pilot and chase. In the future, Jim (or someone else) will probably add the ability to specify a tower position; for now, the code just makes one up for the initial airport. You'll probably want to use the 'x' key to zoom in a bit, since the tower can be pretty far away at a large airport. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Oops, I think I clicked the wrong button and sent a blank one. David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Left and right brakes are also bound to ',' and '.' on the keyboard, and you can bind them to joystick buttons if you want, but then you're stuck with a choice between no brakes and full brakes. Another option is to bind the keys to increment the brakes by, say, 0.05, so that you can pump the key or button to get partial brakes. How about we have an --enable-easy-taxi switch (similar to the aerilon/rudder auto-coordination) for those of us who are umm... less coordinated and just want to steer with the nose wheel in the cheesy unrealistic mode? I'd say that would be a c150 thing. If you place the eye properly and the panel properly in the simulation then it'll work out as it should. I would suggest placing the eye for an average 5' 4 female pilot so we at least have a fighting chance without owning an $80 controller. A $15 mouse should do it. With the 3D cockpit, I find myself flying with my left hand on a joystick and my right hand on the mouse, in view mode. Well the eye point is configurable...so i guess i could figure it out. What you describe now is fine since we can't use the panel anyway, but at some point I'd like the mouse to work the knobs and buttons on the panel. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
David Megginson writes: Norman Vine writes: all figures are for at rest no HUD or Panel Default location at Noon Brakes on MingW32 compiled on Win2k Geforce2 GTS No model shown ie. View[0] March 16 ~78 fps last week ~71 fps today ~66 fps this is a negative change of 15% :-((( You've been at this long enough that I don't have to ask about same date, time of day, view direction, etc. Is anyone else seeing a similar change? We're doing a lot of refactoring of the view code (Norm's skipping the model code), so some optimizations might have been lost temporarily. You can rule out FDM problems by testing with several FDMs, including the magic carpet. This profiling run might be enlightening time seconds secondscalls us/call us/call name 35.17 1.21 1.216391518.9329.20 fgRenderFrame(void) 14.53 1.71 0.5063915 7.8249.75 fgMainLoop(void) 11.63 2.11 0.4063899 6.2611.11 fgUpdateTimeDepCalcs(void) 5.81 2.31 0.20 3455357 0.06 0.06 FGGlobals::get_current_view(void) const 4.07 2.45 0.14 657919 0.21 0.21 fgGetBool(char const *, bool) 3.49 2.57 0.12 2352563 0.05 0.05 fgGetDouble(char const *, double) 3.49 2.69 0.12 128618 0.93 0.93 getVisibility(void) 3.49 2.81 0.1264303 1.87 2.26 fgReshape(int, int) 3.20 2.92 0.11 1617164 0.07 0.07 fgGetNode(char const *, int, bool) 2.33 3.00 0.08 1222609 0.07 0.07 fgGetInt(char const *, int) 2.33 3.08 0.0864302 1.24 1.26 fgUpdateDCS(void) 2.03 3.15 0.0764302 1.09 1.09 FGLogger::update(int) 2.03 3.22 0.0763915 1.10 1.10 fgIOProcess(void) 1.45 3.27 0.0564303 0.78 0.78 getTextures(void) 1.16 3.31 0.04 2109792 0.02 0.02 fgGetString(char const *, char const *) 1.16 3.35 0.0464303 0.62 0.62 fgUpdateProps(void) Anyone know how to count 'cache invalidations' ? Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
There is a very good reason for that.. its like drug dealers.. they give you the first hit for free.. then they have you for life! Ryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Megginson Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 6:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight Erik Hofman writes: In fact, I have decided to get my pilots license whenever possible, despite the first experience in the simulator. I was surprised by how inexpensive an intro flight is (much less than a modest dinner out). All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
Norman Vine writes: This profiling run might be enlightening 4.07 2.45 0.14 657919 0.21 0.21 fgGetBool(char const *, bool) 3.49 2.57 0.12 2352563 0.05 0.05 fgGetDouble(char const *, double) OK, this jogs my memory. I took out the old path-caching code before, and didn't add a new hashtable yet. I'll try to do that early next week. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 12:25:29PM -0500, Norman Vine wrote: Anyone know how to count 'cache invalidations' ? Under Linux, you can get this kind of thing from oprofile (http://oprofile.sf.net), if you have a motherboard with an IO-APIC interrupt controller. It's a very powerful profiling tool . . . I have no idea about windows. Simon -- PGP public key Id 0x144A991C, or ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/himi/himi.asc (crappy) Homepage: http://bg77.anu.edu.au doe #237 (see http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS) My DeCSS mirror: ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/mirrors/css/ msg05082/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Most aircraft are trimmed (with trim tabs) to compensate for p-factor at cruise flight. Durning most of my flights in Piper aircraft, you don't have to use the right rudder much. During stalls you will notice that you need to use it a lot otherwise you will stall one wing before the other and you will start a spin. This is rather exciting the first time it happens.. But you can usually recover before even a 1/4 rotation if you know what to do. I have flown an aircraft that was sevearly out of trim and caused a constant 45 degree right bank if you centered the yoke. This happened during a training flight in a Piper Warrior, at the request of my instructor, we landed on the first available runway.. in this case 36 after taking off from 27L (the winds were calm). To this day I check that trim tab before flight. Ryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Berndt Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 6:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight Wow. Thanks for the feedback. This is really the only _best_ way to making sure the feel of the flight modeling is right - getting the qualitative reports from many people is even better. P-Factor is definitely one of those effects we need to adjust based on the qualitative judgment of people who have flown the type. If we had good data on the phenomena it would be good, but we don't. We knew full well that in our model we'd need to adjust it. Feel free to do so until it matches your recollections. Landing gear steering *gain* is another one of those things. As far as the differential steering with braking, I don't know what to say other than we may have to take another look at that section of code. Thanks for the impressions. Jon Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, I went up today for a CA$45.00 (US$30.00) introductory flight in a 100HP Cessna 150 at the Ottawa Flying Club at CYOW (there's a separate north field for small aircraft so that we don't have to worry about wake turbulence from all the big jets). My instructor was younger than I am but had 1,600 hours flying experience -- I think this is the first time I've ever been formally instructed in anything by a younger person. ... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with templates
Try adding #include simgear/compiler.h as the first include statement of fg_fx.cxx. Warning C4786 is harmless, identifier too long, but it obscures any real warnings and errors. Thanks Bernie, I finally compile the FlightGear! But, now I start the FG and it crashes after initilize the joysticks. Does anybody know what is happening? Marcio Shimoda ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
David Megginson wwrites: Norman Vine writes: This profiling run might be enlightening OK, this jogs my memory. I took out the old path-caching code before, and didn't add a new hashtable yet. I'll try to do that early next week. Cool This might be a problem too time seconds secondscalls us/call us/call 5.81 2.31 0.20 3455357 0.06 0.06 FGGlobals::get_current_view(void) const Judging by the number of times this is called i.e 54 times per LOOP iteration this 'might' be a 'good' candidate for inlining fgMainLoop calls == 63915 Regards Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
Norman Vine writes: This might be a problem too time seconds secondscalls us/call us/call 5.81 2.31 0.20 3455357 0.06 0.06 FGGlobals::get_current_view(void) const Judging by the number of times this is called i.e 54 times per LOOP iteration this 'might' be a 'good' candidate for inlining It's a bad one for inlining, actually, because that forces globals.hxx to have a dependency on viewmgr.hxx, so all of FlightGear has to rebuild whenever Jim touches the viewer code. What we should do is find out why get_current_view is called so much -- almost no other part of FlightGear should care about it. Jim's already started uncoupling things, and we can look to see if it's used in a loop somewhere (where it could be assigned to a variable just once). All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
David Megginson writes:
Norman Vine writes:
Judging by the number of times this is called
i.e 54 times per LOOP iteration
this 'might' be a 'good' candidate for inlining
It's a bad one for inlining, actually, because that forces globals.hxx
to have a dependency on viewmgr.hxx, so all of FlightGear has to
rebuild whenever Jim touches the viewer code.
So ???
--- globals.hxx
#ifdef SLOW_DEVELOPER_CONVENIENCE_CODE
FGViewer *get_current_view() const;
#else
FGViewer *get_current_view() const { return
viewmgr-get_current_view(); }
#endif
-- globals.cxx
#iifdef SLOW_DEVELOPER_CONVENIENCE_CODE
FGViewer *
FGGlobals::get_current_view () const
{
return viewmgr-get_current_view();
}
#endif
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Moving carrier, and Repositioningquestions
Bernie Bright wrote: Only a couple of minor changes to FlightGear were necessary, references to SGEphemeris become simgear::ephemeris::SGEphemeris. I would sugges to replace SGfunc byt SG::func for ease of use, and readabillity (prevents long lines). Dito for JSBSim (using JSB:: instead of JSBSim::). Erik Just my 0.02 ct. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tower View
Thanks to Jim Wilson, we have a working tower view in CVS: the 'v' key
cycles among pilot view, chase view, and tower view, rather than just
pilot and chase. In the future, Jim (or someone else) will probably
add the ability to specify a tower position; for now, the code just
makes one up for the initial airport.
You'll probably want to use the 'x' key to zoom in a bit, since the
tower can be pretty far away at a large airport.
Nice job! This could be used to simulate a tracking camera using the zoom
feature (try it with the X15).
However, I am seeing a strange clipping problem in the tower view mode with
the C172 and C310 models when I use the 'x' key to zoom in (Cygwin/Win2k).
Here's how to duplicate it:
1. Start FGFS with default options (empty .fgfs_rc).
2. Switch to tower view ('v' twice).
3. Zoom in with 'x' until the model fills at least half the screen.
4. As the aircraft slowly taxis down the runway I see strange polygon
clipping effects in the model.
This looks similar to the effect seen last month when the experiments with
the near and far clipping planes were going on. Perhaps the near and far
planes will have to be adjusted depending upon the distance to the model
and/or the amount of zoom or the FOV.
Does anyone else see this?
Regards,
Paul
Paul R. Deppe
Veridian Engineering (formerly Calspan)
Flight Aerospace Research Group
150 North Airport Drive
Buffalo, NY 14225
(716) 631-6898
(716) 631-6990 FAX
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tower View
Paul Deppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: However, I am seeing a strange clipping problem in the tower view mode with the C172 and C310 models when I use the 'x' key to zoom in (Cygwin/Win2k). Here's how to duplicate it: Oh yes, I'm seeing it on my voodoo. What kind of card are you using? I have experimented with some buffer settings, but haven't been able to fix it. I'd say it is likely a problem of the model complexity and the inaccuracy of 16bit fp (rendering at a distance). We've got a lot of objects very close together there. One idea I had was to make a zoom feature that would push the eye closer to the object on the lookat axis using an offset value, as opposed to using the fov to close in like a telescope. You'll note that the problem diminishes when the model is reasonably close, so doing something like I just described would solve the math issue that is causing this. The only problem is it wouldn't be very telescope like. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tower View
Paul Deppe writes: This looks similar to the effect seen last month when the experiments with the near and far clipping planes were going on. Perhaps the near and far planes will have to be adjusted depending upon the distance to the model and/or the amount of zoom or the FOV. Partly, but partly, I need to use LOD to remove detail (like the aircraft interior) at a certain distance. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
Norman Vine writes: So ??? So it hurts development a lot. Developers have limited time to contribute to FlightGear, and if the program takes always takes 5 or 10 minutes to rebuild (and has to be rebuilt, say, 10 times to test and debug each change), we all suffer because a lot less code gets written and debugged. There's an easy solution here -- remove FGGlobals::get_current_view completely and have the callers use FGGlobals::get_view_mgr to get the current view. The right solution, though, is to find out *why* so many parts of the code are using this method. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: It's a bad one for inlining, actually, because that forces globals.hxx to have a dependency on viewmgr.hxx, so all of FlightGear has to rebuild whenever Jim touches the viewer code. What we should do is find out why get_current_view is called so much -- almost no other part of FlightGear should care about it. Jim's already started uncoupling things, and we can look to see if it's used in a loop somewhere (where it could be assigned to a variable just once). I think we'll weed some of these things out when we start implementing that FGLocus class (or whaterver it is called). It's hard to fix some of this stuff until the uncoupling is completed. When I get done viewer is only going to know about the view and nothing else. 54 times per frame is almost unbelievable considering the number of references to viewer data, so as David suggested a good start would probably be moving it to a variable. BTW IIRC that returns a pointer to the class...I think I remember seeing the code that was doing that over and over...maybe tilemgr? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Building PPE with Python-2.1 !?
Martin Spott writes: function `posix_openpty': posixmodule.o(.text+0x15c3): undefined reference to `openpty' /usr/lib/python2.1/config/libpython2.1.a(posixmodule.o): In function `posix_forkpty': posixmodule.o(.text+0x163d): undefined reference to `forkpty' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status What system is this on ?? Oh, I'm sorry. I was in some sort of a hurry - I mostly have to borrow some time at work to tinker with FlightGear This is on a SuSE-7.3/i386 with a Python installation that is provided by the distribution. I had the hope this might be a known problem on this list because several people are using PPE on recent distributions (and PPE appears to be written for Python-1.5). Sorry for disturbing - my mistake, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
David Megginson writes: Norman Vine writes: So ??? So it hurts development a lot. Developers have limited time to contribute to FlightGear, and if the program takes always takes 5 or 10 minutes to rebuild (and has to be rebuilt, say, 10 times to test and debug each change), we all suffer because a lot less code gets written and debugged. SO developers can certainly use the preprocessor to help them around these kind of things rather then burning frame rate !! Use the Tool Luke :-)) There's an easy solution here -- remove FGGlobals::get_current_view completely and have the callers use FGGlobals::get_view_mgr to get the current view. OK same thing as my #ifdef The right solution, though, is to find out *why* so many parts of the code are using this method. Indeed :-) The main caller 75% is in the tile paging system fgRenderFrame makes 7 calls per loop or 13% for 13% of total I'm working on a patch of the affected files mostly in the low-level scenery stuff that I'll send to Curt 0.030.00 450114/3455357 fgRenderFrame(void) [3] 0.150.00 2527490/3455357 FGTileEntry::prep_ssg_node(Point3D const , float) [10] [5] 5.80.200.00 3455357 FGGlobals::get_current_view(void) const [5] Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Norman Vine writes: So ??? So it hurts development a lot. Developers have limited time to contribute to FlightGear, and if the program takes always takes 5 or 10 minutes to rebuild (and has to be rebuilt, say, 10 times to test and debug each change), we all suffer because a lot less code gets written and debugged. There's an easy solution here -- remove FGGlobals::get_current_view completely and have the callers use FGGlobals::get_view_mgr to get the current view. The right solution, though, is to find out *why* so many parts of the code are using this method. That won't help, these calls are for the class pointer. I'd really like it if you guys just ignored this one until about a week from now. :-) It takes 20 minutes or close to it for me to do a rebuild sometimes, but it is only when changing headers, which usually doesn't happen all that much. Generally when I have to add something to a popular class, I try and organize what I'm doing around the inevitable rebuild. And then I remind myself of the days when this little communication program I wrote in 6502 assembler took 11 hours to build :-). In those days you worked harder to avoid bugs. And that was a good thing. So anyway, I think it is fine the way it is. There are far too many classes accessing the viewer for info that should be held elsewhere, and soon it'll be much better. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FrameRate !!
Jim Wilson writes: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There's an easy solution here -- remove FGGlobals::get_current_view completely and have the callers use FGGlobals::get_view_mgr to get the current view. The right solution, though, is to find out *why* so many parts of the code are using this method. That won't help, these calls are for the class pointer. I'd really like it if you guys just ignored this one until about a week from now. :-) Jim FYI The vast majority of these calls for info from the CurrentView are to determine the up vector. I have a patch for the tile system already Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Left and right brakes are also bound to ',' and '.' on the keyboard, and you can bind them to joystick buttons if you want, but then you're stuck with a choice between no brakes and full brakes. Another option is to bind the keys to increment the brakes by, say, 0.05, so that you can pump the key or button to get partial brakes. How about we have an --enable-easy-taxi switch (similar to the aerilon/rudder auto-coordination) for those of us who are umm... less coordinated and just want to steer with the nose wheel in the cheesy unrealistic mode? What I normally do is bind the rudder joystick axis so that between -0.8 and -1.0 the left brake goes from off to full on, and +0.8 to +1.0 for the right brake similarly. Works well enough. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 05:36:30 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, Grin ... sounds like you had a good (and generic) intro flight. I had expected that in an introductory flight the instructor would [...] Nope; what you got is pretty standard. A good flight instructor tends to blend into the background. You hardly notice him (except when being ..in rc flight instruction, I use a pushier approach: I first brief them on my terminology, then takes off and trims, then I have them power up, throttle down, and turn left (or right) to change heading, always relative to the plane. ..once that is learned, I have them fly north of field, climb west of field, an 8, east of field, turn left climbing, circle left, east of field, turn right sinking, and trim up, 3 clicks etc for speed control. ..pumping them from about 1/2 minute to 5, with 1/2 minute pauses, builds fatigue resistance, and enough fingertip feel for a lowpass, a series of climbing and sinking turns, and a lowpass. ;-) ..taking advantage of built fatigue resistance and finger tip feel, and a wee dose of confusion, I have my newbies land in 15-40 minutes airtime. _Nobody_ complains about their first broken prop. ;-) I was prepared for a heavy propeller effect ..me2, as in; 'torque kick rudder and frozen wheel bearing on same side as drink'. ;-) Exactly, and that feeling gets worse as you start doing traffic scanning. .._let_go_ of the stick/yoke, it'll fly all by itself. Fingertip pressure to hint smoothly like the pro's do, to tell where to fly. Your simulator experiences may also be causing you to concentrate on the forward view excessively, which reduces the ability of your brain ..a tip: try some air combat sim, where you _need_ to chk yer 6, and to use terrain, to sneak up on ground target. ;-) to subliminally pick up visual attitude cues from the horizon line. The truth was that I was terrified to let go of the yoke and was feeling more and more motion sick ... If you're stressed out, as a flight student, your ability to learn is degraded. Give the plane back to the instructor, who has more ..here, the instructors magic words: I have it. My guess is your sim time and skill, confused him. You want pumping. As you say, you failed to scan for traffic, and you got air sick. The good news is, you have the guts to clean lunch off the panel, and complete by aborting, and passing, on your check ride. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Jim Wilson writes: Oops, I think I clicked the wrong button and sent a blank one. David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Left and right brakes are also bound to ',' and '.' on the keyboard, and you can bind them to joystick buttons if you want, but then you're stuck with a choice between no brakes and full brakes. Another option is to bind the keys to increment the brakes by, say, 0.05, so that you can pump the key or button to get partial brakes. How about we have an --enable-easy-taxi switch (similar to the aerilon/rudder auto-coordination) for those of us who are umm... less coordinated and just want to steer with the nose wheel in the cheesy unrealistic mode? I think I just had a flash of brilliance. :-) When taxiing a cessna, you use the rudder pedals and when you hit their limit, you start adding toe brake to tighten the turn. When you get the hang of it, the brakes almost seem like a fluid extension of the rudder pedals. So, what about this for an idea: Let's map the -1 ... +1 rudder control range so that -0.5 ... +0.5 is the full rudder range, and then -1 ... -0.5 maps from full left toe brake to none. +0.5 ... 1.0 would map the right toe brakes. This would be great for ground steering. 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
Curtis L. Olson writes: I think I just had a flash of brilliance. :-) When taxiing a cessna, you use the rudder pedals and when you hit their limit, you start adding toe brake to tighten the turn. When you get the hang of it, the brakes almost seem like a fluid extension of the rudder pedals. So, what about this for an idea: Let's map the -1 ... +1 rudder control range so that -0.5 ... +0.5 is the full rudder range, and then -1 ... -0.5 maps from full left toe brake to none. +0.5 ... 1.0 would map the right toe brakes. This would be great for ground steering. Dohhh! Alex thought of it first. :-) 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] MSVC Yada Yada Yada
Just updated to the newest CVS for everything. While linux us now
compiling and running just fine (thanks Curt), MSVC continues to whine.
First: The #include fg_props.hxx in viewer.cxx needs to be #include
fg_props.hxx
Second: I am getting the following error when building SimGear
props.cxx
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1920) : error C2665: 'delete' : none of
the 2 overloads can convert parameter 1 from type 'const char *'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1949) : error C2248: 'entry' : cannot
access public class declared in class 'SGPropertyNode::hash_table'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.hxx(1124) : see declaration of
'entry'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1949) : error C2248: 'entry' : cannot
access public class declared in class 'SGPropertyNode::hash_table'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.hxx(1124) : see declaration of
'entry'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1950) : error C2248: 'entry' : cannot
access public class declared in class 'SGPropertyNode::hash_table'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.hxx(1124) : see declaration of
'entry'
As usual, it is having problems with overloading, and my C++ skills are
non-existent in this area.
While FlightGear proper compiles just fine, it complains at link time:
FGOutput.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol public: double
__thiscall FGFCS::GetThrottlePos(int) (?GetThrottlePos@FGFCS@@QAENH@Z)
FGTrimAxis.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol public: double
__thiscall FGFCS::GetThrottleCmd(int) (?GetThrottleCmd@FGFCS@@QAENH@Z)
I have looked and the only thing I see that is different about these two
routines, from what I am use to seeing, is that they are 'const.' They
are both public so I am not sure why MSVC is not putting them in the
global symbol table.
double GetThrottleCmd(int engine) const;
Removing the 'const' causes problems to crop up elsewhere.
Thanks,
Jonathan Polley
p.s. Another odd thing happened. It seems that, in the latest update of
FGAerodynamics, when
inline double GetForces(int n) const {return vForces(n);}
was changed to
double GetForces(int n) const {return vForces(n);}
that MSVC no longer has a problem with the overloading of GetForces() (i.e.
, I could abandon my local changes). Any ideas on that one?
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] MSVC Yada Yada Yada
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 17:53, Jonathan Polley wrote:
Just updated to the newest CVS for everything. While linux us now
compiling and running just fine (thanks Curt), MSVC continues to whine.
First: The #include fg_props.hxx in viewer.cxx needs to be #include
fg_props.hxx
Second: I am getting the following error when building SimGear
props.cxx
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1920) : error C2665: 'delete' : none of
the 2 overloads can convert parameter 1 from type 'const char *'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1949) : error C2248: 'entry' : cannot
access public class declared in class 'SGPropertyNode::hash_table'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.hxx(1124) : see declaration of
'entry'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1949) : error C2248: 'entry' : cannot
access public class declared in class 'SGPropertyNode::hash_table'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.hxx(1124) : see declaration of
'entry'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.cxx(1950) : error C2248: 'entry' : cannot
access public class declared in class 'SGPropertyNode::hash_table'
C:\SimGear\simgear\misc\props.hxx(1124) : see declaration of
'entry'
As usual, it is having problems with overloading, and my C++ skills are
non-existent in this area.
While FlightGear proper compiles just fine, it complains at link time:
FGOutput.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol public: double
__thiscall FGFCS::GetThrottlePos(int) (?GetThrottlePos@FGFCS@@QAENH@Z)
FGTrimAxis.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol public: double
__thiscall FGFCS::GetThrottleCmd(int) (?GetThrottleCmd@FGFCS@@QAENH@Z)
I have looked and the only thing I see that is different about these two
routines, from what I am use to seeing, is that they are 'const.' They
are both public so I am not sure why MSVC is not putting them in the
global symbol table.
double GetThrottleCmd(int engine) const;
Removing the 'const' causes problems to crop up elsewhere.
I can't offer anything here.
Thanks,
Jonathan Polley
p.s. Another odd thing happened. It seems that, in the latest update of
FGAerodynamics, when
inline double GetForces(int n) const {return vForces(n);}
was changed to
double GetForces(int n) const {return vForces(n);}
that MSVC no longer has a problem with the overloading of GetForces() (i.e.
, I could abandon my local changes). Any ideas on that one?
I don't know, but discussion here seems to indicate that specifying
inline is pointless anyway since we take a pointer to it.
So we'll take it!
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
--
Tony Peden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
-- attributed to Linus Torvalds
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] MSVC Yada Yada Yada
On Saturday, April 6, 2002, at 08:09 PM, Tony Peden wrote:
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 17:53, Jonathan Polley wrote:
p.s. Another odd thing happened. It seems that, in the latest update of
FGAerodynamics, when
inline double GetForces(int n) const {return vForces(n);}
was changed to
double GetForces(int n) const {return vForces(n);}
that MSVC no longer has a problem with the overloading of GetForces() (i.
e.
, I could abandon my local changes). Any ideas on that one?
I don't know, but discussion here seems to indicate that specifying
inline is pointless anyway since we take a pointer to it.
So we'll take it!
I just tried removing the 'inline' from the front of the methods that MSVC
complains about and it appears that FGAerodynamics is the only place that
stopped complaining. Go figure.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
