Re: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Martin Spott a écrit : Hello, I just downloaded the Win32 package and took it for a test-ride. There are three things I'd like to mention: 1.) The Isle of Alcatraz doesn't look as I'm used to it from FlightGear. To my knowledge Frederic adapted the terrain to include the heliport, this is now missing. Heliport are no longer in the new Scenery ( 0.9.8 ) 2.) On Windows I usually place e system.fgfsrc file in the 'data/' directory. This usually works fine but there is a flaw that already was present in the 0.9.6 Win32 binary: The --aircraft=-flag is not being honoured, I always get the c172. Everything else looks good. System.fgfsrc is no longer overwritten but it is still read by flightgear. So you can get old value you don't want anymore -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Heliport are no longer in the new Scenery ( 0.9.8 ) Too bad :-( System.fgfsrc is no longer overwritten but it is still read by flightgear. This is what I meant: I run FlightGear and it actually reads most of the values in my manually written 'system.fgfsrc', except a single one (as far as I can tell), which is the aircraft to use. I've already moved the --aircraft=-clause to different positions but this didn't make any difference. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Martin Spott wrote : System.fgfsrc is no longer overwritten but it is still read by flightgear. This is what I meant: I run FlightGear and it actually reads most of the values in my manually written 'system.fgfsrc', except a single one (as far as I can tell), which is the aircraft to use. I've already moved the --aircraft=-clause to different positions but this didn't make any difference. From the beginning, fgrun was starting fgfs with 2 command line options : --fg-root and --aircraft because you need the first to find system.fgfsrc and the second because it was not used in this file. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Announce v0.9.8
Adam Dershowitz wrote: Damn, so I missed one of those fixes. Actually, I just checked, and that file was not present when I was building and patching for GL location, so it has been added since, and was done the old way instead. Can one of you guys with CVS access fix that one? Done. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote : This is what I meant: I run FlightGear and it actually reads most of the values in my manually written 'system.fgfsrc', except a single one (as far as I can tell), which is the aircraft to use. I've already moved the --aircraft=-clause to different positions but this didn't make any difference. From the beginning, fgrun was starting fgfs with 2 command line options : --fg-root and --aircraft because you need the first to find system.fgfsrc and the second because it was not used in this file. I never talked about 'fgrun', I am talking about FlightGear itself, alias 'fgfs.exe'. How do I manage to let FlightGear on Windows read the aircraft name from the 'system.fgfsrc' ? Is the use of 'system.fgfsrc' still a 'supported' option with FlightGear on Windows ? If yes, then I think FlightGear on Windows simply has a bug because it ignores the aircraft name. If not, is there an official replacement for this configuration file ? Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Quoting Martin Spott : Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote : This is what I meant: I run FlightGear and it actually reads most of the values in my manually written 'system.fgfsrc', except a single one (as far as I can tell), which is the aircraft to use. I've already moved the --aircraft=-clause to different positions but this didn't make any difference. From the beginning, fgrun was starting fgfs with 2 command line options : --fg-root and --aircraft because you need the first to find system.fgfsrc and the second because it was not used in this file. I never talked about 'fgrun', I am talking about FlightGear itself, alias 'fgfs.exe'. How do I manage to let FlightGear on Windows read the aircraft name from the 'system.fgfsrc' ? Is the use of 'system.fgfsrc' still a 'supported' option with FlightGear on Windows ? If yes, then I think FlightGear on Windows simply has a bug because it ignores the aircraft name. If not, is there an official replacement for this configuration file ? I was just writting about my experience on the problem, and this is not a recent issue, although I silently worked around. But are you sure it is specific to windows ? -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Frederic Bouvier wrote: I was just writting about my experience on the problem, and this is not a recent issue, although I silently worked around. But are you sure it is specific to windows ? It's a bit complicated to make a 'fair' comparison with other platforms because on Unix the file has a different name (.fgfsrc) and a different location ($HOME). I am using $HOME/.fgfsrc on Unix already for a looong time (maybe since 0.7.3 if the feature was already present in this release) and I know it now works at least on four different Unices (well, not surprising), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Solaris8/Sparc binary package
Please find it at this location: ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Solaris/fgfs-0.9.8-sol8-sparc-opt.gz Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Little flaws with Win32 package
Fred wrote: Quoting Martin Spott : Frederic Bouvier wrote: Martin Spott wrote : This is what I meant: I run FlightGear and it actually reads most of the values in my manually written 'system.fgfsrc', except a single one (as far as I can tell), which is the aircraft to use. I've already moved the --aircraft=-clause to different positions but this didn't make any difference. From the beginning, fgrun was starting fgfs with 2 command line options : --fg-root and --aircraft because you need the first to find system.fgfsrc and the second because it was not used in this file. I never talked about 'fgrun', I am talking about FlightGear itself, alias 'fgfs.exe'. How do I manage to let FlightGear on Windows read the aircraft name from the 'system.fgfsrc' ? Is the use of 'system.fgfsrc' still a 'supported' option with FlightGear on Windows ? If yes, then I think FlightGear on Windows simply has a bug because it ignores the aircraft name. If not, is there an official replacement for this configuration file ? I was just writting about my experience on the problem, and this is not a recent issue, although I silently worked around. But are you sure it is specific to windows ? Same under Cygwin - it's been like it for as long as I can remember - I thought it was a feature not a bug, and have lived with it. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Removing PLIB SL dependencies
Martin Spott wrote: Here you'll find the summary of both: ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Devel/FGconfigure.ac.diff Now that the source is release is out and new patches arrive, would anyone bother to apply this one in order to eliminate the remaining dependencies on the PLIB sound library ? Thanks, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:48, Roman Grigoriev wrote: Hi guys! I try to model rain and snow in flightgear but have some difficutlies because I haven't seen it in real flight from cabin of aircraft. Maybe someone can explain me some features when you have take-off or landing in rain and snow. Is it similar to car? Or maybe someone have videos or photos? Thanx in advance Bye ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I think it was Erik had a model working with the PC-7 for rain. Essentially, rain or snow almost immediately appears to be coming straight at you in 'tunnel' effect the moment that the aircraft begins moving into it. If you slip the aircraft, the centre of the tunnel effect moves toward the direction of slip. Rain specifically also has the effect of an 'upward waterfall' on windscreens which are not actively cleared - spreading towards the outside edges at the top. Another thing is scenery textures for snowfall - I had a go at looking for ways to make the default scenery appear to be covered in snow but I haven't found anything all that convincing yet. Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things that can be done with FG aircraft. I think before we go with only 1 aircraft in the base package, we should really spiff up the C-172 externals and internals. Suspention animation, shadows, lights, and a much better 3d cockpit. If we go with only one aircraft, it should be really nice all around, and show off what we can do in FG. That sounds reasonable. For my own part, I'll see if I have time to do more work on the Cherokee/Warrior, which would be a reasonable alternative starter plane (as would any other trainer, such as the Cessna 150/152, Beech Musketeer, or even Diamond Katana, if anyone is interested in building one of those). The J3 Cub is probably the most famous trainer in history, but the tailwheel ground handling is too hard for most new users to manage. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
David Megginson said: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things that can be done with FG aircraft. I think before we go with only 1 aircraft in the base package, we should really spiff up the C-172 externals and internals. Suspention animation, shadows, lights, and a much better 3d cockpit. If we go with only one aircraft, it should be really nice all around, and show off what we can do in FG. That sounds reasonable. For my own part, I'll see if I have time to do more work on the Cherokee/Warrior, which would be a reasonable alternative starter plane (as would any other trainer, such as the Cessna 150/152, Beech Musketeer, or even Diamond Katana, if anyone is interested in building one of those). The J3 Cub is probably the most famous trainer in history, but the tailwheel ground handling is too hard for most new users to manage. Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in base package)
Jim Wilson wrote: Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). I have access to a commercial FAA Level 3 FTD certified C172 model. I haven't done any direct comparisons, but I can say that there are some aspects of our C172 that are waaay off. Some day when I have time I'd like to do some more direct comparisons and at least nudge some portions of our C172 in the right direction, but I've been keeping busy with other stuff lately. Let me steer this discussion in another direction ... I would really love to start talking about doing a v1.0 release of FlightGear ... maybe this spring or early summer. There are a couple things that I feel are holding us back. We will live with or without fixes, but if we do a 1.0 release, it would be nice to make it ... well ... really nice. I would like to see at least the following items addressed: 1. Documentation (getting started manual) really needs to be made current. 2. Spiffed up and much improved C172 (inside and out.) Or the pa28-161 ... the goal would be to have one nicely done model that demonstrates all the functionality and features of our simulator and does it in a really nice, polished way. 3. Fix the JSBsim low speed gear jitters. Here's my one and only *big* gripe about JSBsim ... gear handling when stopped. At some point we *must* solve that problem and make the gear stick, stay put, not jitter, and not swing into the wind when the aircraft is stopped. YAsim figured out a (pragmatically) reasonable way to do it, so it must be possible. It would be really, really, really, really, *really* great if we could get that one problem cleared up in the near future. 4. We need to do some work on the fgrun front end to make it more user friendly. Frederic and Bernie (and others?) have done a *lot* of great, difficult, and tedious work on this tool to bring it to where it is, but there are still some gaps and things that could be much improved to make the tool work for new users. There are also some human factors/feedback issues with fgrun and launching flightgear that (again are hard but) would be nice to address. I think we are really close to a nice v1.0 release. We have a good solid infrastructure in place. We can do a lot of really neat and cool stuff. We offer FlightGear 100% for free. But we should mentally follow the process of a new user seeing a post about FG somewhere on the net, clicking on the link, arriving at our web site, downloading the setup.exe, installing it, launching it for the first time, selecting an aircraft/airport, selecting other options, and finally running FlightGear. What issues will they see? What will cause confusion? What doesn't work well without additional knowledge? For better or worse, 90-95% of our users are going to be on the windows platform, so some of us at least do need to consider (carefully) the perspective of the typical windows user. It's my sense that we are entering a new phase of FlightGear. Our popularity and web traffic and downloads continue to grow. I'm not sure the best way to verbalize this, but I think it is getting to be time for us to take a step forward in our own growth as a project; to step up to the next level; to take responsibility for some of our short comings; to attack some of our tough/boring issues. This might be too much of a USA-centric analogy, but it's perhaps similar to the sports world where a standout high school athlete is now contemplating moving to the college level. (or maybe it's a college athlete moving to pro ...) :-) Can they step up and compete at the next level? Can we? Like it or not, our popularity is pushing us towards the next level. It's my intention to respond with a really nice v1.0 release, but clearly this project is nothing without all the great help of the many volunteers that do such a great job, and a nice v1.0 release is only possible with everyone's help and participation. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Best, Jim Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
Let me steer this discussion in another direction ... I would really love to start talking about doing a v1.0 release of FlightGear ... maybe this spring or early summer. There are a couple 3. Fix the JSBsim low speed gear jitters. Here's my one and only *big* gripe about JSBsim ... gear handling when stopped. At some point we *must* solve that problem and make the gear stick, stay put, not jitter, and not swing into the wind when the aircraft is stopped. YAsim figured out a (pragmatically) reasonable way to do it, so it must be possible. It would be really, really, really, really, *really* great if we could get that one problem cleared up in the near future. I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we (JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0 release? The gear problem is the first thing I thought of, as well. Right now I am so focused on getting the new configuration file format ready I had not had time to visit (or revisit) other problems. I also recall that Mathias has worked on this with (as I recall) a lot of success. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please continue to do so. :-) Curt. I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume their offspring. ..maybe Curt has naughty kids? ;o) -- ..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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with Beaver and sound
Frederic Bouvier wrote: I just discovered that FG is suggesting me to upgrade my sound driver after alGenSources failed :-( This is the first time and all the other aircraft I tried never did the same. I even remember flying successfully with it not far ago. A quick glance with the debugger showed me that alGenSources failed the 33rd time it was called, so I guess my driver/hardware ( yes a realtek on brand new mainboard with brand new drivers ) is only able to cope with 32 sources. I also noticed that 20 sources are allocated for the same sample : Aircraft/dhc2/Sound/click.wav Question: is it normal that the same sample is being allocated multiple times ? Couldn't we use a reference counter and share the same buffer/source ? It seems that click.wav is bound to panel switches. I guess that a panel will lots of switches will saturate the sound driver just like too much texture will flood the graphic card. I looked at the code a bit and there is some facility to share a sample when the name tag is identical, however the dhc2 uses a different name for each item that can click, so this means that a new sound sample is created for each item that can click. OpenAL has buffers and sources. We should be able bind multiple sources to a single buffer, but you are saying that it's alGenSources() that is failing so that doesn't help us. The problem is that each alSource specifies it's location and a bunch of other parameters. The way our xml syntax is structured, you can't just combine sources because you will overwrite the previous sources location and any custom configuration it had. So it almost seems like we need to solve this on the sound configuration side. Build one sound, with one source, and one location, and then trigger it any number of ways ... with a large block of conditions ... that is less intuitive from the sound configuration perspective, but it might be what we need to do? Thoughts? Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 15:38, Jon Berndt wrote: I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we (JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0 release? The gear problem is the first thing I thought of, as well. Right now I am so focused on getting the new configuration file format ready I had not had time to visit (or revisit) other problems. I also recall that Mathias has worked on this with (as I recall) a lot of success. Jon As an outsider to JSBSim, I do agree that the gear issue would make operating JSBSim FDMs a lot more pleasant. Some YASIM FDMs are actually nicely taxiable now so you can do the whole flight from apron to apron which helps greatly with perceived realism for extended sessions. Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings
Jon Berndt wrote: I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we (JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0 release? The gear problem is the first thing I thought of, as well. Right now I am so focused on getting the new configuration file format ready I had not had time to visit (or revisit) other problems. I also recall that Mathias has worked on this with (as I recall) a lot of success. From my perspective, the gear problem is my one and only gripe with JSBsim. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in base
Curtis L. Olson wrote: 1. Documentation (getting started manual) really needs to be made current. Indeed, I spend too much time lingering around with portability stuff or other sorts of distraction lately. I'll go on and move the focus, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people also like to include non-violence conditions. ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other places, I still don't see how any other open or free source code license gives the author more control over his code, also for commercial or military use. ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with Qt. You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum). .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me to give it to you. ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire to it, I won't give it to you. ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper plane? Also, given my acceptance of your license, I can circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though I'm personally happy with the GPL. Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of control over the work once released under the license, I can't ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the GPL. I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control over what anyone else does with what I've released under the GPL. ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ work. criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware licenses, this depends on the license's small print language. I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people can no longer do what they want. ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given by the original authors, before you jumped in. Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people will tell you Riiight, I'll consider it if you can convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3. ;-) The problem I see with it is when people say that something _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the realm of compulsion. ..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad people to skim off the good stuff _and_ change author credits _and_ hide it as closed source _and_ charge for it. ..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say should GPL and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it happen. ;-) -- ..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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The tweaks were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The tweaks were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right thing to aim for. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rain and snow videos or photos
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:00:38 +, Dave wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:48, Roman Grigoriev wrote: Hi guys! I try to model rain and snow in flightgear but have some difficutlies because I haven't seen it in real flight from cabin of aircraft. Maybe someone can explain me some features when you have take-off or landing in rain and snow. Is it similar to car? Or maybe someone have videos or photos? Thanx in advance Bye I think it was Erik had a model working with the PC-7 for rain. Essentially, rain or snow almost immediately appears to be coming straight at you in 'tunnel' effect the moment that the aircraft begins moving into it. If you slip the aircraft, the centre of the tunnel effect moves toward the direction of slip. Rain specifically also has the effect of an 'upward waterfall' on windscreens which are not actively cleared - spreading towards the outside edges at the top. Another thing is scenery textures for snowfall - I had a go at looking for ways to make the default scenery appear to be covered in snow but I haven't found anything all that convincing yet. ..for freezing slush and snow on wing LE de-ice boots, it can flash between all white and all black in a lot less than a second, usually you'll see white and black areas move around flashing as the boots hits and burns off ice. -- ..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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Hi, The Mac OS X build of FlightGear 0.9.8, as available from http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/macflightgear/FlightGear-0.9.8.dmg? download, contains a file called 'How to Get to Heaven.rtf', at the root level (beside the OpenAL installer package and the FlightGear application directory), with bible quotes and essentially religious proselytizing. Here's a screenshot of the Mac OS X Finder window for the FlightGear-09.8 disk image: inline: fg098.jpg Attached, you'll find a copy of the 'How to Get to Heaven.rtf' file itself: How to Get to Heaven.rtf Description: RTF file Is it really a good idea to have essentially religious propaganda shipped in the semi-official build of FlightGear for Mac OS X? In particular, I find this somewhat perplexing, considering the amount of discussion regarding commercial advertisements placed on the FlightGear web site - and those ads would at least have been a) somewhat relevant to FlightGear, and b) brought in some revenue to support the FlightGear effort itself, whereas this religious message has neither been discussed (to my recollection), nor does it have anything to do with flight simulators in general or FlightGear in particular, nor does it in any way support the project. Or to put is more succinctly: when I downloaded FlightGear and got an unwelcome religious pamphlet thrown in my face, I got a seriously bad taste in my mouth. Best wishes, // Christian Brunschen ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The tweaks were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right thing to aim for. The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero qualities that I was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at the time I believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we have a turbocharged piston engine model. It's still something I want to return to, but priorities changed - some in response to address the changes needed to build a better P-51D. I apologize for my premature statements - I didn't know at the time that I would run into the hurdles that I encountered late in the process. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:43, Christian Brunschen wrote: Hi, The Mac OS X build of FlightGear 0.9.8, as available from http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/macflightgear/FlightGear-0.9.8.dmg? download, contains a file called 'How to Get to Heaven.rtf', at the root level (beside the OpenAL installer package and the FlightGear application directory), with bible quotes and essentially religious proselytizing. Here's a screenshot of the Mac OS X Finder window for the FlightGear-09.8 disk image: I find it rather bizarre if anything. Although third party distributions of FG are compiled / packaged independently I can see how it leave a 'bad taste' to have someones unrelated morals not neccesarily *inflicted* but certainly presented to you. Technically it could be called 'spam' as it is unsolicited ie: You wanted FlightGear for OSX - You were given FlightGear for OSX + religious spam. And anyway, everyone knows how to get to heaven; just keep pulling up! :-P Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The tweaks were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right thing to aim for. The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. Jim, I think this is more a factor of getting the right actual power output from the engine. If the engine output is too low, you are going to get up with a slick model that glides forever. If the engine output is too high you are going to end up with a draggy model that slows down too quickly. I remember you struggling with trying to model the complex p51 engine gearing correctly in yasim and maybe that never came out right and you ended up with a severely under powered model. If that is the case, yasim will reduce drag and make your wing lift better so that you can still hit the performance numbers. For the Citation-II I felt like Yasim did a pretty good job. I haven't really hit the validation end of it hard, but I was getting plausible performance throughout the envelope. I think the big trick is to get the engine power output in the right ball park, then everything else starts falling into place much better. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in base package)
* Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-20 15:30]: 4. We need to do some work on the fgrun front end to make it more user friendly. Frederic and Bernie (and others?) have done a *lot* of great, difficult, and tedious work on this tool to bring it to where it is, but there are still some gaps and things that could be much improved to make the tool work for new users. There are also some human factors/feedback issues with fgrun and launching flightgear that (again are hard but) would be nice to address. Would it be preferable then, to package the windows version of FG with fgrun and centre the docs around using fgrun while still catering for 'more advanced' command line usage in the documentation? I think it's fair to say that there are a lot more linux users now than there were just a couple of years ago who have come over from Windows. These people would also benefit from a GUI too... I am not trying to open the can of worms marked 'default GUI for FGFS'. I merely think that Curt is absolutely right. You can use the command line interface if you wish but one or more GUI options is an absolute requirement and when it comes to documentation, it may be that to cut down on work we may have to adopt one GUI interface and only document that. All the best, Matthew (Donning flame suit as we speak ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Dave Martin wrote: And anyway, everyone knows how to get to heaven; just keep pulling up! :-P Downloading Lee's Canberra model first may help :-) -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Christian Brunschen wrote: Or to put is more succinctly: when I downloaded FlightGear and got an unwelcome religious pamphlet thrown in my face, I got a seriously bad taste in my mouth. Indeed, in my opinion the FlightGear community can't tolerate such action, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] wierd windows problem 0.9.6 - 0.9.8 (maybe a bug)
I had installed flight gear 0.9.6, and i was playng around with optins. In Network panel, i had checked httpd and jpg-httpd on diferent ports, but when i try to start flightgear an error occurs: Config file parse error: E:/Program Files/FlightGear/data/system.fgfsrc '--jpg_h ttpd=5502' i had uninstaled and reinstalled angian FG but i can't uncheck jpg_httpd..then i had uninstalled and then searched and deleted al files that i found related to FG, i had scaned the registers and delete eneithing... and then i had installed 0.9.8 but the problem persist. I sent this mail to devel list becose seems to be a bug. I'm runing XP pro.. on AMD XP 1800+ with 256Mb ram.. Linux Slackware 10 an tha same machine (i didn't tryed this bug in linux, i was afraid to ruin that FG copy to ;) ). IS ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:40 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Actually, I'd say that the two are roughly equal in realism: JSBSim can use real, measured flight coefficients when they exist (most of the time we have to make them up right now), but it is stuck at a high level of abstraction because it can apply its calculations only to the aircraft as a whole; YASim cannot use real coefficients, but since it handles each lifting surface separately, it works at a lower level of abstraction can handle various asymmetric situations much more believably (for example, JSBSim can model a stalled plane, but YASim can model a stalled *wing* with the other wing not stalled). After working a lot on and flown a lot with both models, I find the handling of the YASim pa28-161 more realistic than the handling of the c172p, though they're both good. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Quoting Martin Spott: Christian Brunschen wrote: Or to put is more succinctly: when I downloaded FlightGear and got an unwelcome religious pamphlet thrown in my face, I got a seriously bad taste in my mouth. Indeed, in my opinion the FlightGear community can't tolerate such action, I am just shocked that I could be associated with this. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Martin Spott wrote: Christian Brunschen wrote: Or to put is more succinctly: when I downloaded FlightGear and got an unwelcome religious pamphlet thrown in my face, I got a seriously bad taste in my mouth. Indeed, in my opinion the FlightGear community can't tolerate such action, We need to be a little careful here. Some people and societies are willing to tolerate all manner of ... well ... let's just call it goofiness, but are very intolerant of specific view points. I suggest that we try (as much as possible) to stay focused on building flight simulators. If we diverge into a heated discussion of religion (or politics, or text editors, or operating systems, etc.) we are just going to hate each other at the end of the day, and we will be much less effective as a leading open source project. Let's not be too quick to stamp out people's ability to express their faith. The tides of societal whimsy shift very quickly, and if we tolerate stamping out opposing view points, all too soon you could find yourself on the loosing end of that battle. I vote that we move on, and if you have a problem with the Mac packaging, perhaps you could discuss it directly (off list) with the package maintainer. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christian Brunschen schrieb: Hi, The Mac OS X build of FlightGear 0.9.8, as available from http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/macflightgear/FlightGear-0.9.8.dmg? download, contains a file called 'How to Get to Heaven.rtf', at the root level (beside the OpenAL installer package and the FlightGear application directory), with bible quotes and essentially religious proselytizing. Here's a screenshot of the Mac OS X Finder window for the FlightGear-09.8 disk image: If that's the case I'm *strictly* against it. Religion is an even much more problematic field than politics (which already creates bad flame wars). People easily get upset when they are presented by the truth, which isn't their truth they believe in. So, IMO, this is against the spirit (doesn't that word sound funny in this context?) of FGFS. Just two quotes from the Introduction page: - - It is being developed through the gracious contributions of source code and spare time by many talented people from around the globe. - - There are a wide range of people interested and participating in this project. This is truly a global effort with contributors from just about every continent. As religions differ greatly around the globe (even in the countries themselfes) there'll people who helped with their work that have their belive at least not represented (and probably even are offended by the content) CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB7+cQlhWtxOxWNFcRAvkSAKCnwDx4oyxcTK6uBaecNmYipwE6ZwCeKrBH yIbz1BI27yzyw/ufNaIzbwM= =BbVC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:45:37 -0600, Curtis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jon Berndt wrote: I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we (JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0 ..aye. But if we need 0.9.10, 0.9.11, 0.9.12 releases first, we should do those, if our 0.9.9 isn't ready for a 1.0.0 name, it isn't. release? The gear problem is the first thing I thought of, as well. Right now I am so focused on getting the new configuration file format ready I had not had time to visit (or revisit) other problems. I also recall that Mathias has worked on this with (as I recall) a lot of success. From my perspective, the gear problem is my one and only gripe with JSBsim. ..moving from KSFO, how about KOSH? -- ..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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Curtis L. Olson said: The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. Jim, I think this is more a factor of getting the right actual power output from the engine. If the engine output is too low, you are going to get up with a slick model that glides forever. If the engine output is too high you are going to end up with a draggy model that slows down too quickly. I remember you struggling with trying to model the complex p51 engine gearing correctly in yasim and maybe that never came out right and you ended up with a severely under powered model. If that is the case, yasim will reduce drag and make your wing lift better so that you can still hit the performance numbers. For the Citation-II I felt like Yasim did a pretty good job. I haven't really hit the validation end of it hard, but I was getting plausible performance throughout the envelope. I think the big trick is to get the engine power output in the right ball park, then everything else starts falling into place much better. Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round Andy made some code changes, but I got stuck with solver issues when trying to crank up a little more power. Also I did not mention that there are some subtle problems that affect handling the aircraft during takeoffs that come into play when you start tweaking. I vaguely remember a further problem with Yasim in connection with engine power, but it'll require getting my head back into it before I know for sure. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
* Christian Brunschen -- Thursday 20 January 2005 17:43: Is it really a good idea to have essentially religious propaganda shipped in the semi-official build of FlightGear for Mac OS X? No! I'm utterly disgusted by this abuse! It's an offense to all Jews, Muslim, Hindu, etc. and it has *nothing* to do with FlightGear. I don't want to see my name and my contributions in the context of religious or other propaganda. 1. The responsible person should be asked to *immediately* remove the offending religious content. 2. If he refuses (which the GPL lets him), he should not be given any further support. He should be banned from the mailing lists. 3. The project should note on the homepage that it is in no way affiliated with and distances itself from any religious or other propaganda that is distributed together with FlightGear. m. :-( ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero qualities that I was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at the time I believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we have a turbocharged piston engine model. You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model though - we haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start on a P51 or Spitfire (or any other model) give me a heads up and I'll test/refine/debug the turbo/supercharging stuff in tandem with what you're doing. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:35, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Christian Brunschen -- Thursday 20 January 2005 17:43: Is it really a good idea to have essentially religious propaganda shipped in the semi-official build of FlightGear for Mac OS X? No! I'm utterly disgusted by this abuse! It's an offense to all Jews, Muslim, Hindu, etc. and it has *nothing* to do with FlightGear. I don't want to see my name and my contributions in the context of religious or other propaganda. 1. The responsible person should be asked to *immediately* remove the offending religious content. 2. If he refuses (which the GPL lets him), he should not be given any further support. He should be banned from the mailing lists. 3. The project should note on the homepage that it is in no way affiliated with and distances itself from any religious or other propaganda that is distributed together with FlightGear. m. :-( Although in not such vociferous terms I am inclined to agree. I have not made any significant contribution to FlightGear yet, I would be disappointed to see my name associated with rhetoric to which I do not subscribe. I would also suggest that upon the insistance of the inclusion of this document, the best option would be disavowment. Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've tried introducing a few friends to Flightgear. They are mostly Windows users, technically competent but not adept, who have had experience of video games and possibly other flight simulators. I thought I'd muse a bit on the following points, because, given the user base, it might be instructive. 1) Fgrun/fgfs. For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the program doesn't make sense to them; they expect to be able to run flightgear, and for it to present a menu that reads something like New flight/Saved Flight/Options/Exit. I'm not saying this is the way we should go, but I'd like to note that many users, when presented with the current method, get *very* confused, especially by the absence of a flight planner. Many also find restarting FlightGear in order to change aircraft counterintuitive 2) Performance If Windows users come to FlightGear from most video games, the performance they get is not what they expect. I think that when you've been using FlightGear for some time, you can become desensitised to the lower frame rates; newer users aren't expecting this, and responses I've got range from even so, it's flyable, through this frame rate is , to complaints that it hurts their eyes. 3) ATC/AI This may just be my group of friends :P, but many of them find it much more fun and interesting if there are other aircraft in the world, and if they can communicate with ATC. Durk's work in this area is making this easier, but ATC itself can still feel quite primitive. Coupled with this, people expect to start on the apron if it's there, and then to taxi out to the runway of their choice. Finally, some other shorter things that people seem to want: * Ability to save flights * Explanation about p-factor and torque. Once I tell them that it's semi-realistic modelling, they are fine with it, but until then, it can be confusing * [Bug] FGFS seems to revert to KSFO if it can't find the selected runway at the selected airport. When you've expected to load EGLL, finding yourself in California is unexpected, to say the least (this seems to happen more often to fgrun users Giles Robertson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkHv7ycACgkQrI0r/XDZkDC2SgCdGDIJHZ/zNy3OOcGLl+JggqL0 QZAAmgMT/MXe4sqrz/4sbMcmpSthdzPf =CpX9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote: Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round Andy made some code changes, but I got stuck with solver issues when trying to crank up a little more power. Also I did not mention that there are some subtle problems that affect handling the aircraft during takeoffs that come into play when you start tweaking. I vaguely remember a further problem with Yasim in connection with engine power, but it'll require getting my head back into it before I know for sure. Best, Jim I'm dealing with such problems in getting the b1900d to perform in the cruise. Unfortunately, while it handles well in the circuit, the cruise speed is stuck at 200kts @ 20,000ft (70 below POH) :-/ Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:43:49 +, Christian wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, The Mac OS X build of FlightGear 0.9.8, as available from http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/macflightgear/FlightGear-0.9.8.d mg? download, contains a file called 'How to Get to Heaven.rtf', at ..huh??? the root level (beside the OpenAL installer package and the FlightGear application directory), with bible quotes and essentially religious proselytizing. Here's a screenshot of the Mac OS X Finder window for the FlightGear-09.8 disk image: [fg098.jpg image/jpeg (26830 bytes)] [text/plain (174 bytes)] Attached, you'll find a copy of the 'How to Get to Heaven.rtf' file itself: [How to Get to Heaven.rtf application/rtf (3698 bytes)] [text/plain (958 bytes)] Is it really a good idea to have essentially religious propaganda shipped in the semi-official build of FlightGear for Mac OS X? ..hell no! Point these assholes to any good Islamic site to show'em how these Religious Righteous Spammers Errs as humanoids. In particular, I find this somewhat perplexing, considering the amount of discussion regarding commercial advertisements placed on the FlightGear web site - and those ads would at least have been a) somewhat relevant to FlightGear, and b) brought in some revenue to support the FlightGear effort itself, whereas this religious message has neither been discussed (to my recollection), nor does it have anything to do with flight simulators in general or FlightGear in particular, nor does it in any way support the project. Or to put is more succinctly: when I downloaded FlightGear and got an unwelcome religious pamphlet thrown in my face, I got a seriously bad taste in my mouth. ..aye, yeah. Sabotage? Or a troll? Thanks anyway, Christian. -- ..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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:35:53 +0100, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The responsible person should be asked to *immediately* remove the offending religious content. 2. If he refuses (which the GPL lets him), he should not be given any further support. He should be banned from the mailing lists. 3. The project should note on the homepage that it is in no way affiliated with and distances itself from any religious or other propaganda that is distributed together with FlightGear. Or alternatively, why not encourage free speech and send him several pamphlets with alternative viewpoints to include in the same distribution? That may be enough to convince him to pull his own without any threats. I have a vague recollection of a Simpsons episode where Springfield Elementary School decides or is forced to teach creationism as well as evolution, and (evangelical Protestant Christian) Rev. Lovejoy is furious when he finds out that his is only one of many religions invited in to speak (I might be remembering it wrong, though). All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Christian Mayer wrote: As religions differ greatly around the globe (even in the countries themselfes) there'll people who helped with their work that have their belive at least not represented (and probably even are offended by the content) It almost makes me want to some citations from James Bond (as described by his godfather Ian Fleming) and the holy spirit (shaken not stirred) which undoubtedly will be the next religious trend due to the spectacular ways he hes been saving the world. But then again ... Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
From: Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build Newsgroups: list.flightgear-devel References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990927 (Nine While Nine) (UNIX) (SunOS/5.8 (sun4m)) Curtis L. Olson wrote: Let's not be too quick to stamp out people's ability to express their faith. The tides of societal whimsy shift very quickly, and if we tolerate stamping out opposing view points, all too soon you could find yourself on the loosing end of that battle. Curt, almost everything you write has much sense in the end, but in this case you are terribly wrong. Everyone on this list is free - as a human being should be free - to express his personal opinion (if necessary even on this developer list, if nobody objects) as long as it is easily obvious to _everyone_ reading this, that it is his very own personal faith. I strongly believe nobody here intends to stamp on the MacOSX package maintainers view point, it's just that he chose a medium to carry his opinion that is totally unacceptable. I distance myself from the FlightGear project as long as it tolerates this sort of misuse. Don't get me wrong, I very much tolerate the _contents_ of the respective text (although I don't share it, but this is a different story) but I can't accept the way it is being distributed unter the flag of the FlightGear project. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:52, Erik Hofman wrote: It almost makes me want to some citations from James Bond (as described by his godfather Ian Fleming) and the holy spirit (shaken not stirred) which undoubtedly will be the next religious trend due to the spectacular ways he hes been saving the world. But then again ... Erik That reminds me; I must get a technical drawing of the Wallace Autogyro - thanks for that :-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..hell no! Point these assholes to any good Islamic site to show'em how these Religious Righteous Spammers Errs as humanoids. You should not generalize, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:01, Dave Martin wrote: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote: Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round Andy made some code changes, but I got stuck with solver issues when trying to crank up a little more power. Also I did not mention that there are some subtle problems that affect handling the aircraft during takeoffs that come into play when you start tweaking. I vaguely remember a further problem with Yasim in connection with engine power, but it'll require getting my head back into it before I know for sure. Best, Jim I'm dealing with such problems in getting the b1900d to perform in the cruise. Unfortunately, while it handles well in the circuit, the cruise speed is stuck at 200kts @ 20,000ft (70 below POH) :-/ Dave Martin Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected GS of 270kts. Am I understanding that correctly? Thanks Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: wierd windows problem 0.9.6 - 0.9.8 (maybe a bug)
Ioan Suciu wrote: I forgot to tell you, i also manulay edited system.fgfsrc and deleted the lines with httpd jpg_httpd I think this applies to you as well: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2005-January/010149.html Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to do... I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a strawman to argue against. The only suggestion I've seen is using the flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer. I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better. Yes, this is exactly, what i meant. People can use unfree licenses, but when doing this, it should not be advertised on the main flightgear.org website, at least not for free and not in a way that the visiter gets confused. They should look after their own way to do the advertisement. The flightgear.org website should not be misused for such none free addons. And when those people who want to distribute their none free addons really want some advertisement on the flightgear.org website, then they should pay for this. But the point is, the flightgear.org website shouldn't do this advertisement for free or near the other GPL'd addons. It should be clear for a visiter that such thing is an advertisement and not a part of the page. So a simple link would not be okay. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
3) ATC/AI This may just be my group of friends :P, but many of them find it much more fun and interesting if there are other aircraft in the world, and if they can communicate with ATC. Durk's work in this area is making this easier, but ATC itself can still feel quite primitive. Coupled with this, people expect to start on the apron if it's there, and then to taxi out to the runway of their choice. As Curt wrote earlier, the 1.0 release will probably mark the start of a new phase in FlightGear development. I tend to share this view, as more and more development efforts will shift from writing c/c++ code to designing 3D models and writing configuration scripts in, for example, nasal or .xml. AI traffic and ATC is probably one of the major exception to the rule (the other being glass cockpit support??), because development started relatively late and there is still quite a bit of C++ code that needs to be written. I hope to have some more of the basic functionality of the AI subsystem working, before the famous 1.0 release. But, similar to the other fields of development, the AI system will ultimately only come to life when people start contributing traffic patterns and low res aircraft models (c.f. www.projectai.com). Cheers, Durk P.S., I just sortof finished a first stab at implimenting preferential runway use. I've been testing this at EHAM, where traffic has been taking off from runway 24 and landing on 27, just like it did today in real life. :-) I'm considering incorporating David Luff's taxiway code before submitting my new code, but I'm not sure how much time I will have in the next weeks. D. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: wierd windows problem 0.9.6 - 0.9.8 (maybe
Martin Spott wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: I think this applies to you as well: Hmmm, to whom does it apply as well ? The author o the message I was responding to. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Hi Everyone, In case you don't know I'm the one who created the distribution in question. First of all I believe that the contents of the RTF file should be welcomed by everyone, and I also believe they are true. But I also realize that it may be harmful to this project by turning people away from it. I am not a religious person but do believe Jesus Christ meant it when he said Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature and saw this as another potential medium. What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. I also believe the Bible when it says, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. By the way I am also going to fix the permissions issue at the same time. On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:51:08 +0100, Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curt wrote: I suggest that we try (as much as possible) to stay focused on building flight simulators. If we diverge into a heated discussion of religion (or politics, or text editors, or operating systems, etc.) we are just going to hate each other at the end of the day, and we will be much less effective as a leading open source project. Martin Spott wrote: view point, it's just that he chose a medium to carry his opinion that is totally unacceptable. In my opinion, both arguments clearly express why a religious document should not be part of an official FlightGear distribution. Not even necesarily because it's religious. It's off-topic and therefore unprofessional. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- Arthur/ - http://artooro.blogspot.com (Weblog) - http://machcms.sourceforge.net (MachCMS Project) - http://acalproj.sourceforge.net (Calendar Project) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people also like to include non-violence conditions. ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other places, I still don't see how any other open or free source code license gives the author more control over his code, also for commercial or military use. ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with Qt. You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum). .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression It's not just FUD. If you fail to foresee all the possible ways that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, can specifically permit something that you don't want. It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have accepted conditions in a licence. I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific licence. If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me to give it to you. ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:) But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at all. It's just a permission to use. But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire to it, I won't give it to you. ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper plane? Also, given my acceptance of your license, I can circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) :) One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with your automobile. If a friend offers to let you use their automobile do you demand a licence before accepting? Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you manage to interpret the licence you demanded? I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though I'm personally happy with the GPL. Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of control over the work once released under the license, I can't ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the GPL. I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control over what anyone else does with what I've released under the GPL. ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ work. Yep. criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware licenses, this depends on the license's small print language. I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people can no longer do what they want. ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given by the original authors, before you jumped in. Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people will tell you Riiight, I'll consider it if you can convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3. ;-) The problem I see with it is when people say that something _should_ be licenced under the
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson said: On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:35:53 +0100, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The responsible person should be asked to *immediately* remove the offending religious content. 2. If he refuses (which the GPL lets him), he should not be given any further support. He should be banned from the mailing lists. 3. The project should note on the homepage that it is in no way affiliated with and distances itself from any religious or other propaganda that is distributed together with FlightGear. Or alternatively, why not encourage free speech and send him several pamphlets with alternative viewpoints to include in the same distribution? That may be enough to convince him to pull his own without any threats. I have a vague recollection of a Simpsons episode where Springfield Elementary School decides or is forced to teach creationism as well as evolution, and (evangelical Protestant Christian) Rev. Lovejoy is furious when he finds out that his is only one of many religions invited in to speak (I might be remembering it wrong, though). Maybe just a respectful, polite note asking for it to be removed would suffice. I'd hate to be on the receiving end of this discussion. Jim makes a good point. Some may argue that the developer in question could have chosen a better way to express his faith. But at the same time, I'm a little dismayed at the tone used by some of the other developers here to voice their objections. Personally, for those with objections, I would have started with a letter directly to the developer explaining your perspective and why you think there should be a change. Well reasoned civil discourse can go a long way towards a solution, assuming we are all reasonable people here. :-) We aren't going to start banning people from the mailing list. I can't tell people to check their religion at the door before they can participate in the FlightGear project. I can't tell a package maintainer what they can or cannot put in their package (assuming they havn't violated the GPL.) I do think that some people could stand to be a little more tolerant of other views. I think that enough other developers have made their point now, and have made their point clearly (although I think it would have been more civil to send a personal letter rather than post a rant on the mailing list.) So now it's up to the mac packager to take these points into consideration. If people aren't satisfied with the ultimate resolution, then you are by all means free to create an alternative mac package to which I will freely link from the downloads page. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
* Arthur Wiebe -- Thursday 20 January 2005 20:24: What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. No, it doesn't. But as long as there are no links to this package from the official FlightGear page, there isn't much we can do against this abuse. *If* FlightGear officially links to this package, then I will stop contributing to it. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:45, Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The tweaks were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right thing to aim for. The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. Best, Jim I've hit that lift/drag issue on just about all the a/c I've done. The degree varies but I mostly put it down to me not being any sort of aerodynamicist. Sometimes I wish for a more dynamic standalone solver so I could tweak the settings and see the results straight away. The gui would be massive though, and I'm not sure how the results could be visualised - a bunch of converging curves perhaps... LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:24, Arthur Wiebe wrote: Hi Everyone, In case you don't know I'm the one who created the distribution in question. First of all I believe that the contents of the RTF file should be welcomed by everyone, and I also believe they are true. You have every right to believe that, but not to expect it. But I also realize that it may be harmful to this project by turning people away from it. What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. My personal opinion is that if you must include such a file, it would be better if you included that text at the start of the file itself. However, I do not see that there is any place for religious rhetoric in a package which I'm sure we would all be happy for all of the religions of the world to download and enjoy. I have personal reservations about any work that I provide being included in a package which includes religious views. As I licence anything I contribute here under the GPL I have no say in this matter. I can only hope to distance myself from such potentially polar views. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in basepackage)
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:49, Giles Robertson wrote: 1) Fgrun/fgfs. For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the program doesn't make sense to them; they expect to be able to run flightgear, and for it to present a menu that reads something like New flight/Saved Flight/Options/Exit. I'm not saying this is the way we should go, but I'd like to note that many users, when presented with the current method, get *very* confused, especially by the absence of a flight planner. Many also find restarting FlightGear in order to change aircraft counterintuitive I couldn't agree more with the above. However I feel a launcher app will be successful if it is more tightly integrated with FG to the point where the user cannot distguish that they are two separate applications. I was busy writing a new launcher that would control FG through the Telnet interface including being able to flip between the launcher screen and FG screen automatically. This app would include aircraft selection, airport selection and a flight planner. Unfortunately I got side tracked by more interesting things like taxiway editors. :) I would like to add one more thing to the required list for 1.0 : We need errors to popup in a dialogue if FG is unhappy. Users keep coming to the IRC channel and they say that nothing happens when they launch FG. They have no idea that an error message is being displayed in file 13 and in a lot of cases they don't know how to run programs from a command prompt to get an error message or they run fgrun and still see no errors. Most of the potential user base will come from the Windows platform so we do need to make things easier for them even if our *nix roots scream otherwise. With those users will come artists, sound editing people, programmers, people with access to useful information, etc. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 January 2005 17:03, Jon Stockill wrote: Dave Martin wrote: And anyway, everyone knows how to get to heaven; just keep pulling up! :-P Downloading Lee's Canberra model first may help :-) I don't think it quite reaches it's altitude performance yet (I've been thinking about a PR version sometime). However, I once got the YF-23 200,000 ft (and still climbing at a fair lick). Both fdms still need a lot of work. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
David Luff said: On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero qualities that I was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at the time I believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we have a turbocharged piston engine model. You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model though - we haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start on a P51 or Spitfire (or any other model) give me a heads up and I'll test/refine/debug the turbo/supercharging stuff in tandem with what you're doing. We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about (flight modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work that folks have done with the FDM code. Is there any chance someone out there is interested in focusing on improving the flight model definitions for the 3D art that we already have? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:57, David Megginson wrote: You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package. You should try helping clueless windows users to install scenery files in the IRC channel sometime. A lot of them need help to extract, copy and paste. I'd say yes if FG had an automated way of installing aircraft but till then I don't like the idea too much. It's just an extra step that can potentially cause more hassles and confusion. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Dave Martin wrote: Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected GS of 270kts. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, you have to input true airspeed into the cruise section, not indicated airspeed. At high altitudes there is a significant difference. :-) Curt. Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check) Cheers Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:44, Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 20 January 2005 17:03, Jon Stockill wrote: Downloading Lee's Canberra model first may help :-) I don't think it quite reaches it's altitude performance yet (I've been thinking about a PR version sometime). However, I once got the YF-23 200,000 ft (and still climbing at a fair lick). Both fdms still need a lot of work. LeeE Is there a 3d model for that Canberra? - If so is there any chance of some eye-candy? :-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote: We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about (flight modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work that folks have done with the FDM code. Is there any chance someone out there is interested in focusing on improving the flight model definitions for the 3D art that we already have? Best, Jim If you mean working with the figures in the definition files then yes, I'm having a fiddle here and there (mainly B1900D at the mo to get it flyable). Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Melchior FRANZ wrote: No, it doesn't. But as long as there are no links to this package from the official FlightGear page, there isn't much we can do against this abuse. *If* FlightGear officially links to this package, then I will stop contributing to it. Hmm, you might want to take a nights sleep over it. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in base package)
Personally i think it is too early for a 1.0 release. Here are some points why: 1. The gear problem, Jon Berndt allready mentioned it. On the ground the planes just don't feel good. 2. An in game GUI for every user (not only Windows users) is missing. This is IMHO a big must for a 1.0 production release. fgrun.exe is okay for the beginning or development versions but not for a production release. A production release should really have a menu that is running inside of flightgear as a part of flightgear and not as an outside application. Especially when we aim at end users. Sure, some will say that this is not necessary for a simulator, but end users will base their review and valuate it on that. 3. Another requirement for a 1.0 production release is a way to change the aircraft when flightgear is allready started. 4. If you want to reach the end user, you need a learn to fly interactive in game tutorial (how far is fligttutor progressed?). In other words, documentation is not enough for the marked today. Releasing flightgear 1.0 without a learn to fly interactive flying tutorial leads to a situation that users download flightgear, start it, don't know what to do. take a tour around San Francisco to see what flightgear has visually to offer and then delete it because they don't know what to do next. We should show to the users that there is a lot more possible than just only seeing flightgear as an eye candy city tour software. 5. A way to switch the airport from an in game menu when flightgear is allready started. It should also be possible to select an airport by country or city name. In my opinion we should delay the official FlightGear 1.0 release until the above is fixed. This would mean at least 4-10 more releases, so an estimated release date for a 1.0 release could be somewhere in 4th quarter 2006. Don't understand me wrong, but i don't want to see people complaining about the above missing features and saying that flightgear is crap because those things are missing. We should take in mind, that people, especially magazines tend to review and compare Open Source applications with the competition (X-Plane, MS Flight Simulator etc.) when the application reaches version 1.0, And a 1.0 version is the first and most important version number for a production release because people judge later versions on experiences they made with version 1.0. Any bad reviews because the above is missing are not good reviews. FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a 1.0 production release. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check) I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some ASIs do have a circular sliderule (or similar) around the edge to calculate true airspeed, but all ASIs necessarily show indicated airspeed because that's what has the most aerodynamic significance for the plane (i.e. it's going to rotate, climb, approach, stall, etc. at the same indicated airspeeds at 10,000 ft density altitude and at sea level, even though the true airspeeds are significantly different). What is the density altitude is the TAS for the Beech 1900 specified at? 25,000 ft? If so, then divide by about 1.5 to find out what number you should see on the ASI. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Arthur Wiebe said: I am not a religious person but do believe Jesus Christ meant it when he said Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature and saw this as another potential medium. Did he also say Go ye into the world and tell people you aren't religious when you are? Don't be bashful about your beliefs, but What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. ..do be mindful of the diversity here, even if you believe you are right and just want to help others. This isn't the right way to do it. Any sort of religious statement or even political statement would be received in a similar fashion. The flightgear project is really just about flight simulation and that is all that makes this a community. Would it be ok to just remove the message from the distribution? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote: David Luff said: On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero qualities that I was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at the time I believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we have a turbocharged piston engine model. You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model though - we haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start on a P51 or Spitfire (or any other model) give me a heads up and I'll test/refine/debug the turbo/supercharging stuff in tandem with what you're doing. We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about (flight modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work that folks have done with the FDM code. Is there any chance someone out there is interested in focusing on improving the flight model definitions for the 3D art that we already have? Best, Jim Heh! - I'd guess I'm already spending about 70-80% of my FG time on flight behaviour stuff and about 20-30% on modelling texturing. It's a varying figure because sometimes I'll combine a flight test with looking at large scale geological features:) All my fdms are in a state of flux and are constantly being worked on but I wouldn't have any problem with other people working on them too. However, if someone were to change a value, that I knew to be correct, to a value that was incorrect, say the wing incidence for example, then I think the fdms would have to fork. I can't see how using an incorrect value for something can produce something that's accurate and instead I would put more effort into finding what's wrong in the guesswork stuff. The idea of forking fdms wouldn't bother me at all though - in fact I would welcome it and I think it would be interesting to compare different fdms for the same a/c. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:04, Dave Martin wrote: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:44, Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 20 January 2005 17:03, Jon Stockill wrote: Downloading Lee's Canberra model first may help :-) I don't think it quite reaches it's altitude performance yet (I've been thinking about a PR version sometime). However, I once got the YF-23 200,000 ft (and still climbing at a fair lick). Both fdms still need a lot of work. LeeE Is there a 3d model for that Canberra? - If so is there any chance of some eye-candy? :-) Dave Martin There should be. I'm just downloading the version from the FG downloads page now and I'll have a quick look at it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 21:24, Arthur Wiebe wrote: Hi Everyone, In case you don't know I'm the one who created the distribution in question. First of all I believe that the contents of the RTF file should be welcomed by everyone, and I also believe they are true. But I also realize that it may be harmful to this project by turning people away from it. I am not a religious person but do believe Jesus Christ meant it when he said Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature and saw this as another potential medium. What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. I also believe the Bible when it says, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. By the way I am also going to fix the permissions issue at the same time. Arthur, I share the same beliefs as you do but I also feel that there are times and places which are not appropriate to share ones faith. For instance in an office environment where your employer is paying you to do a job - not saving souls. That would be stealing from your employer unless it was during a lunch break. Or for instance where people do not wish to hear your beliefs. Let people rather ask you instead of shoving it in their face. That only serves to alienate people instead of drawing them to Christ. When one reads the gospels you see in nearly every account that the gospel was preached to those who came on their own accord to listen. People went out to hear John the baptist yelling Repent! in the desert - John didn't go around bashing people doors down or dropping pamphlets in people's mail boxes. The same with Jesus - people came to him because he had something to offer. The few times he was confrontational was when he was challenging the religious leaders of the time for their hypocrisy. God gave Adam and Eve a free will to choose between good and evil and I certainly think he expects us to treat others the same way. That doesn't mean you have to respect what they believe but rather their choice to believe what they want to. I can't tell you how you should reach out to the lost around you but I do believe one should always do so in a PERSONAL capacity, always respecting the beliefs of those around you even if you think they are wrong and are on the way to hell. Whether you want to remove the file or not is your choice but just consider for a moment that a lot of people have put work into FG and they don't necessarily share the same beliefs. You may possibly be offending them by re-distributing their hard work with your beliefs. If I was a *radical* Muslim I would probably come and burn your house down. ;-) Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 20:10, David Megginson wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check) I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some ASIs do have a circular sliderule (or similar) around the edge to calculate true airspeed, but all ASIs necessarily show indicated airspeed because that's what has the most aerodynamic significance for the plane (i.e. it's going to rotate, climb, approach, stall, etc. at the same indicated airspeeds at 10,000 ft density altitude and at sea level, even though the true airspeeds are significantly different). What is the density altitude is the TAS for the Beech 1900 specified at? 25,000 ft? If so, then divide by about 1.5 to find out what number you should see on the ASI. All the best, David I couldn't find any further info on the ASI being compensated and you're undoubtedly right so I will go with that. Thanks :-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
BTW, I've had some problems downloading a/c from the FG d/l page. Eventually I manage to get them but it needs a few attempts. Could this be due to the number of ftp users allowed? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings
Oliver C. wrote FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a 1.0 production release. Hey, there is a life after 1.0. Why not 1.1, 2.0 etc... Trying to reach the perfection the first shot is the best way to drag our 0.x forever that make feel that FG is still in beta and unusable for the mass. People will be happy to see FG progressing beyond 1.0 and will wait new versions with more expectations. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
All arguments are currently being processed internally (As in my head.) Hopefully tomorrow will bring a peaceful resolution. Currently, the distro is being updated and if you would like to contact me, send me a direct email. On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:12:57 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arthur Wiebe said: I am not a religious person but do believe Jesus Christ meant it when he said Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature and saw this as another potential medium. Did he also say Go ye into the world and tell people you aren't religious when you are? Don't be bashful about your beliefs, but Religious: 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity. 2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text. 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty. n. pl. religious A member of a monastic order, especially a nun or monk. I am religious if you see it as the first definition, but there are many ways religion is interpreted. I am not a Catholic or Christian, but a believer in Jesus Christ. I do not follow a religion but the word of God which is the Bible, which is not a religion but a faith. What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. ..do be mindful of the diversity here, even if you believe you are right and just want to help others. This isn't the right way to do it. Any sort of religious statement or even political statement would be received in a similar fashion. The flightgear project is really just about flight simulation and that is all that makes this a community. Would it be ok to just remove the message from the distribution? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- Arthur/ - http://artooro.blogspot.com (Weblog) - http://machcms.sourceforge.net (MachCMS Project) - http://acalproj.sourceforge.net (Calendar Project) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:20, Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:04, Dave Martin wrote: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:44, Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 20 January 2005 17:03, Jon Stockill wrote: Downloading Lee's Canberra model first may help :-) I don't think it quite reaches it's altitude performance yet (I've been thinking about a PR version sometime). However, I once got the YF-23 200,000 ft (and still climbing at a fair lick). Both fdms still need a lot of work. LeeE Is there a 3d model for that Canberra? - If so is there any chance of some eye-candy? :-) Dave Martin There should be. I'm just downloading the version from the FG downloads page now and I'll have a quick look at it. LeeE Yep, there's a 3d model in the archive. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:16, Andy Ross wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: I don't think it quite reaches it's altitude performance yet (I've been thinking about a PR version sometime). However, I once got the YF-23 200,000 ft (and still climbing at a fair lick). YASim's atmosphere model table stops at FL620. It doesn't try to extrapolate and just clamps the air density outside that range, so you were cheating badly by getting to that altitude. :) Andy Ta for that. IIRC the reduction in rate of climb did seem to level out at some point - at FL620 it would seem. Although I don't know the YF-23's max ceiling I'd expect it to be 62,000 ft so perhaps this problem with the fdm isn't quite as bad as I thought it was. At the time I was using a 'mach-climb' hold AP function. Basically, this tries to get the max rate of climb while maintaining a set mach speed by increasing the target rate of climb when the target mach is exceeded in a sort of feed-back loop. It seems to work well if it's engaged while the a/c is below the target mach but it's not so good if the a/c is already travelling at the target mach. Something to look into some day... LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Paul Surgeon a écrit : Whether you want to remove the file or not is your choice but just consider for a moment that a lot of people have put work into FG and they don't necessarily share the same beliefs. You may possibly be offending them by re-distributing their hard work with your beliefs. If I was a *radical* Muslim I would probably come and burn your house down. ;-) And the *radical* christian will ... you already know the story. It lasts for thousands years now. Very good argument Paul. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Lee Elliott wrote: BTW, I've had some problems downloading a/c from the FG d/l page. Eventually I manage to get them but it needs a few attempts. Could this be due to the number of ftp users allowed? Yes, most likely. I need to come up with a reasonably easy/compact/maintainable way to expose our mirrors directly so people don't have to wind their way through the mirror directory structure themselves to find what they need on the mirrors. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Arthur Wiebe wrote: What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. No, you definitely took the wrong track. You are free to create a _personal_ web page and place your statement there, create a newspaper and sell it to the world. But don't - _never_ - abuse someone else's label to spread _your_ very personal attitude, especially no package or web page labeled as FlightGear something. I'm sure everyone is happy to include your package into the 'official' FlightGear distribution if you simply remove that file. Otherwise I'm pretty sure someone else will be able to step on that plate and build such a package, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] [OT] curve direction.
This is kind of off today's topic, but I have an unrelated question. Working in 2d space, given 3 points, I know how to compute a circle (center/radius) that passes through those three points. Now I need to compute the direction of curvature of the 3 points. In other words, moving from the 1st point through the second point to the 3rd point, is the direction of the circle clockwise (curving right) or counter clockwise (curving left.) Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Oliver C. wrote: On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:02, Martin Spott wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: Let's not be too quick to stamp out people's ability to express their faith. The tides of societal whimsy shift very quickly, and if we tolerate stamping out opposing view points, all too soon you could find yourself on the loosing end of that battle. Curt, almost everything you write has much sense in the end, but in this case you are terribly wrong. Everyone on this list is free - as a human being should be free - to express his personal opinion (if necessary even on this developer list, if nobody objects) as long as it is easily obvious to _everyone_ reading this, that it is his very own personal faith. I strongly believe nobody here intends to stamp on the MacOSX package maintainers view point, it's just that he chose a medium to carry his opinion that is totally unacceptable. I distance myself from the FlightGear project as long as it tolerates this sort of misuse. Don't get me wrong, I very much tolerate the _contents_ of the respective text (although I don't share it, but this is a different story) but I can't accept the way it is being distributed unter the flag of the FlightGear project. Cheers, Martin. I completely agree. When we accept this, what comes next? FlightGear packages with inbuild espionage and spam features? Dialers? FlightGear with inbuild advertisement for cigarettes, drugs and cleaning agent? As a consequence we should create a clean and official Mac package, anyone here with a Mac? (I don't have a Mac. :( ) Maybe it also helps to inform sourceforge about this, do they allow such misuse of their webspace? [ Curt goes off to rummage through the mailman docs to see if he can find any kind of content based thread killer ... ] There are have been a couple intelligent responses here, but the signal to noise ratio is dismal. If we want to hop on the bandwagon and start stamping things out let's go after the big problems like aids, or poverty, or Jennifer Lopez/Ben Afflec movies. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] EE CanberraBI8 (FAO Lee E)
WOW! I don't know where you find the time or where you keep that bottomless bucket of talent but this is another gorgeous model! It seems that you will soon have covered the majority of Britains best jet-age aero-engineering heritage. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Maybe bug? Two copies of 'docs' in w32 binary install.
I've installed v0.9.8 w32 binary package and now I have two 'docs' directories into the FlightGear dir. They are perfectly the same, same files inside. Is this a bug (let's call it that way ;-) ? Are there two copies (it means two times 6.180.170 bytes) of that dir 'into' the binary install file too? Just in case someone cares, Roberto ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 21:11, Curtis L. Olson wrote: If we want to hop on the bandwagon and start stamping things out let's go after the big problems like aids, or poverty, or Jennifer Lopez/Ben Afflec movies. Regards, Curt. I'll go with all of the above especially the latter ;-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Rather than trying to get into a religious discussion with you, which clearly would be pointless, I will try to explain a different issue. This simply does not relate to FlightGear! Yes, we each could build releases with our own personal, religious, ethnic, or political message, but that is not going to help with FG, but instead is going to get a bunch of people arguing, as has already been demonstrated. (Are you going to download the Catholic FlightGear, or the Jewish One, or the Democratic, or anti-gay version...?). It will get very silly very quickly. There are plenty of places to argue about religion, if you choose. The problem is that you have chosen to use the work of others as a platform for your personal beliefs. While you can do that under the license, it surely is not the intent of the other people who are working on this. Many of us find it extremely offensive to have the appearance that our work is supporting your message, which we disagree with. So, no, it does not satisfy the issue. Would you feel uncomfortable if there were a version of FG that was explicitly anti-Jesus? Would you be willing to work on it? I don't mean this as a threat, but instead to help you understand what some other people are feeling. So I am explicitly asking you to please consider removing your personal message from the package. -- Adam From: Arthur Wiebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@flightgear.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:24:38 -0500 To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@flightgear.org Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build Hi Everyone, In case you don't know I'm the one who created the distribution in question. First of all I believe that the contents of the RTF file should be welcomed by everyone, and I also believe they are true. But I also realize that it may be harmful to this project by turning people away from it. I am not a religious person but do believe Jesus Christ meant it when he said Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature and saw this as another potential medium. What I will do and am in the process of doing is update the package to include this in an About.rtf file: The following contents have been included by Arthur Wiebe and may not reflect the views of any of the contributors or developers of the FlightGear project. O hope that satisfies this issue. I also believe the Bible when it says, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. By the way I am also going to fix the permissions issue at the same time. On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:51:08 +0100, Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curt wrote: I suggest that we try (as much as possible) to stay focused on building flight simulators. If we diverge into a heated discussion of religion (or politics, or text editors, or operating systems, etc.) we are just going to hate each other at the end of the day, and we will be much less effective as a leading open source project. Martin Spott wrote: view point, it's just that he chose a medium to carry his opinion that is totally unacceptable. In my opinion, both arguments clearly express why a religious document should not be part of an official FlightGear distribution. Not even necesarily because it's religious. It's off-topic and therefore unprofessional. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- Arthur/ - http://artooro.blogspot.com (Weblog) - http://machcms.sourceforge.net (MachCMS Project) - http://acalproj.sourceforge.net (Calendar Project) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] curve direction.
Citeren Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is kind of off today's topic, but I have an unrelated question.
Working in 2d space, given 3 points, I know how to compute a circle
(center/radius) that passes through those three points. Now I need
to
compute the direction of curvature of the 3 points. In other words,
moving from the 1st point through the second point to the 3rd point,
is
the direction of the circle clockwise (curving right) or counter
clockwise (curving left.)
Presume you have 3 points A, B and C with A the lowest one, B in the
middle and C the upper one. x is the horizontal axis (right=positive)
and y the vertical (upward = positive).
In pseudo-code:
if( (x_A x_B) (x_C x_B)){
curving right
}else if( (x_A x_B) (x_C x_B)){
curving left
}else{
special cases like x_A = x_B etc.
}
I hope this is what you need, numerical derivatives are a little bit
more complicated for me at the moment :).
Back to the books now :/
Steven
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] curve direction.
Curtis L. Olson wrote: This is kind of off today's topic, but I have an unrelated question. Nice intro ! ;-) Working in 2d space, given 3 points, I know how to compute a circle (center/radius) that passes through those three points. Now I need to compute the direction of curvature of the 3 points. In other words, moving from the 1st point through the second point to the 3rd point, is the direction of the circle clockwise (curving right) or counter clockwise (curving left.) What do you think about this solution: Take vector a) from 1) to 2), vector b) from 2) to 3) Compute the angle in 2) running from a) to b) If the angle below 180 degree, then the circle runs clockwise, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 22:42, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Yes, most likely. I need to come up with a reasonably easy/compact/maintainable way to expose our mirrors directly so people don't have to wind their way through the mirror directory structure themselves to find what they need on the mirrors. I was about to bring this topic up because tonight a user on the IRC channel was battling to download the win32 0.9.8 binary. Can't we have direct links to the files on the mirrors much like other download sites? Example : Ready to Run Windows Binaries (Updated for v0.9.8) * Download the self extracting/installing fgsetup-0.9.8.exe. Mirror 1 : fgsetup-0.9.8.exe Mirror 2 : fgsetup-0.9.8.exe Mirror 3 : fgsetup-0.9.8.exe What about a BitTorrent download option as an alternate download source? BitTorrent is great for distributing large files efficiently. I'm more than willing to keep a BitTorrent client running serving up FG files (although I have a slow connection) and I'm sure there are others here who would do the same. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings
On Thursday 20 January 2005 21:25, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Oliver C. wrote FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a 1.0 production release. Hey, there is a life after 1.0. Why not 1.1, 2.0 etc... Trying to reach the perfection the first shot is the best way to drag our 0.x forever that make feel that FG is still in beta and unusable for the mass. I partly agree with you, sure FlightGear shouldn't get another Duke Nukem Forever (a game, that will be released when it's done) but i consider a working inbuilt GUI (see Giles Robertson's message), a way to switch the aircraft and airport when flightgear is running as basic features which are a must have in a 1.0 production release. So if you ask: Is FG still beta or unusable for the mass. I would answer this with: Yes, it is. As long as the above features are missing. After your message I though about the idea of moving the gear problem and learn to fly feature to the 1.1 release, this might be okay, but the other above mentioned features really need to get into 1.0. For a 2.0 release i could see when i look in my crystal ball features like thermal lift support, working 3d clouds and Multitexturing and Vertex Buffer Objects (VBO) support, but the latter 2 features depend on plib 2.0 or a switch to another scene graph library. People will be happy to see FG progressing beyond 1.0 and will wait new versions with more expectations. I agree, but people could also see the 1.0 version as a beta version when there is no inbuild GUI or way to switch the aircraft and airport. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] curve direction.
Curtis L. Olson writes: This is kind of off today's topic, but I have an unrelated question. Working in 2d space, given 3 points, I know how to compute a circle (center/radius) that passes through those three points. Now I need to compute the direction of curvature of the 3 points. In other words, moving from the 1st point through the second point to the 3rd point, is the direction of the circle clockwise (curving right) or counter clockwise (curving left.) Classic problem with a classic solution :-) grep clockwise on this page http://exaflop.org/docs/cgafaq/cga6.html Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Paul Surgeon wrote: Can't we have direct links to the files on the mirrors much like other download sites? A few years ago the idea of a round-robin algorithm on the download page. Maybe it's time to reanimate this topic, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.8, Mac OS X build
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: BTW, I've had some problems downloading a/c from the FG d/l page. Eventually I manage to get them but it needs a few attempts. Could this be due to the number of ftp users allowed? Yes, most likely. I need to come up with a reasonably easy/compact/maintainable way to expose our mirrors directly so people don't have to wind their way through the mirror directory structure themselves to find what they need on the mirrors. Regards, Curt. You could serve the stuff out over HTTP with a web page in front of it and then mirror that. Or, for mirrors that can't or won't serve files over HTTP, flightgear.org could host HTTP front ends for the mirrored FTP sites. Someone would have to write a script to crawl the FTP site, build the page, and spit out the versions for each mirror. Not sure how sane/feasible these ideas are. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings
Oliver C. wrote: FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a 1.0 production release. a way to switch the aircraft and airport when flightgear is running as basic features which are a must have in a 1.0 production release. I agree, and to be at startup or not, is probably a widely varying preference. but the other above mentioned features really need to get into 1.0. Oh! (smack) So the menus are Not Supposed to work (yet) Why didn't anybody just say so. Stewart ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Config defaults for Simgear
While we're talking about cleaning up for V1.0, would it be possible for Simgear's config default to include --with-jpeg-factory as the default? FG's make always barfs if I forget to include this when I build Simgear. Lol, I don't know what jpeg-factory actually does; looks like it runs some sort of server since it appears to tie in with an httpd library. Nick ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
