RE: [Flightgear-devel] Clouds artefacts
Frederic Bouvier wrote Curtis L. Olson wrote: David Megginson wrote: Whether it goes in the release or not is up to Curt, but it looks great, and I notice from the screenshots that your framerate stayed the same. On IRC Fred mentioned that they didn't look correct from above. Let's see if he can track down the problem before the official release ... I'm trying to roll out the next pre release tonight. I discovered since then that I started FG with --disable-clouds (!) With --enable-clouds, it is ok. This property ( /environment/clouds/status ) seems to be only tested on clouds drawn below the viewer. So to make it short, it seems to work ok. What this change does not address yet is the fact that we can see the ground over overcast layer through the exhaust beam of the hunter. I can try to look at this tonight and cure the --disable-clouds to really disable clouds. Cheers, -Fred The exhaust plume of the Hunter is a crude simulation - using a nearly transparent material. Perhaps there's a better way of simulating the exhaust? Regards Vivian Meazza ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More 0.9.4pre1 feedback
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Maybe you want to do the same with *.tex ? It won't gain much but it cleans the base package a bit. Where was the .tex files(s) coming from? We had a lot of .tex files for the flight school document, but they have been removed because it was an out-dated version and This really should be accessible from the website only. But there is (at least) one remaining .tex file in FlightGear/data/Docs/keyboard which describes the key binding differences between aircraft models. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 0.9.5pre1: --show-aircraft
Durk Talsma wrote: Okay I tried testing a few more aircraft, and it appears that --show-aircraft lists a lot more aircraft than are in the current base package. I installed a duplicate copy of the prerelease of the base package, keeping my original CVS distribution. I made sure to use to override the default location of fgroot, using the --fg-root= commandline option. Is this a bug, or just some weirdness of my setup? This is impossible, it must be something local. That option scans the Aircraft directory for subdirectories containing files ending with -set.xml . Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Clouds artefacts
Vivian Meazza wrote: So to make it short, it seems to work ok. What this change does not address yet is the fact that we can see the ground over overcast layer through the exhaust beam of the hunter. I can try to look at this tonight and cure the --disable-clouds to really disable clouds. The exhaust plume of the Hunter is a crude simulation - using a nearly transparent material. Perhaps there's a better way of simulating the exhaust? No, I don't think of a better way to draw something transparent with transparent material ;-) The only problem here is that it seems that the aircraft seems to be drawn before the lower clouds ( although the source contradict this, but I must be misled - perhaps the exterior model is in the terrain scene graph ). For better result, transparent objects must be drawn back to front. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: driving FlightGear from an external app
Gene Buckle wrote: VERY neat toys. I wonder if that Crista IMU could be used to drive a ground based artificial horizon... It's not clear to me what you mean, do you aim at placing that IMU into a real or model airplane and drive a ground station via telemetry ? 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] Re: driving FlightGear from an external app
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 01:27:58 +0100, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote snip ..uh-oh, http://cloudcaptech.com/download/FlightGear/0.9.2/ means they _distribute_, no? AFAICT, they need to put the FG sources somewhere like http://cloudcaptech.com/download/FlightGear/0.9.2/source/ too, to comply with the GPL's Section 3: Quite right. I have just emailed the CTO (copied to Curt) to bring Arnt's observations to his attention. Regards Jonathan ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Clouds artefacts
Frederic BOUVIER wrote Vivian Meazza wrote: So to make it short, it seems to work ok. What this change does not address yet is the fact that we can see the ground over overcast layer through the exhaust beam of the hunter. I can try to look at this tonight and cure the --disable-clouds to really disable clouds. The exhaust plume of the Hunter is a crude simulation - using a nearly transparent material. Perhaps there's a better way of simulating the exhaust? No, I don't think of a better way to draw something transparent with transparent material ;-) The only problem here is that it seems that the aircraft seems to be drawn before the lower clouds ( although the source contradict this, but I must be misled - perhaps the exterior model is in the terrain scene graph ). For better result, transparent objects must be drawn back to front. -Fred The canopy doesn't do this - it has a semi-transparent texture as well. I'll experiment some more. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] apply billboard animation to one object
Is there a way to apply the billboard animation to just one object of a 3D model? In my naiveness I tried this ... animation typebillboard/type object-namefoo/object-name /animation ... but it had no (visible) effects. Is it impossible? m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Clouds artefacts
Vivian Meazza wrote: Frederic BOUVIER wrote Vivian Meazza wrote: So to make it short, it seems to work ok. What this change does not address yet is the fact that we can see the ground over overcast layer through the exhaust beam of the hunter. I can try to look at this tonight and cure the --disable-clouds to really disable clouds. The exhaust plume of the Hunter is a crude simulation - using a nearly transparent material. Perhaps there's a better way of simulating the exhaust? No, I don't think of a better way to draw something transparent with transparent material ;-) The only problem here is that it seems that the aircraft seems to be drawn before the lower clouds ( although the source contradict this, but I must be misled - perhaps the exterior model is in the terrain scene graph ). For better result, transparent objects must be drawn back to front. -Fred The canopy doesn't do this - it has a semi-transparent texture as well. I'll experiment some more. Beware: the interior is not drawn at the same place that the exterior. To convince yourself, you can see that exterior model is affected by fog ( in cloud layer for instance ) and the interior not. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] apply billboard animation to one object
Melchior FRANZ wrote: Is there a way to apply the billboard animation to just one object of a 3D model? In my naiveness I tried this ... animation typebillboard/type object-namefoo/object-name /animation ... but it had no (visible) effects. Is it impossible? If 'foo' made of 2 triangles instead of a single quad ? The geometry can't be more complex than that though. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: apply billboard animation to one object
* Frederic BOUVIER -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 11:45: If 'foo' made of 2 triangles instead of a single quad ? The geometry can't be more complex than that though. Yes, two triangles. (I learned from the shadow problems. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: apply billboard animation to one object
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 10:23: Is there a way to apply the billboard animation to just one object of a 3D model? In my naiveness I tried this ... [...] ... but it had no (visible) effects. Is it impossible? Arghh ... (can this thread please be removed from the archive? ;-) m. Hint: check the spelling of your object names! It may come as a surprise, but '-' != '_' ... sheesh ... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Error: base = ....
Hello, I'm flying from NDO to EDWS, holding 3000 ft alt and 120 kts via autopilot in the PA-28. The next waypoint on the list is EDLN (where I live :-) About one minute before I reach EDWS FlightGear spits the following message to STDOUT or STDERR: Error: base = -0.990956,10.1974 course = 2.26188 dist = 115776 Error: base = 0.445247,-10.9772 course = 5.42244 dist = 115803 Does anyone know where these messages belong to ? Does the effect who is responsible for this output have the power to make the AP go crazy ? I'm asking because I randomly see the aircraft tumbling out of the air on the same route at a similar place - without further notice, 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
[Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke
Erik, I get two errors trying to run the seahawk this morning: Error reading panel: Failed to open file at /home/curt/projects/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/../Instruments/autopilot-roll-out-smooth-deg.xml (reported by SimGear XML Parser) Error reading new panel from Aircraft/seahawk/seahawk-vfr-panel.xml Then I get a panel reading error displayed in FG. I can click on it, but after than none of the gui/menus work in the sim. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Clouds artefacts
Frederic BOUVIER writes: Vivian Meazza wrote: Frederic BOUVIER wrote Vivian Meazza wrote: So to make it short, it seems to work ok. What this change does not address yet is the fact that we can see the ground over overcast layer through the exhaust beam of the hunter. I can try to look at this tonight and cure the --disable-clouds to really disable clouds. The exhaust plume of the Hunter is a crude simulation - using a nearly transparent material. Perhaps there's a better way of simulating the exhaust? No, I don't think of a better way to draw something transparent with transparent material ;-) The only problem here is that it seems that the aircraft seems to be drawn before the lower clouds ( although the source contradict this, but I must be misled - perhaps the exterior model is in the terrain scene graph ). For better result, transparent objects must be drawn back to front. The canopy doesn't do this - it has a semi-transparent texture as well. I'll experiment some more. Beware: the interior is not drawn at the same place that the exterior. To convince yourself, you can see that exterior model is affected by fog ( in cloud layer for instance ) and the interior not. Exactly, as was mentioned earlier in this thread To render transparent Objects with OpenGL 'correctly', they need to be rendered in sorted order from back to front. The only way I know of doing this in a 'generic' way requires detecting those objects with tranparency somehow and adding them to their own scenegraph which is then only drawn after all non-transparent objects. The easiest way I can see to do this in FGFS would be to require all models with transparent features to have two models 1) the opaque parts 2) the transparent parts and then render the transparent parts after the clouds are drawn, this assumes that all the clouds are further away then any of (2) above, which might not be the case with eshaust trails esp. with 3D clouds. This is 'tricky' stuff :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Ornithopter cockpit
Jim Wilson wrote: It is far too late for this release, but I promised Michael some instruments for the Ornithopter a while back so I've committed what amounts a rough start. It just affects the ornithopter directory and that seems to work so (hopefully) there will be no breakage. This is what it looks like: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/ornithoptervc.png This is what it should look like: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/ornithopterreal.png I've got a much higher res of these and other views. As you can see there's a lot that's not there, but three significant ones are. I'm going to have to figure out what that green thing on the right does before going much further. And that led display in the center looks important as well (must be the mach indicator? :-)). Jim, did you miss a file someplace? When I try the ornithopter, I am seeing the default C172 2-d instrument panel. If I disable it, then there is no cockpit shown at all. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] seahawk broke
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik, I get two errors trying to run the seahawk this morning: Error reading panel: Failed to open file at /home/curt/projects/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/../Instruments/autopilot-roll-out-smooth-deg.xml (reported by SimGear XML Parser) Error reading new panel from Aircraft/seahawk/seahawk-vfr-panel.xml Then I get a panel reading error displayed in FG. I can click on it, but after than none of the gui/menus work in the sim. I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 3d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Clouds artefacts
Frederic BOUVIER wrote Vivian Meazza wrote: Frederic BOUVIER wrote Vivian Meazza wrote: So to make it short, it seems to work ok. What this change does not address yet is the fact that we can see the ground over overcast layer through the exhaust beam of the hunter. I can try to look at this tonight and cure the --disable-clouds to really disable clouds. The exhaust plume of the Hunter is a crude simulation - using a nearly transparent material. Perhaps there's a better way of simulating the exhaust? No, I don't think of a better way to draw something transparent with transparent material ;-) The only problem here is that it seems that the aircraft seems to be drawn before the lower clouds ( although the source contradict this, but I must be misled - perhaps the exterior model is in the terrain scene graph ). For better result, transparent objects must be drawn back to front. -Fred The canopy doesn't do this - it has a semi-transparent texture as well. I'll experiment some more. Beware: the interior is not drawn at the same place that the exterior. To convince yourself, you can see that exterior model is affected by fog ( in cloud layer for instance ) and the interior not. -Fred It's hard to spot, but indeed the cockpit canopy does render clouds transparent when viewed from outside not sure about fog - can't see through it :-)). Transparent textures seem to make no difference. I was going to say if it was just an exhaust plume problem, I could delete them until I could make them better, but since the problem is wider we should seek a solution. Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Ornithopter cockpit
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Jim, did you miss a file someplace? When I try the ornithopter, I am seeing the default C172 2-d instrument panel. If I disable it, then there is no cockpit shown at all. Oops, I was running cvs update on the wrong machine, ignore this unless you hear back from me. That's what I get for posting pre-caffiene. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] seahawk broke
Erik wrote -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Hofman Sent: 24 March 2004 12:42 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik, I get two errors trying to run the seahawk this morning: Error reading panel: Failed to open file at /home/curt/projects/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/../In struments/autopilot-roll-out-smooth-deg.xml (reported by SimGear XML Parser) Error reading new panel from Aircraft/seahawk/seahawk-vfr-panel.xml Then I get a panel reading error displayed in FG. I can click on it, but after than none of the gui/menus work in the sim. I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 3d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Hmm, thought I had included the 3d panel code - in Aircraft/seahawk-3d/Models. Just updating CVS, I'll see if there's a quick fix Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke
Vivian Meazza wrote: Erik wrote I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 3d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Hmm, thought I had included the 3d panel code - in Aircraft/seahawk-3d/Models. Just updating CVS, I'll see if there's a quick fix No need, there's a too much 3d in there and too little 2d. I'll try again: I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 2d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Hope this clears it up a bit. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke
Vivian Meazza wrote: Erik wrote -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Hofman Sent: 24 March 2004 12:42 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik, I get two errors trying to run the seahawk this morning: Error reading panel: Failed to open file at /home/curt/projects/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/seahawk/../In struments/autopilot-roll-out-smooth-deg.xml (reported by SimGear XML Parser) Error reading new panel from Aircraft/seahawk/seahawk-vfr-panel.xml Then I get a panel reading error displayed in FG. I can click on it, but after than none of the gui/menus work in the sim. I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 3d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Hmm, thought I had included the 3d panel code - in Aircraft/seahawk-3d/Models. Just updating CVS, I'll see if there's a quick fix This problem went away when I updated cvs correctly so sorry about the false alarm. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Re: driving FlightGear from an external app
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:50:04 -0800 (PST), Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: .._is_ www.cloudcaptech.org the correct address??? I get nothing ^^^ .com ..thanks. Oo, _neat_ toys. :-) VERY neat toys. I wonder if that Crista IMU could be used to drive a ground based artificial horizon... That would come in very handy when I get to the point where I want to run R/C aircraft from my sim cockpit. ..web camera and an 802.11 link to web site for live footage? ;-) 50Mhz R/C gear and 70cm ATV for the video downlink. ..web cameras and an 802.11 link sounds easier to do than ATV, can also back up the 50MHz control link. Both ATV and 802.11 needs line-of-sight, no? Then both needs relay vehicles. The plan is for three cameras (left, right and center) for display on the projector screens the sim uses. Now granted, this is a couple of years down the road. I've got a lot of work yet to do on the sim itself. The eventual goal is to have a camera plane like a 12' Telemaster for doing aerial photo work. ..this is viable, also as a business vehicle, media likes cheap-n-quick air-to-ground footage, rush hour traffic makes a sound baseline, and newsworthy events happens almost every day and is yours to grab, if you're airborne. I'd like to be able to build a 1:5 scale F-15C for doing airshows, but that's a WAY off. :) .. ;-) ..and the 12'er will need some form of rocket fired chute, too. -- ..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] seahawk broke
Erik Hofman wrote: I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 2d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. ^^^ Shoot, 2d, 2D 2D 2D (repeat after me 2D panel) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Error: base = ....
David Megginson wrote: Martin Spott wrote: I'm flying from NDO to EDWS, holding 3000 ft alt and 120 kts via autopilot in the PA-28. The next waypoint on the list is EDLN (where I live :-) Hey, easy on that engine! 75% power will give you about 112 kias at that altitude. Ah, I forgot it's not an Archer (SCNR ;-)) I'm mostly running FlightGear in this configuration to figure out if real weather and the autopilot stuff works reliable over a larger distance with multiple waypoints. Unfortunately this is currently not the case and I'd wish to see the reason, 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] Error: base = ....
Martin Spott wrote: Ah, I forgot it's not an Archer (SCNR ;-)) I'm mostly running FlightGear in this configuration to figure out if real weather and the autopilot stuff works reliable over a larger distance with multiple waypoints. Unfortunately this is currently not the case and I'd wish to see the reason, Probably because real weather is in alpha stage right now. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Error: base = ....
Martin Spott wrote: Hey, easy on that engine! 75% power will give you about 112 kias at that altitude. Ah, I forgot it's not an Archer (SCNR ;-)) I'm not sure that you should fly an Archer at 120 kias either. That would give you 142 ktas at 8000 ft DA, and I don't think that even the Arrow is that fast -- you're starting to close in on Saratoga territory. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke
Jim Wilson wrote: Can we have just one top level xml for that aircraft? Currently I'm seeing two for the seahawk. They are identical. seahawk-set.xml seahawk-3d-set.xml No problem. If the 2d panel gets added in the feature it would be easy to call it seahawk-2d-set.xml Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: apply billboard animation to one object
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 10:23: Is there a way to apply the billboard animation to just one object of a 3D model? Sure it is: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/bo105-light.jpeg (17kB) The position light halo billboards and scales up and down in size, depending on the sun angle. Small at day, big at night. Now, if I only knew where the other lights are on a bo105 ... m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: 3D Text Issues
Andy Ross wrote:
So how about an interface that looks vaguely like (apologies in
advance for getting Plib details wrong -- this is off the top of my
head):
class ssgTextNode : public ssgNode {
void setBaseline(sgVec3 start, sgVec3 end);
void setUp(sgVec3 up, bool correctToPerpendicular = true);
void setPointSize(float lineHeightInMeters);
void setText(char* text);
void setFont(FntFont* font);
void setFntRenderSettings(int AndyForgetsTheDetailsHere, ...);
void draw();
};
You would set the text baseline with a start point, and an end point
which lies along the line (not necessarily the end, I suppose). You
need to specify an up vector to get the plane and orientation
correct. This can be any point on the plane above the baseline. I
added the correctToPerpendicular option so that you can do affine
transformations on the text to simulate italics or whatnot.
I think that would be a great idea. We could start by using the FNT
library, and easily substitute later if something better came along.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low poly model LOD request
D Luff wrote: Could you mail me the pa28 and c172dpm (the yellowish one) source please, and I'll have a play at some point. The low poly versions can loose their textures anyway - over half a mile away it shouldn't matter. [I'm replying publicly in case anyone else wants them.] Sorry for the late reply. These links will be good for a few days: http://www.megginson.com/Private/c172r-20040324.tar.gz http://www.megginson.com/Private/pa28-161-20040324.tar.gz All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] seahawk broke
Jim Wilson wrote Erik Hofman said: Vivian Meazza wrote: Erik wrote I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 3d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Hmm, thought I had included the 3d panel code - in Aircraft/seahawk-3d/Models. Just updating CVS, I'll see if there's a quick fix No need, there's a too much 3d in there and too little 2d. I'll try again: I was trying to get a 2d panel and 3d panel version mixed into one subdirectory. Vivian reworked the seahawk to add a 3d cockpit but didn't include the 2d panel code (and moved some code to appropriate subdirectories). I now have copied the seahawk-3d-set file onto the seahawk-set file and we have to work on the 3d panel after this release. Can we have just one top level xml for that aircraft? Currently I'm seeing two for the seahawk. They are identical. seahawk-set.xml seahawk-3d-set.xml I think I'm within minutes of fixing this one up - there's a small problem of file names, but it's all available. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] What about 3 arcsec Eurasia Terrain data before the release of FGFS 0.9.4?
Since Oct 2003 there is a 3 arcsec SRTM Terrain data for Europe and Asia on the usgs.gov ftp server available. ftp://edcsgs9.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/Eurasia/ I think we should create new scenery files for the Europe and Asia area based on this better 3 arcsec SRTM Terrain data before we release FGFS version 0.9.4. The current available scenery for Flightgear for Europe and Asia is still based on the low detail 30 arcsec SRTM Terrain data. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org [1] I've seen no evidence of current female contributors so I don't think I'm being too politically incorrect here. Even so, in Minnesota, guys can be a generic term for a group of people, even a group of females, so please be tolerant of my dialect. :-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Aircraft/bo105/Models bo105.ac, 1.8,
Erik Hofman wrote: Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/bo105/Models In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv17582/Models Modified Files: bo105.ac bo105.xml shadow.rgb Log Message: New updates from Melchior in the color of the day. Ooooh, I found the yellow one definitely nicer, it was a cute, coloured spot in the colloection of mostly uniform coloured aircraft, 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] Official 0.9.4 release???
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Everything appears good to go here. (Although I did worry myself this morning when things went horribly wrong - but that was because I'd run out of disk space - luckily I noticed just before I mentioned something on #flightgear and made myself look like an idiot :-) -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Do you want my clouds patch ? For me, it doesn't behave worse than actual situation. I can come up with a patch in few hours. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] What about 3 arcsec Eurasia Terrain data before the release of FGFS 0.9.4?
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:46, Jon Stockill wrote: On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Oliver C. wrote: Since Oct 2003 there is a 3 arcsec SRTM Terrain data for Europe and Asia on the usgs.gov ftp server available. ftp://edcsgs9.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/Eurasia/ I think we should create new scenery files for the Europe and Asia area based on this better 3 arcsec SRTM Terrain data before we release FGFS version 0.9.4. The current available scenery for Flightgear for Europe and Asia is still based on the low detail 30 arcsec SRTM Terrain data. You'll be disappointed - it's not as accurate as you'd hope, and while it has a lot more shape I'm not convinved by its absolute accuracy - there are still airfields on embankments and in trenches (and checking the airfield elevations shows them to be correct). Ok, but at the location where i live i do allready have the airfield (EDGM) in trechnes when using the old scenery data, but the hills around my city would be a lot more accurate. I allready tested that with a STRM Terrain viewer. The hills do look much more realistic with the new 3 arcsec data: http://www.dgadv.com/dgtv/ So we allready have the problem with airfiels on embankments or in trenches. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Curtis L. Olson asked Sent: 24 March 2004 15:36 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release??? I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? I've got the Seahawk model with a 2d panel working (and I could give it to you now), but on inspection, I don't think it is quite good enough to go into a base package. Lee felt that the 3d panel model should replace it. I am minded to leave it for now and move on to the promised Spitfire. I can return to it for the next release, if we think that 2d panels are worth pursuing. Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:35, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Curt. I don't have (and didn't had) the time to test the pre releases before this weekend. That's also the reason why the aircraft-todo list i want to upgrade has to wait at least until Friday afternoon. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Jon Stockill wrote: Everything appears good to go here. (Although I did worry myself this morning when things went horribly wrong - but that was because I'd run out of disk space - luckily I noticed just before I mentioned something on #flightgear and made myself look like an idiot :-) You did better than me ... :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Official 0.9.4 release???
Frederic BOUVIER wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Do you want my clouds patch ? For me, it doesn't behave worse than actual situation. I can come up with a patch in few hours. Fred, because we are getting down to the *final* tweak stage with this release, I think I would feel a bit more comfortable leaving this until after the release is done. If there are performance implications on older hardware, or non-nvidia hardware, or any other issues, it would be nicer to find that out at the start of the next release cycle. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Official 0.9.4 release???
Curtis L. Olson said: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Sounds ok to me. Has there been enough time for a reasonable number of people to try pre2? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Vivian Meazza said: Curtis L. Olson asked Sent: 24 March 2004 15:36 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release??? I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? I've got the Seahawk model with a 2d panel working (and I could give it to you now), but on inspection, I don't think it is quite good enough to go into a base package. Lee felt that the 3d panel model should replace it. I am minded to leave it for now and move on to the promised Spitfire. I can return to it for the next release, if we think that 2d panels are worth pursuing. In general, I'd say they are not worth it. Also before submitting a second xml wrapper, take a look at the p51d, and others to see how to combine 2d and 3d into the same file. There is no need for two separate files. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Jim Wilson wrote: Sounds ok to me. Has there been enough time for a reasonable number of people to try pre2? pre2 is currently only 16 hours old. If you switch over to a release _that_ early then you render purpose of a pre-release useless ! There _are_ people out in the wild who don't have the time to do useful testing during the week, 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] What about 3 arcsec Eurasia Terrain data before the release of FGFS 0.9.4?
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Oliver C. wrote: So we allready have the problem with airfiels on embankments or in trenches. OK, then I guess a scenery rebuild is the next job after getting 0.9.4 released, and packaged. As it's not in the base package it doesn't need to hold up the release though. I've got all the data downloaded and at least part processed ready to build the scenery. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Jim Wilson Vivian Meazza said: Curtis L. Olson asked Sent: 24 March 2004 15:36 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release??? I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? I've got the Seahawk model with a 2d panel working (and I could give it to you now), but on inspection, I don't think it is quite good enough to go into a base package. Lee felt that the 3d panel model should replace it. I am minded to leave it for now and move on to the promised Spitfire. I can return to it for the next release, if we think that 2d panels are worth pursuing. In general, I'd say they are not worth it. Also before submitting a second xml wrapper, take a look at the p51d, and others to see how to combine 2d and 3d into the same file. There is no need for two separate files. In this case I think there is, because the 2d and 3d models have diverged quite significantly. I'll have to bring them back into line before I can use one XML wrapper. Even then, I'm not sure how desirable that might be, because at the moment the 2d model provides functions that are not historically accurate such as HUD or autopilot. Anyway, UNODIR, I'm going to skip this one for now. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? Well, it _compiles_ on the machine without 3D, and on the machine with 3D I can't get PLIB to work because of the previously-mentioned problem. I may have time to do the manual fixup of the versions this evening, in which case I can formally try out pre2 tomorrow. But not before. I agree with the others; you should keep pre2 until Sunday evening. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low poly model LOD request
On Wed 24. March 2004 15:54, you wrote: D Luff wrote: Could you mail me the pa28 and c172dpm (the yellowish one) source please, and I'll have a play at some point. The low poly versions can loose their textures anyway - over half a mile away it shouldn't matter. [I'm replying publicly in case anyone else wants them.] Sorry for the late reply. These links will be good for a few days: http://www.megginson.com/Private/c172r-20040324.tar.gz http://www.megginson.com/Private/pa28-161-20040324.tar.gz Could you be so glad and provide also source of your excelent panel background image. Did you made it in blender, didn't you? Thanks, Madr -- Martin Dressler e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.musicabona.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Curtis L. Olson writes: I'm seeing a last minute flurry of people trying to get final model tweaks into the base package (which is good--great work guys![1]), but haven't heard any other complaints about the pre2 release. Are we getting pretty close to making this release official so we can get on with other stuff? You might want to hold the release until after the next PLIB bug fix release so we are sure no problems are introduced AFAIK a PLIB maintenance release is imminent Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Low poly model LOD request
Martin Dressler wrote: Could you be so glad and provide also source of your excelent panel background image. Did you made it in blender, didn't you? I think it's inside the pa28-161 directory. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nasal bug in keyboard binding
Jim Wilson wrote:
The nasal script doesn't work on the keyboard binding for the c
key (99). I can't see any problem, and there apparently are not any
useful debugging methods for nasal scripts
Have you tried print? It goes out via the standard SG_LOG channel as
an alert. It's true that there isn't a symbolic debugger for Nasal
yet. :)
if (property) {
}
Does not work if the property type is undefined.
I'm a little confused. Is property completely unset (which should
cause a symbol lookup failure), or does if have a value of nil (which
should have a boolean value of false)?
One thing I noticed just recently is that the top-level C++ code for
timers (as opposed to input bindings) did not properly print the stack
trace on error. I have this fixed in my tree; I suppose I need to get
it checked in before Curt forks 0.9.4. :)
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Aircraft/bo105/Models bo105.ac, 1.8,
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:40: Ooooh, I found the yellow one definitely nicer, it was a cute, coloured spot in the colloection of mostly uniform coloured aircraft, Hmm ... but the current one fits the seats better, doesn't it? m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: gl-info suffers from undefined references
Alex Perry wrote: [...] /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.3/../../../libglut.so: undefined reference to `glXChannelRectSGIX' [...] Never mind. It looks like Debian Testing has managed to temporarily have insufficient dependency constraints. It is currently possible to have incompatible versions of glut and glX libraries installed. This is exactly the same problem that bit Red Hat about a year ago, got me into a viscious flame war with Mike Harris, and ultimately led them to pull glut from their distribution entirely. The issue is that glut (being ancient, crufty, unmaintaned, and slightly non-free) uses compile-time checking to look for OpenGL extensions. Around version 4.3, XFree86 implemented some SGIX extensions that glut uses. When compiled against XFree headers from 4.3+, glut generates a library with dependencies on those extension symbols. But ATI and NVidia ship libGL.so's that don't implement them. Debian's glut will work against debian's libraries, but not against 3rd party ones. The Mesa distribution has a version of glut that has been fixed to use runtime testing for this extension. The problem as I understand it, though, is that this distribution isn't quite compatible with glut's license terms. So no one wants to ship it. What I've done on my system is compile a static glut from Mesa which I put (by hand) into the FlightGear prefix/lib directory when I build. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: gl-info suffers from undefined references
Andy Ross wrote: This is exactly the same problem that bit Red Hat about a year ago, got me into a viscious flame war with Mike Harris, and ultimately led them to pull glut from their distribution entirely. The issue is that glut (being ancient, crufty, unmaintaned, and slightly non-free) uses compile-time checking to look for OpenGL extensions. Around version 4.3, XFree86 implemented some SGIX extensions that glut uses. When compiled against XFree headers from 4.3+, glut generates a library with dependencies on those extension symbols. But ATI and NVidia ship libGL.so's that don't implement them. Debian's glut will work against debian's libraries, but not against 3rd party ones. The Mesa distribution has a version of glut that has been fixed to use runtime testing for this extension. The problem as I understand it, though, is that this distribution isn't quite compatible with glut's license terms. So no one wants to ship it. What I've done on my system is compile a static glut from Mesa which I put (by hand) into the FlightGear prefix/lib directory when I build. This might be another reason to look at plib's PW or SDL or at least moving away from glut? Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] nasal bug in keyboard binding
Andy Ross wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
if (property) {
}
Does not work if the property type is undefined.
I'm a little confused. Is property completely unset (which should
cause a symbol lookup failure), or does if have a value of nil (which
should have a boolean value of false)?
Never mind, I understand. The getprop() function returns nil if the
SGPropertyNode type of the property is UNSPECIFIED. That's definitely
a bug. Fixed.
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Ornithopter cockpit
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 06:07, Jim Wilson wrote: It is far too late for this release, but I promised Michael some instruments for the Ornithopter a while back so I've committed what amounts a rough start. It just affects the ornithopter directory and that seems to work so (hopefully) there will be no breakage. This is what it looks like: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/ornithoptervc.png This is what it should look like: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/ornithopterreal.png I've got a much higher res of these and other views. As you can see there's a lot that's not there, but three significant ones are. I'm going to have to figure out what that green thing on the right does before going much further. And that led display in the center looks important as well (must be the mach indicator? :-)). Best, Jim Hello Jim, Michael gave me some info about some of the Orni instruments - I'll check through the e-mails I've got to see if I can confirm what they do. From memory, I think the central LED display was for the flap-rate. I think may have something about the side box with the LED cross too - at least I seem to recall asking about it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: gl-info suffers from undefined references
Curtis L. Olson wrote: This might be another reason to look at plib's PW or SDL or at least moving away from glut? Yeah, this has been on my list for a while. I actually got started a while back with snipping out the glut dependencies from the input and main loop code and putting them into a fg_os.cxx file. Our requirements are pretty simple. I'm just now coming out of a period of business at work, and can start picking up the FlightGear stuff I have sitting around. First on the list is the Nasal-based fuel system, which is almost there (the Nasal works, the YASim changes aren't debugged yet). The ssg font object would be another good candidate, as would the de-glutification stuff. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nasal bug in keyboard binding
Andy Ross said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
The nasal script doesn't work on the keyboard binding for the c
key (99). I can't see any problem, and there apparently are not any
useful debugging methods for nasal scripts
Have you tried print? It goes out via the standard SG_LOG channel as
an alert. It's true that there isn't a symbolic debugger for Nasal
yet. :)
if (property) {
}
Does not work if the property type is undefined.
I'm a little confused. Is property completely unset (which should
cause a symbol lookup failure), or does if have a value of nil (which
should have a boolean value of false)?
If you have xml:
propertytrue/property
then the test
if (property) {
}
will fail.
If you have xml:
property type=booltrue/property
then the test
if (property) {
}
will work.
At least this is what I think I was seeing.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Wiki Dead?
Is anyone able to get into the FlightGear Wiki? It looks like it's been deactivated. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Wiki Dead?
David Megginson said: Is anyone able to get into the FlightGear Wiki? It looks like it's been deactivated. All the best, David Apparently FlightGear is Flight Gear so there needs to be a %20 inserted into the url. Did that get changed or did we just have the link wrong on the flightgear.org page? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] What about 3 arcsec Eurasia Terrain data before the release of FGFS 0.9.4?
..has anyone played with the lower detail 30 arcsec SRTM Terrain data, _and_ the new higher detail 3 arcsec data, _mixing_ the data, to try produce even higher detail than the 3 arcsec data? I mean, both data sets_are_ correct. -- ..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] Re: FlightGear Wiki Dead?
Melchior FRANZ wrote: The link changed: http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Flight%20Gearwikiid=2418 Many thanks. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:04:29 -0500, Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: AFAIK a PLIB maintenance release is imminent ..plib-1.8.2? -- ..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] What about 3 arcsec Eurasia Terrain data before the release of FGFS 0.9.4?
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..has anyone played with the lower detail 30 arcsec SRTM Terrain data, _and_ the new higher detail 3 arcsec data, _mixing_ the data, to try produce even higher detail than the 3 arcsec data? I mean, both data sets_are_ correct. I'm not sure how you'd end up with higher-level detail. For every 100 points in the 3 arcsec DEM, there will be one point in the 30 arcsec DEM, presumably equal to the highest of the 100 points (but I'm not sure -- Norm can probably fill us in). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: gl-info suffers from undefined references
Andy Ross writes: Alex Perry wrote: [...] /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/3.3.3/../../../libglut.so: undefined reference to `glXChannelRectSGIX' [...] Never mind. It looks like Debian Testing has managed to temporarily have insufficient dependency constraints. It is currently possible to have incompatible versions of glut and glX libraries installed. This is exactly the same problem that bit Red Hat about a year ago, got me into a viscious flame war with Mike Harris, and ultimately led them to pull glut from their distribution entirely. snip What I've done on my system is compile a static glut from Mesa which I put (by hand) into the FlightGear prefix/lib directory when I build. I have heard that FreeGlut has no such problem note you want to use the latest release not the CVS version Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Aircraft/bo105/Models bo105.ac, 1.8,
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:40: Ooooh, I found the yellow one definitely nicer, it was a cute, coloured spot in the colloection of mostly uniform coloured aircraft, Oh, well. Actually I like both versions. I just think that the yellow one got a bit boring already, and that the green one hides the lack of texture better. Once I've textured everything this won't be necessary, but changing colors will then also not be that easy any more. This was the last chance for some change. If more than one prefers the yellow bo105 (and the release date permits it) then I can change it back. It's just the difference between make install and make install mil for me. :-) BTW: planned are the following changes (probably, but not necessarily in this order) - finish position lights (top red in cvs; bottom red done here) - implement rotor disk and blend in at some rotational speed - interior: cyclic/collective, pilot, eventually medical config - external details (wire cutter, further antennas, ...) - texturing (no idea which livree; certainly not ADAC ;-) - more/custom instruments - bended blades(?) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 0.9.5pre1: --show-aircraft
Okay, yeah sorry for the noise. I just found out why i got this problem. It looks like what I did was run my regular fgfs sessions specifying --fg-root= /home/durk/src/FlightGear-0.9.4pre1/data (where I installed the prerelease base package), but I had picked-up a fgfs --show-aircraft from the shell history, where I hadn't specified this option. Because I had made sure that I had temporarily removed .fgfsrc file, I assumed that it would fail to find any base packages at all if I didn't specify the fg-root path, because I have installed the regular (CVS) base package in a non-default location. This is where the problem started, because fgfs didn't stop with an error. As a consequence of all my recent system crashes, I have done several updates of SuSe linux, and in one of them I have appearently installed the SuSe FlightGear rpm, which fgfs picked-up and read the aircraft -set files from, instead. Because I didn't get an error, I was assuming it was picking-up the right base package, which it in fact didn't. Obviously, this happened right before bedtime, when I wasn't quite sharp enough anymore to catch my error. This morning I tested it properly and then I got the correct list of aircraft Confusingly yours, Durk On Wednesday 24 March 2004 09:47, Erik Hofman wrote: Durk Talsma wrote: Okay I tried testing a few more aircraft, and it appears that --show-aircraft lists a lot more aircraft than are in the current base package. I installed a duplicate copy of the prerelease of the base package, keeping my original CVS distribution. I made sure to use to override the default location of fgroot, using the --fg-root= commandline option. Is this a bug, or just some weirdness of my setup? This is impossible, it must be something local. That option scans the Aircraft directory for subdirectories containing files ending with -set.xml . Erik ___ 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] configure.ac
Hmmm, this is the output gcc --version gives me. I get no problems at all from gcc, including /usr/local as an extra dir. Weeeiiirrd. cheers, Durk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.3.1 (SuSE Linux) Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ On Wednesday 24 March 2004 13:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Durk Talsma wrote: Okay, I just downloaded the lastest pre2 release, and FlightGear still didn't build out-of-the-box on my linux machine, because /usr/local/ was missing as part of the EXTRA_DIRS check. Interestingly, this test is done now for cygwin, but not for linux. I've included a small patch for configure.ac, which fixes this. Basically, I just copied and pasted the same test from the cygwin section. I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but on my system, FlightGear now compiles wihout a glitch. Hmmm, what version of the compiler are you using. We got thoroughly beat up by the gcc-3.x users because having the /usr/local there at least causes the compiler to squawk on every file it compiles. Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Trademark violations could be a problem
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 23:43, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Martin Spott -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:40: Ooooh, I found the yellow one definitely nicer, it was a cute, coloured spot in the colloection of mostly uniform coloured aircraft, If more than one prefers the yellow bo105 (and the release date permits it) then I can change it back. Yes, i do. I prefer the yellow one too. But maybe we could implement some kind of switch where we can choose from a list of different looks. MS does have something similiar in their FS2004. BTW: planned are the following changes (probably, but not necessarily in this order) - texturing (no idea which livree; certainly not ADAC ;-) Maybe we should use a fictitious name because real names of companies etc. could be a trademark violation. So to be on the safe side we shouldn't use real names at all. This includes airline names on airplanes and company names on buildings in the fgfs scenery. What is your opionion about this issue? Did someone of you thought about that? What is the legal status, what is allowed and what is not allowed? Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More 0.9.4pre1 feedback
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:27 + (GMT) Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, David Luff wrote: Seems to work fine on Cygwin, apart from the --with-package=PREFIX configuration issues already posted. Nice job everyone. Yup - it's a flawless build on slackware with: plib 1.8.1 SimGear 0.5.4pre1 FlighGear 0.9.4pre1 I've not had chance to do much testing yet, but first impressions are good. I'll also be including fgrun in the package - is there likely to be a release newer than 0.4.2 in time to include in the packages? I've just released 0.4.3. Changes include: * Maintain proper aspect ratio of aircraft preview window. * Added control to refresh airport and runway data. * Display aircraft description. * Smarter handling of aircraft aliases. * Fullscreen option at startup. Many thanks to Frederic Bouvier for his input and patches. Bernie ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Official 0.9.4 release???
Arnt Karlsen writes: Norman Vine wrote: Please configure your email program so as not to include email addresses in replies. AFAIK a PLIB maintenance release is imminent ..plib-1.8.2? Yes Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Trademark violations could be a problem
Oliver C. wrote: Maybe we should use a fictitious name because real names of companies etc. could be a trademark violation. So to be on the safe side we shouldn't use real names at all. This includes airline names on airplanes and company names on buildings in the fgfs scenery. What is your opionion about this issue? Did someone of you thought about that? What is the legal status, what is allowed and what is not allowed? I think this issue is way overblown. People have been modeling real liveries and buildings in flight sims from day one. If we go down this road, we will have copyright problems with Cessna for modeling a c172, problems with Boeing for modeling a 747, copyright problems with Norway for modeling Norway, copyright problems with God for modeling the world? Maybe we should have all fictitious aircraft, all ficticious terrain, ficticious planet radius, ficticious weather, fictitious cities, but then that's no fun. I don't think we should spend too much energy solving non-existant problems. If people want to create ficticioius designs, that can be fun too. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Trademark violations could be a problem
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:28:48 -0600 Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: spend too much energy solving non-existant problems. If people want to create ficticioius designs, that can be fun too. Curt. That could be a lot of fun. I'm working on OlsonAir, at the moment. ;-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Trademark violations could be a problem
On Thursday 25 March 2004 00:28, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I think this issue is way overblown. People have been modeling real liveries and buildings in flight sims from day one. If we go down this road, we will have copyright problems with Cessna for modeling a c172, problems with Boeing for modeling a 747 ... I don't think we should spend too much energy solving non-existant problems. I only wanted to express that we should not provoke the law when it is not necessary. Like it is the case when texturing airplanes. Take a look at Microsofts FS2004 they don't use real airline names on their airplanes either. In other words, when we want to simulate a Boeing 747 we have no other chance to model such one, but when we want to make the Boeing 747 look good and realistiv we don't need to call that one Lufthansa. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Aircraft/bo105/Models bo105.ac, 1.8,
Melchior FRANZ said: * Martin Spott -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:40: Ooooh, I found the yellow one definitely nicer, it was a cute, coloured spot in the colloection of mostly uniform coloured aircraft, Oh, well. Actually I like both versions. I just think that the yellow one got a bit boring already, and that the green one hides the lack of texture better. Once I've textured everything this won't be necessary, but changing colors will then also not be that easy any more. This was the last chance for some change. If more than one prefers the yellow bo105 (and the release date permits it) then I can change it back. It's just the difference between make install and make install mil for me. :-) BTW: planned are the following changes (probably, but not necessarily in this order) - finish position lights (top red in cvs; bottom red done here) - implement rotor disk and blend in at some rotational speed - interior: cyclic/collective, pilot, eventually medical config - external details (wire cutter, further antennas, ...) - texturing (no idea which livree; certainly not ADAC ;-) - more/custom instruments - bended blades(?) How about this one? ;-) http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/barneymobile.png BTW the cockpit looks great. I recently took it out chasing AI aircraft around oakland airport. The flight model may not be 100% but it sure is fun flying it. Nice looking beacon there as well. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Ornithopter cockpit
Lee Elliott said: On Wednesday 24 March 2004 06:07, Jim Wilson wrote: It is far too late for this release, but I promised Michael some instruments for the Ornithopter a while back so I've committed what amounts a rough start. It just affects the ornithopter directory and that seems to work so (hopefully) there will be no breakage. This is what it looks like: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/ornithoptervc.png This is what it should look like: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/ornithopterreal.png I've got a much higher res of these and other views. As you can see there's a lot that's not there, but three significant ones are. I'm going to have to figure out what that green thing on the right does before going much further. And that led display in the center looks important as well (must be the mach indicator? :-)). Best, Jim Hello Jim, Michael gave me some info about some of the Orni instruments - I'll check through the e-mails I've got to see if I can confirm what they do. From memory, I think the central LED display was for the flap-rate. I think may have something about the side box with the LED cross too - at least I seem to recall asking about it. LeeE Hi Lee, Thanks for digging this up. I'll need to get even more on this. A readme file to describe how to fly it and use these indicators is going to be essential I think. Not much help on the ornithopter site. It is very strange flying this thing. I have yet to figure out how to recover from a stall...always goes down to the ground, even from a fairly high altitude. My guess is that green box is critical, as well as the flap rate indicator, in flying this properly. Note the LED numeric display is dead center on the panel. Thanks, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] last-minute addition
While I'm waiting for my 74 meg download of the base package I was wondering if it isn't too late to get JSBSim's new FGPropulsion.cpp file into the FlightGear source so we can immediately support hangaring? Also, do we have a minimal base package made up? Dave -- David Culp davidculp2[at]comcast.net ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Aircraft/bo105/Models bo105.ac, 1.8,
Jim Wilson wrote: How about this one? ;-) http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/barneymobile.png Is that the don't-ask-don't-tellicopter. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] last-minute addition
I'd recommend that this go in, personally, Dave - HOWEVER, I'd also recommend that the change you made be compared with what is in FlightGear CVS now. JSBSim CVS is in the middle of some other major changes, and I'd rather those not go in just yet. I can't recall offhand at the moment how deeply those changes reach into FGPropulsion. Jon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Culp Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 7:39 PM To: flightgear-devel Subject: [Flightgear-devel] last-minute addition While I'm waiting for my 74 meg download of the base package I was wondering if it isn't too late to get JSBSim's new FGPropulsion.cpp file into the FlightGear source so we can immediately support hangaring? Also, do we have a minimal base package made up? Dave -- David Culp davidculp2[at]comcast.net ___ 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] last-minute addition
Jon Berndt wrote: I'd recommend that this go in, personally, Dave - HOWEVER, I'd also recommend that the change you made be compared with what is in FlightGear CVS now. JSBSim CVS is in the middle of some other major changes, and I'd rather those not go in just yet. I can't recall offhand at the moment how deeply those changes reach into FGPropulsion. On the flip side though, there's nothing in the upcoming release that requires or uses this patch; I don't see any benefit worth muddying up the water this close to a release. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] last-minute addition
I'd recommend that this go in, personally, Dave - HOWEVER, I'd also recommend that the change you made be compared with what is in FlightGear CVS now. JSBSim CVS is in the middle of some other major changes, and I'd rather those not go in just yet. I can't recall offhand at the moment how deeply those changes reach into FGPropulsion. I just compiled FlightGear-0.9.4.pre2 and it has the older FGPropulsion.cpp. (By the way, the build went without a hitch, and everything looks good so far). Maybe one of the FG developers can sneak it in :) Dave -- David Culp davidculp2[at]comcast.net ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] last-minute addition
On the flip side though, there's nothing in the upcoming release that requires or uses this patch; I don't see any benefit worth muddying up the water this close to a release. Missed it by a milimeter ... Dave -- David Culp davidculp2[at]comcast.net ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Trademark violations could be a problem
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:47:14 +0100, Oliver C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thursday 25 March 2004 00:28, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I think this issue is way overblown. People have been modeling real liveries and buildings in flight sims from day one. If we go down this road, we will have copyright problems with Cessna for modeling a c172, problems with Boeing for modeling a 747 ..really? Look at SCO vs IBM etc cans of worms over at Groklaw and try figure out whether or not case law _has_ Cessna and Boeing owning their plane designs by the end of this next presidental term. Microsoft _does_ have the money to do it. I don't think we should spend too much energy solving non-existant problems. ..agreed, and you guys are always welcome over here, should the need arise. I only wanted to express that we should not provoke the law when it is not necessary. Like it is the case when texturing airplanes. Take a look at Microsofts FS2004 they don't use real airline names on their airplanes either. ..no??? I _can_ see a few strategies behind _that_ move. In other words, when we want to simulate a Boeing 747 we have no other chance to model such one, but when we want to make the Boeing 747 look good and realistiv we don't need to call that one Lufthansa. ..the best way is to ask the owners of whatever we wanna model. Worst case, they say no, and then we just abide, and avoid those Nigerian 419 kinda US lawsuits. On filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff has to sell a viable story to the effect that there _is_ a case. -- ..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] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: data/Aircraft/bo105/Models bo105.ac, 1.8,
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:52:57 -0600, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jim Wilson wrote: How about this one? ;-) http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/barneymobile.png Is that the don't-ask-don't-tellicopter. ..using these names sounds like neat nice legal prank. ;-) -- ..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] What about 3 arcsec Eurasia Terrain data beforethe release of FGFS 0.9.4?
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:26:09 -0500, Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: David Megginson writes: Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..has anyone played with the lower detail 30 arcsec SRTM Terrain data, _and_ the new higher detail 3 arcsec data, _mixing_ the data, to try produce even higher detail than the 3 arcsec data? I mean, both data sets_are_ correct. I'm not sure how you'd end up with higher-level detail. For every 100 points in the 3 arcsec DEM, there will be one point in the 30 arcsec DEM, presumably equal to the highest of the 100 points (but I'm not sure -- Norm can probably fill us in). ..picture the land as a giant tent, with tent poles for every data point. Adding more data points, adds more tent poles. Remove any data, remove those tent poles. the 30 sec SRTM is much better then the previous gtopo30 product which it replaces. However where available the 3 arc second product is better yet except for the occasional hole. ..and it may well be that the data mix job is too expensive in data points gained over simply tossing out the old data. -- ..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] Official 0.9.4 release???
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:24:00 -0500, Norman wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen writes: Norman Vine wrote: Please configure your email program so as not to include email addresses in replies. ..like above here? Saves a line, and possibly threading too, this message I try responding to, dropped out of the thread. AFAIK a PLIB maintenance release is imminent ..plib-1.8.2? Yes ..thanks. -- ..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
