Re: [Flightgear-devel] Newsletter
How about Open Cockpit? Mally - Original Message - From: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Flightgear-Devel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Newsletter What's the status on the FlightGear newsletter? Did a name ever get chosen? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Trademark violations could be a problem
This issue came up with a vengence in 1999 when a certain Peter Tishma apparently persuaded American Airlines to grant him what he thought was an exclusive license for the use of all American Airlines owned logos on flight sim aircraft. You can read what happened next (very relevant to the current discussion) by searching Google for tishma american airlines. The upshot is that aircraft bearing American Airlines logos and liveries continue to be available on the main freeware download sites to this day, and it can hardly be argued now that American Airlines are unaware of the issues. Mally - Original Message - From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Trademark violations could be a problem Oliver C. wrote: Maybe we should use a fictitious name because real names of companies etc. could be a trademark violation. So to be on the safe side we shouldn't use real names at all. This includes airline names on airplanes and company names on buildings in the fgfs scenery. What is your opionion about this issue? Did someone of you thought about that? What is the legal status, what is allowed and what is not allowed? I think this issue is way overblown. People have been modeling real liveries and buildings in flight sims from day one. If we go down this road, we will have copyright problems with Cessna for modeling a c172, problems with Boeing for modeling a 747, copyright problems with Norway for modeling Norway, copyright problems with God for modeling the world? Maybe we should have all fictitious aircraft, all ficticious terrain, ficticious planet radius, ficticious weather, fictitious cities, but then that's no fun. I don't think we should spend too much energy solving non-existant problems. If people want to create ficticioius designs, that can be fun too. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.638 / Virus Database: 409 - Release Date: 22/03/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Patents [OT] (Was: RE: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting)
Richard Thanks for that. (Puts a new twist on the phrase patently obvious) :-( Mally - Original Message - From: Richard Bytheway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:11 AM Subject: Patents [OT] (Was: RE: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting) -Original Message- From: Mally [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 February 2004 7:12 pm To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting You may not be a patent lawyer, but that's a convincing sounding explanation of the legal position. PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e. whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious? Mally I think the wording is something along the lines of: The invention must be non-obvious to a person with experience in the field Since the patent examiner should be an expert in the field (that is why they emply scientists and engineers, not high-school dropouts) the invention should be no-obvious to them. However, in the real world, the patent office cannot afford to employ an expert in every field, nor the time or money to consult an expert, so the examiner does their best. The result is that you can push just about anything through if you try hard enough. There was a comment on the /. discussion on this subject that the examiners have a quota of patents applications to process each week, so there is little incentive to dig too deep. I hope this is not the case, but it might be. Richard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 14/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting
Can someone file a formal complain to this Microsoft patent: This may be a good starter page for anyone wanting to file a protest: http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p340030.htm Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 10/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting
Presumably it can be traced back via CVS? Mally - Original Message - From: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:34 PM Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting Holy ... ! JSBSim has been doing this for some time, now. I can't remember just how long, We include XML scripts from other scripts. The claim that this is patentable is absurd. Jon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mally Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 5:16 AM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting Can someone file a formal complain to this Microsoft patent: This may be a good starter page for anyone wanting to file a protest: http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p340030.htm Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 10/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 10/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting
Josh Ummm, maybe I should have checked /. before posting that, they ran the story last night. Unsend Unsend Unsend! No problem, except that you didn't quote the actual post you were trying to unsend (Perhaps someone could try posting the story to Slashdot), which was a bit confusing. However I notice from the slashdot story that the patent is granted not pending! What a bizarre state of affairs. Does anyone know what is the situation regarding its legality when there is obvious prior art (in FG) and given that the patent itself is for something totally obvious. Is there no comeback on the patent and trademark office if a bad/wrong decision is made? (Nothing about this in their FAQs!) Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 10/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting
Richard You may not be a patent lawyer, but that's a convincing sounding explanation of the legal position. Thanks. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 10/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting
You may not be a patent lawyer, but that's a convincing sounding explanation of the legal position. PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e. whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious? Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 10/02/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Dave ... It would be nice to know whether visualflight regard buying the MSFS scenery and converting it for personal FlightGear use as fair use or not. As you (Dave) know, I'm the developer of Visual Flight photo scenery, though I've been on the flightgear lists for many years under my nickname rather than my full name so this fact may not be generally more known. I've never wanted to mix work with leisure, so I've been trying to stay out of this discussion as far as possible, but that's become increasingly difficult, and it would not have been fair of me not to have declared an interest at this stage. I'm still thinking over what you've said, and my very preliminary thoughts are that it would be fair use provided that it was done for personal use only and by somone having a legitimate copy of the original scenery. The major concern would be if the converted textures started changing hands behind the scenes. Development of the photo scenery was a major undertaking and I'm only making a very small percentage on each sale, so anything which might undermine what little return I'm getting would be most unwelcome. Of course Getmapping would have a major interest which would have to be considered. Fair use or not, using the Visual Flight/Getmapping textures in this way would be in breach of the EULA, and I think Getmapping would take the view that a license of some sort would be required to uphold the integrity of the EULA, even if this was issued free of charge. In any case, I think that generating textures for FlightGear from the MSFS textures would be the ideal solution. I've not been following the technicalities of the experiments carried out by Mat, but MSFS has a fixed resolution for scenery of this type, and it could be that FlightGear could better exploit the resolution of the original Getmapping imagery. The source data is available down to 0.25m/pixel or even 0.10m/pixel in major cities, though I've no doubt Getmapping would want a return on their investment commensurate with the resolution used. I doubt that it would be acceptable to the FlightGear community to produce a commercial photographic scenery from the Getmapping data, but that's a bit of a shame as it should be possible to come up with something which would exploit the potential of data such as Getmapping's Millennium Map much more fully than is currently possibly with MSFS. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mat If you've not already read it, please read my reply to David Luff before reading on. Just to clear up the visualflight question, the scenery I have built does not use the visualflight scenery rather the same source material as visualflight. I'm not sure David was implying this, but it's certainly worth clarifying. This is a UK company called Getmapping that has done an almost complete aerial survey of the UK. They actually sell this data in fairly large chunks for 15 pounds a CD here. I very much doubt that they sell the data. It is far more likely that they license it for specific uses as detailed in the EULA. The EULA will also detail the restrictions on what you are allowed to do with the data. The idea I was following was that it would be fairly straightforward to bring together some existing terragear tools to fully or partially automate the process of chopping up (chop.pl) and assigning a lat/long (tguserdef) to any aerial photos. If the photos were purchased by the Flightgear user or publicly available, then it seems that this would only comprise an innovative way of viewing the images. Re-sale, or distribution being another matter. This very much depends on the terms of the EULA which I haven't seen, but I've be very surprised if purchasing by an individual user would allow this, and I can't imagine what you're referring to when you say that the photos may be publicly available - even the Getmapping imagery on the multimap web site remains copyright of Getmapping. There seems to be a widespread misbelief that anything available on the internet is fair game, but this is very often not the case. Even the images on terraserver.com remain copyright of the data suppliers, and there are limitations on what you are allowed to do with these. It's important to remember that copyright remains with the copyright owner even if it is not specifically stated, and you cannot assume any rights over the data that you have not been specifically assigned. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery - CORRECTION!
In any case, I think that generating textures for FlightGear from the MSFS textures would be the ideal solution. I've not been following the Oops, I meant to say that it would NOT be the ideal solution! Sorry about that. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mat From what you say there may be restrictions as to how I can legally view the scenery having paid for a copy of it. This is something I hadn't considered, so I will wait to hear back. It's possible that the EULA will have a restriction against modifying the images, but obviously I'm speculating. Best to wait to hear as you say. You can always check the EULA for yourself in the meantime if you can find it on the CD of course. You are probably correct in terms of the semantics of sell this data however my intention when I used it was to mean sell a CD with images licensed for domestic, social and pleasure purposes and not for commercial use (back of the box). It was my understanding that basic copyright concepts would be understood by other readers of the message. I anticipated that users of a linux developers mailing list would already be familiar with some of these issues and that a reasonably informal use of language is normal in these discussions. I've always been very impressed at how seriously the flightgear community takes these issues, and the particular care that is taken in ensuring that anything included in the distribution is properly licensed. By the way, I wasn't aware that this was a linux development list (I thought it was cross-platform), but in any case, I don't think it's helpful to assume a holier-than-thou stance on behalf of any group, linux or otherwise. The issues affect everyone, and there will be pockets of ignorance and knowledge in any group. Your choice of words could reinforce misconceptions for some people, even if this wasn't your intention. Publicly available was not a reference to GetMapping images at all. In fact it was a reference to other possible sources. Flightgear is an international community, most of whom I imagine have a lesser interest in UK scenery, but might also want to view photo scenery in Flightgear. An example of use of the phrase publicly available can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3399809.stm which to be clear I am not assuming is copyright free etc etc. Your example is interesting: The copyright statement on the image web site says that use of the images is restricted to a non-commercial purpose of private reference, research or study, which would appear to rule out using it in FlightGear (without entering into a separate agreement with them for this purpose of course). You've possibly chosen a bad example, but from the point of view of illustrating what I was saying, it's quite a good example as it shows that even the BBC can put out misleading statements about copyright (or at least statements that can be misinterpreted by those not fully understanding the issues). There seems to be a widespread misbelief that anything available on the internet is fair game I have had a quick look through recent postings on all the Flight/Terragear mailing lists and cannot find any reference to interest in the distribution of copyrighted material, scenery or otherwise. Nevertheless thank-you for the reminder. I am however slightly concerned that someone reading your email might think that there has been discussion of this, something you should perhaps make clear. By widespread, I meant exactly that, widespread - not specifically related to the flightgear lists. I'm quite happy to clarify that I certainly wasn't targetting my comments specifically at flightgear developers. As I've already said, I'm very impressed by how seriously the flightgear community takes these issues. However there have been a few comments recently which have at least merited clarification. You can search back on my own contributions to this thread to see the sort of thing I mean. I hope the above has answered your concerns and would be keen to know what others think on this. Maybe my own approach is over-cautious, but the very first thing I did when contemplating using the Getmapping data for MSFS was to contact them for permission to prepare a test area using the data on their web site. I don't think it does any harm at all to seek permission at very outset then there's no possibilities of misunderstandings arising later on, or of development work continuing on a false premise. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery
As I understand it it's a commercial CD containing satellite images of the UK, but processed with TerraGear to match FlightGear's own scenery format. Maybe the simscreens postings should credit the source and acknowledge the copyright? Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Fred I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. Derived work in a GIS context would usually refer to taking vector road lines off the images or something similar. I very much doubt if you could pass photographic scenery off as anything other than redistributing the images themselves. I'd be interested to know what the actual license agreement was - there's very little about this on the terraserver web site. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Russ I'm not planning on redistributing the work. The work would be for a client of mine who is trying to upgrade their simulator's visual database... Are you sure that doesn't count as redistributing? Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Broken menu on links page
Just a quick note to say that the Downloads menu links (Source, Binary, Scenery) on the left hand side of the FGFS Related Links page at http://www.flightgear.org/links.html are broken. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Playing with textures
A corridor 100 km wide between Chicago (Illinois) and London (UK) (6378 km) would require about 311 GB of storage space using S3TC compression with a texture resolution of 1 meter/pixel. You can buy 320MB of hard disk space for a mere USD 275 (GBP 160) if you shop around. What sounds OTT today will soon become the norm, so maybe it's best to have an eye a little into the future with all these calculations. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest stupid helicopter trick
Out of curiosity, how do pilots do this in real helicopters? I wouldn't think a traditional ASI would work very well at 10 kts... You could probably build one that did -- after all, the aenemometers that weather stations use can register down to less than 5 kt. Still, I'm guessing that a real helicopter pilot just watches the ground, since that's what matters in the slow-speed regime. In real life you don't need to watch the ground any more than you need to watch the road surface to know you're crawling along at 5-10mph in a traffic jam. You're just aware of it through your normal sense of speed. This is something that is sorely lacking in a sim unless something is done to enhance the situational awareness. Lack of high res detail in the ground textures, lack of real 3D perception and lack of motion cues make judgement of speed, height, attitude (and changes in all of these) much more difficult in a sim than real life. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 22/11/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] re: [Terragear-devel] SRTM 90 for Europe and Asia
SRTM 90 meters dems for Europe and Asia are now available at http://edcftp.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/Eurasia/ Fantastic. I guess that the Aussies, Kiwis, and S. Americans will still be stuck in flatlands, though -- serves 'em right for spinning the water down their drains backwards. Christian Stock managed to obtain high res data for NZ for freeware use (in MSFS) quite some time ago (nice one Christian if you're still around), and there was a reasonable mesh available for Australia at one stage - I'm not sure if it's still available. SRTM90 data for the whole of South America has been available for some time now. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 31/10/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:
My understanding of the tail rotor is to counteract the torque of the main rotor and to rotate the helo around its Z axis in either a CW or CCW direction depending on the lift supplied by the tail rotor. Loss of a tail rotor more than likely will result in loss of the helo unless the pilot is very good. Maybe it's this type of area where a flight simulator can make a difference to the handling of real life emergencies. Most tail rotor failures are survivable in theory at least: if there's sufficient forward speed at the time of failure, the weathervaning effect can usually permit continued powered flight, albeit at reduced power and possibly in a shallow dive rather than level flight. Even without the forward speed, immediate entry into autorotation takes the torque off the main rotor so there's nothing for the tail rotor to have to counter, hence a spin is not inevitable and an autorotation landing can be performed. The difficulty is not being able to adequately train for and practice these scenarios in real life, hence the statement that only very good pilots (i.e. those whose natural abilities enable them to get it right first time) will cope. If helo pilots can practice these scenarios as realistically as possible in a sim, it can only help in the unlikely event that they are faced with this situation for real. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/10/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:
You are absolutely right. But I was just making people aware that some parts of the MSFS panels can be used in FG with little effort. What problem would there be if the readme for a panel xml file said that it would work with a certain MSFS background.As long as the person uses it themself and do not try to redistribute it. I personally don't feel all that comfortable using something out of the context in which it was provided. It may be perfectly legal, but perhaps not in the spirit of things. I can imagine an author feeling a little aggrieved finding just part of their work being re-used in this way when perhaps they've seen it as part of an overall creation. Maybe the courteous thing to do is to always seek permission. If the author is happy to give it, then there's no problem. If not, then at least no toes have been trodden on. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/10/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT latex2html??
Carsten due to the size of the current flight school (pdf=5.6MB), I would like to change it to HTML. I tried to use latex2html, but was more or less disappointed by the result (same with pdf2html). Any suggestions for a 1:1 converter or a different format to PDF or HTML? Don't Adobe's accessibility tools for PDF include an HTML converter (or renderer)? Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT latex2html??
To answer my own question: Don't Adobe's accessibility tools for PDF include an HTML converter (or renderer)? http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_onlinetools.html This seems to be an online service only. I don't know if that's any use to you. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
I hate virus checkers with a passion only slightly less than the passion with which I hate a certain e-mail program that I won't name again. While the initial fault lay with the e-mail program, it was all the false virus-warning e-mail messages from that idiotic software that finally physically shut down my account. I imagine that they have a catch-all rule, along the lines of If it's not text, and it's not a binary format I recognize, then it's a virus. For idiotic software, it would be hard to beat the email filter that a certain well-known bank installed several years ago. One of the bank employees was on a flight sim mailing list, and when an email come to him from the list containing the phrase you should have seen the b*ggers, the program intercepted the email and sent a message back to the list saying Your email has been rejected because it contains the word b*ggers. The full text of the message is below. The mailing list software in due course distributed this reply to all the list members, including the bank employee, and the message was again intercepted by the email filter. A new message of refusal was prepended and the whole lot sent back to the list. Given that the message was almost doubling in size each time round, it's just as well the mailing list software was only running once and hour or so. People with slow modems (most of us at the time) were not well pleased. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Matt I am all for warming up to Windows developers, or any from anywhere for that matter, or any end user (in fact and ordinary end user with basic experience can shed a lot of interesting light onto many applications). But I have indeed asked many times why people run certain pieces of software and I took Outlook Express as an example of what I have been told first hand. Cannot see how this argument is actually *nix developers versus people who develop on Windows, its not at all, or indeed anything to do with taking swipes at end users. Do you still think that is the case? Yes. Let's go back to the email which started all this: QUOTE using Outlook to read e-mail is like licking public toilets; using Outlook with a virus checker is like taking antibiotics and then licking public toilets (it might work, but it's hardly optimal). Please, people, if you have a choice, don't read e-mail with Outlook, or at least, don't read the flightgear lists with that program. I know that some of you are forced to use Outlook at work, but there's no excuse for using it at home or school UNQUOTE The use of Outlook is compared to licking public toilets, and to avoid any possible doubt, it is made clear that it applies to people using Outlook to read flightgear lists. There is apparently no excuse for doing this . Regarding your own comment - Have you ever heard of stereotyping, a device typically used to reinforce prejudice? Yes I have walked people through changing defaults in Outloook Express and many other similar tasks, probably rather more than you might imagine, but that's no excuse for extending any presumptions from those experiences to an entire population of users. It appears that the arguments put up by those of us who have been belittled by the toilet-licking analogy have fallen on completely deaf ears. Even now, I haven't seen a single acknowledgement that Outlook Express can be set up and used safely, and other messages defending the use of Outlook have been similarly ignored. Presumably those of us who continue to infect the flightgear lists by our use of these dispicable tools do so with continued disapproval. I have made a positive decision over the years to use Windows over a Unix environment (even though I continue to maintain a working Linux system). It shouldn't be necessary for me to have to defend this choice, for any reason, let alone stereotyping and historically-(mis)informed prejudice. You can choose to ignore the negative impact of all this on the potential Windows developer base if you wish, but I personally feel it is not good for the future or image of FlightGear for it to continue. It gives the impresssion, intentional or otherwise, that FlightGear is a *nix dominated, anti-Windows clique. I've had an offlist reply to an earlier posting, presumably on the assumption that the discussion was not relevant to the list. I beg to differ - it *is* important that a project which claims to welcome cross-platform and multiplatform development demonstrates respect for whichever platform potential developers may choose, including the safe use of the tools associated with that platform assisted by the application of common sense (as with any platform). Mally PS. I'm getting bogged down with the amount of effort I'm having to put into dealing with this important issue, so I'm not intending to to make any further reply. Please do not assume that this implies acceptance of any points subsequently raised. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 20/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Outlook comments
I see - you get one final ill-conceived dig in, and _then_ agree the subject should be dropped? Can anyone else agreeing the subject should be dropped please do so silently. thanks Mally - Original Message - From: Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:22 AM Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Outlook comments I have been wondering whether the Outlook autorun feature could conveniently be used to assist Windows users who would like to use FlightGear. They sign up for the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] as usual and their start of subscription mail message has a PIF attachment that autoinstalls FlightGear. Thereafter, whenever we have a version upgrade, the announcement is copied to that mailing list ... together with a PIF autorun attachment that will apply the upgrade without user intervention. Convenient, no ? From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] May we please put this thread to rest and allow FGFS to return to soaring above petty OS bigotry Seconded. FWIW, the discussion is not about OS bigotry. Anybody can run Outlook (with WINE) on Linux and run most Linux mail readers on Windows. With the former, a default Outlook will behave just as badly on Linux, and, with the latter, most casual users will have trouble with attachments. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Oh well, it's fun to pick on MS, and they do deserve most of it, if for no other reason to pressure them to do better. But you will have security problems and issues no matter what software and OS you run. It may be fun, but when it extends beyond Microsoft-bashing to implied disrespect for Windows users, it's worth bearing in mind the negative impact on the potential developer base. If the intention (stated or otherwise) is to keep FlightGear firmly planted in the Unix arena, then so be it, but I think Flightgear would possibly benefit from embracing Windows-based developers a little more warmly. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Matt The main swipes aren't so much at end users, as most just run what the computer came with, I am running Outlook Express because thats what came with the computer, this is the most common scenario, oh and it doesn't matter how much MS advertises any fault or any setting that helps alleviate issues only a few will actually read that.Hence Microsoft will probably eventually do stealthy patches onto peoples computers (ack). If that isn't a swipe at end users, I don't know what is. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Curt Outlook is a program that (doesn't have to) but seems happy to run just about any program anyone on the internet wants to send it. I've heard stories that in some cases, outlook will open/run the attachment silently behind the scenes even if you just delete the message without reading it. It's one of those pieces of software that was written to be used in a happy place where everyone get's along and no one does anything mean to each other ... like at ... I don't know ... tele tubby land or something. I don't want to spoil the party, but please bear in mind that people on the flightgear lists (who by and large tend to know what they are doing) who choose to use Outlook or Outlook Express are likely to feel alienated by the perpetuation of anti-Microsoft arguments that may have been valid at some point in history but which are no longer relevant. I'm not an apologist for Microsoft, but there has to be room for rational analysis of the current rather than historical situation, i.e. that for anyone prepared to take sensible precautions as Jon and myself (and no doubt others) have done, Outlook and Outlook Express remain valid choices of email client. Undoubtedly many installations of these email clients, particularly in the home environment, are unsafe, but used properly the software itself is not. The most realistic prospect for a widespread improvement in the global email-virus situation is for the relevant options currently available in Outlook Express to be widely publicised. The alternative, for everyone to change their browser, is simply not going to happen, at least not in the short term, though Microsoft themselves could well precipitate a move in this direction if and when they stop developing Outlook Express. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: blue paint bucket toss,was: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end ofdavid@megginson.com
Very helpful. Let's move on. Mally - Original Message - From: Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:53 PM Subject: ..OT: blue paint bucket toss,was: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:09:51 -0500, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ..to put it short: picture yourself on your single seat bike going full bore on the freeway just like Wintendo does on on your PC. (For multi-user os'es, substitute bike for automobile, bus etc, as you see fit.) ..now, going full bore, for every Bluescreen Of Death[Tm] you have ever seen on your box, picture having someone instead of the BOD, toss a bucket of blue paint in your face. ..how many of you guys would be alive today? ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] SRTM-30 scenery
It should do very nicely until something with a higher resolution is available for the UK. Any idea how Nanucq Faitmain is able to produce genuine high resolution MSFS mesh scenery for England (actually England, Scotland Wales) based, he says, on DTED1 data? I understood that DTED1 data wasn't available for Europe other than for military use. Mally PS. You can find Nanucq Faitmain's mesh by searching for Nanucq in the avsim.com File Library. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 20/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Oh lord. And they are going to ditch Outlook Express in favor of Outlook. Will they ever learn? I wasn't aware of that. Is there an announcement somewhere? Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Jim The options shouldn't be there. The whole idea of a mime-type (or file extension type) support in an email attachment, that comes to the user from outside, containing executable code or script that has full access to the system, which is either either launched automatically or clicked by the user, is, in a word, _ridiculous_. Microsoft has been backpedaling on this for years now, trying to fix the problem by various means. You're right about Microsoft backpedalling. After years of trying to make Outlook Express into a richer environment for the user by burdening it with all sorts of dangerous technologies, they've now made it so that all this can be completely disabled with just a few simple clicks in the Options dialogs. That's quite a climb-down. What else do you want? I've already said what I want - Microsoft to publicise the safe options, change the default installation options so that they are intrinsically safe, and possibly release a reconfiguration tool to automatically make existing set ups safe. Oh, and to add this functionality into Outlook 2003 if it's not already there. It would be nice to think that everyone in the world would switch to an alternative email client, but how realistic is that? Far better to work with what's out there, particularly as OE6 already has the capabilities to switch off the ridiculous behaviour you've described. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
Thanks. It looks as if they're not exactly ditching Outlook Express, just not doing any further development. I can't see users switching en masse to a paid version of Outlook as MS appear to hope. It's more likely that they'll switch to alternative (non-MS) email clients, which I'm sure many of you will reckon is no bad thing! Mally - Original Message - From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mally wrote: Oh lord. And they are going to ditch Outlook Express in favor of Outlook. Will they ever learn? I wasn't aware of that. Is there an announcement somewhere? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/13/238245mode=threadtid=109tid=113tid=126tid=187tid=95 Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New buildings models
One of the best places for flying under a bridge is Bristol (UK), there's a lot of space beneath the Clifton Suspension Bridge (some 250m long, ~75m above the water). Allegedly, hot-air balloons used to fly underneath the bridge occasionally, but that must have been before my time. More recently all flying under the bridge has been banned. I can't let this discussion about flying under bridges pass by without a mention of Jurgen Kairys amzing flight beneath ten bridges in Vilnius, Lithuania: http://rafaero.free.fr/Videos/sukhoiunderbridge.wmv http://www.haute-voltige.com/videos/kairys.mpe If you haven't seen the video of this yet, do so now - it's probably more breathtaking than you imagine. (NB. The two sequences above are the same apart from the format). Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about METAR updates
Is it possible to use a metar file to give flightgear the current weather conditions for the world. Are there special setup or options required to set this up? Are there any mac os x compatible apps (java probably ok, too) to download metar info periodically (from http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/metar.shtml ) so that flightgear can (possibly) use it? I was actually looking at this (on a complete whim) the other day. It looks to be fairly easy, if you can assume the existence of wget / curl on the system. Otherwise, you need to write a bit of FTP functionality (probably a trivial amount, though). Also, I didn't look at the actual weather code inside FG but based on the command line switches I think gluing it in will be doable. The problem with the NOAA site is that the latest hourly update cycles are hardly ever complete, so to get complete airport coverage, it's necessary to scan back to the last filed report for each airport, which may be in the previous cycle or even the one before that. Either that, or interpolate more widely between the airports actually available in the latest cycle, but I suspect the delayed updates may be regional, so that approach might not work. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIFT progress
In the UK: SAT ODH At least the UK ones all have the 'TAC' prefix on my SimCharts. So does anyone know what these things are? I'm guessing it's something military related. The have frequencies in the VOR range (eg 117.7 Mhz based on SimCharts). Now, I can happily ignore them, but I'd like to know what I'm looking at before I do that. The UK ones appear to be TACANs at Odiham and St Athan: http://www.nightstop.freeola.com/beacon%20decodes/beacon%20decodes.htm Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance analysis
Dave Hmm, maybe they've got their co-ordinate systems mixed up? From memory (which I'm not trusting any more!), I seem to recall that a typical difference between OSGB36 lat lon and WGS84 lat lon is in the order of 200m. Perhaps something along those lines has happened with their data somewhere. The road, stream, lake and coastline data are Digital Chart of the World/VMap0 with very few exceptions, and the mesh data appears to be based on GLOBE. I don't think there's been any confusion of co-ordinate systems - they've not used any local data other than in the immediate vicinity of Heathrow in the UK, and presumably at similar 'feature' locations elsewhere in the product. There are two main LOD schemes in operation. One is the ability to use MIP-Mapped textures in scenery and objects, and the other is the mesh. Meshes are compiled with a given LOD, but if more than one is available for the same area, FS2002 will use the most appropriate one for the viewing distance. It also seems to have the capability to recalculate a lower LOD mesh from a higher one by downsampling if necessary. There's noticable popping not just of textures (especially with scenery), but also of the mesh, which I personally find more disturbing. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] We are the champions
Marcio Another good match! The battle at our left side between Roberto Carlos and Beckham was incredible! All the brazilian people like the english team... They defeated Argentina... The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I heard that one of the UK newspapers was running the headline We're all Brazilians now a few days ago. I'm not sure why, but I don't think people here really mind so much when Brazil win... or is it just that we've got used to it? Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight
David It sounds like you certainly got your money's worth from the test flight. About the vertigo thing: I used to think I had a fear of heights, but I could never work out why that didn't affect me when flying (as a passenger that is - I've never flown a plane). I've finally realised that rather than having a fear of heights, I actually have a fear of falling, which really isn't the same thing. I can be as high as you like, but if I feel I'm in a secure environment, the height doesn't bother me. I mention this because it may be relevant to the cramped cockpit/small plane thing. You don't really say why you think a larger plane might be better, but it could be related to my experience. I find it difficult to imagine myself flying an open-frame microlite, whereas a large aircraft would pose no problems. Towards the smaller end of the scale, there might be a problem - I don't know, but maybe that's what you experienced. Regardless of whether you decide to continue flying for real, your report highlights one positive thing: Flight simulation can be a very real alternative to real flying, rather than a substitute. I remember reading about a guy in Germany (I think) who had build a multi-screen cockpit for himself. On his web site he explained that for him flight simulation was not a substitute for the real thing - he loves to fly through the Alpine mountains and valleys, and if he did this in real life he would most likely end up dead. He didn't have the least inclination to do it for real. Thanks for that (literally) gripping report. Mally - Original Message - From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] My First Flight Although I've said before that I wouldn't do it, I went up today for a CA$45.00 (US$30.00) introductory flight in a 100HP Cessna 150 at the Ottawa Flying Club at CYOW (there's a separate north field for small aircraft so that we don't have to worry about wake turbulence from all the big jets). My instructor was younger than I am but had 1,600 hours flying experience -- I think this is the first time I've ever been formally instructed in anything by a younger person. After reading over the log book then walking around the plane, checking the surface movements, examining fuel samples, checking the oil level, etc. etc., we plugged in our headsets, climbed in, and sat down. The interior of a C150 is very small, and the instructor suggested that I leave the door open until I had my shoulder strap fully fastened or I wouldn't have room to do it. He was right -- it made economy class on a commercial aircraft seem roomy by comparison. I had expected that in an introductory flight the instructor would fly to altitude, take me to the practice area, then let me take the yoke for a few minutes and maybe try a few turns. In fact, he put me in the pilot's seat immediately, and after we ran the checklist, he had me fire up the engine and (after we listened to ATIS and he radioed for clearance for our flight) asked me to taxi. Even though I *knew* to use the rudder pedals, he still caught me trying to steer with the yoke once, out of pure reflex (it doesn't matter how much you practice at home with the computer -- you still want to steer a moving vehicle with a wheel). In FlightGear, neither JSBSim (either before and after my patch of yesterday) nor YASim has taxiing quite right from my limited experience. On the C150, at least, the nosewheel has more turning authority than JSBSim used to allow it, but not so much as I gave it yesterday with my patch (or YASim gives it) -- you really have to use the toe brake a little in most turns. Unfortunately, JSBSim pretty-much stops all forward movement with even a little differential braking, while the real C150 keeps on moving forward. I was pretty clunky taxiing at first, but it's a small plane and I got the hang of the steering and differential braking fairly fast, at least in time to hold short for the runway. We watched one of the club's C172s land, then the instructor radioed the tower and got clearance, and I taxied out onto runway 22 and lined up (well, pretty close) with the centreline. Winds were light and variable. He simply told me to push the throttle all the way in and to steer only with the rudder pedals (no brakes), then, after a few seconds, he told me to pull back on the yoke. I was prepared for a heavy propeller effect and probably overcompensated with right rudder when we lifted off; actually, I didn't notice any p-effect at all, period (I had my feet on the rudder pedals, so I would have noticed them moving if the instructor were compensating for me). Obviously, this was a small aircraft with a much weaker engine than the C172R's 160HP IO360, but I'm willing to guess that both JSBSim and (to a lesser extent) YASim are *way* overdoing it with their propeller
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Peeking into the commercial scene
Cameron wrote: I know reporting anything related to MSFS around here will get mixed reviews, but I like seeing what other people are doing if for no other reason that to give me ideas. :-) Anyway...AVSim.com has a pretty thorough review[1] of MS FS2002 up. There are many screenshots of their 3D cockpits which may be useful for helping some of you modellers. Check it out if you like. [1] http://www.avsim.com/pages/1201/fs2002_part1/fs2002_part1.html Anyone with a Windows box would do better to download the Battle of Britain demo (and source code) if the main interest is in the virtual cockpit simulation. The FS202 virtual 3D cockpit looks strangely flat (!) by comparison. BoB source is at: http://www.combatsim.com/pages/Downloads/Source_Code/ Presumably the demo is on the same site somewhere. (The quality of the BoB source code has already been discussed here or in fightgear-model - check the archives). Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New Wind Sound
Erik Do you think it sounds okay otherwise (like the real thing?). I'm not really qualified to say if it sounds like the real thing or not. I can give you my subjective opinion, which is that yes, it does sound OK, but I haven't listened to it in fgfs because I haven't done a build in over the past few weeks. Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Patent applied for!
Not sure if this is appropriate to be posted here, so apologies in advance if it isn't: You may be interested to know that Peter Tishma (aka Papa Tango) has applied to patent the concept of a flight simulator. At least that's how the patent application reads to me, and apparently also to the avsim.com newsdesk, who've put the story on their front page today: www.avsim.com (Peter Tishma Applies For Patent) The patent application hasn't been inspected by the patent office yet, so no decision as to whether to grant it has been made. In the unlikely event that you think that anything remotely similar already exists (once you're read the application), email [EMAIL PROTECTED] , quoting Publication Number GB2359388, and the name of the Proprietor - Peter Tishma. You can look up the patent application details here: http://gb.espacenet.com/gb/en/posearch.htm?PN=GB2359388 Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Patent applied for!
Richard wrote: OK - I have had a look at the patent. (Yo-yo connection today) The last page is the most interesting, it gives the search report. In summary, it gives 5 examples indicating a lack of inventive step - which implies that it is unlikely to be granted (IMHO). Funny that 3 of the 5 examples are MS products (FS2000, 1942 Air War, and Age of Empires). Yes, I saw that. Makes me suspect that Microsoft are already aware of this application and may have suggested that evidence. I think the chances of the patent being granted are next to zero with evidence against each of the five claims, but some strange things have been allowed to pass in recent years. Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Patent applied for!
David writes: Mally writes: You may be interested to know that Peter Tishma (aka Papa Tango) has applied to patent the concept of a flight simulator. At least that's how the patent application reads to me, and apparently also to the avsim.com newsdesk, who've put the story on their front page today: Upon my (non-professional) reading, the patent seems to apply to the combination of a simulator and related information (text, maps, etc.) provided in real-time -- his example is the history of the aircraft type the user is flying, but I suppose a moving-map display would qualify as well. I couldn't find the date when he claimed first use in the application. The patent system works differently in the UK. Unlike the US, you have to file the patent before first use - quite a fundamental difference. Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Patent applied for!
Cameron Any chance you could get the docs in a Linux-compatible format? I went to check this out and all I would find was some Win32 .EXEs. Thanks I'm not sure you were on the right page. You should have ended up with 5 different Adobe Acrobat .pdf pages. If you can't get to them, I'll email you them privately. Let me know. (It's hard to give the actual URLs because of the way they've put the pages together). Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Patent applied for!
David F wrote: Prior Art!! What he is trying to patent has been around for years before he even started Papa Tango. Flame him You're probably already aware that PT's prior skirmish with the flight sim community resulted in a Boycott Papa Tango campaign, but that didn't hurt him because the average flightsim add-on chance purchaser at PC World didn't know anything about the campaign, and possibly wouldn't care if they did. This application is so ludicrous that there's a danger no one will think to object to the Patent Office because they can't believe anyone would take it seriously. But the Patent Office have to take it seriously, and if they don't get the evidence, they might just approve it. This looks extremely unlikely given that they've already found evidence against each of the five claims as a result of their own search (I think), but then I don't think it would do any harm for people who are aware of examples of prior art that closely match the claims to make that evidence known to the Patent Office. It would be a ridiculous situation if this application went through on a technicality just because no-one really thought it would. Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Location of SimGear
Dave Luff writes: Mally writes: Anyway, I definately think that m/M and s should be used for magnetos and starter - at the moment there is no way to start the engine with a 2 button mouse! It's probably too late to comment on this by now, but from a user point of view, it's very awkward when you've got the stick in one hand on approach to key the SHIFT-key options. I'm in favour of single key presses wherever possible for the runtime functions. You want to turn the magnetos off on approach??? Seriously though, I agree with what you are saying for something like mixture which will be adjusted in flight, but for something like magnetos which will normally be switched on the ground I think we need to maximise the use of the keyboard real-estate. Perhaps flytime would have been a better word than runtime. Mally ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
