Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
I was once on check ride (in a DC-6 simulator) where the person flying the sim (not me!) ran teh fire proceedure as follows: Throttle close, closed the number one throttle Feather the engine, feathered the number two engine Mixture control idle-cut off, placed the number three mixture to cut off Fire wall shut off valve pull, pulled the fire wall shut off valve lever for the number four engine Airplane got very quiet. Check pilot got very loud!!! I'm now forced to admit that there IS some use for the view of the props. I don't know about DC3s but in DC6s and DC7s we counted either 6 or 8 blades before giving the engine fuel and ignition. (Do you know why? Answer, to avoid bemding the crankshaft or connecting rods i oil had fun down into a jug. If it had, the starter motor could not do damage, but if the engine fired it would bent stuff as teh oil in the closed cyl did not compress well grin! 6 (or 8) blades insured that the engine had made a full revolution on the starter motor only. jj On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, David Megginson wrote: Tony Peden writes: In a twin, you'll definitely know which engine is out without looking. I've read several accident reports where the wrong engine was feathered and shut down. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I would guess this is a major factor in the relatively small amount of aircraft development for Fly! ... I know of several people who have exterior models, but can't contemplate the effort required to assemble a working panel. I think this is a major flaw in developers of aircraft for MSFS and Fly! If you're going to make an aircraft, that means make an aircraft, with a model, panel, sounds and everything. Thanks, David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8izZRF2H7v0XOYBIRAiSqAKCPy+TlCrDbXu5jV1tV9KLP0/YtOQCfR6Ik NDDiDF66jzuz6rAjaDWJBdo= =2ypv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
On Sunday 10 March 2002 05:23 am, you wrote: On Sat, 2002-03-09 at 22:08, Jim Wilson wrote: Fly! uses a 3D cockpit. They use 2D for most of the instrumentation, switches and knobs, and 3D models for the things that really need it like levers. More than likely the legability problem is your LCD at 1600x1200 ;-) In any case we'd be doing great to come up with something as nice and usable as the Fly! cockpits. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I'm reasonably sure this is not the case. The fly cockpits are simply an enormouse collection of 2D images. The best ones are made by doing a very high detail model in a 3D suite, and then generating all the images as non-perspective-correct (orthographic?) renders. If you look at the throttle levers moving on the PMDG 7x7s, you can see the quality is far too high to be happening in realtime (unless you used lots of special extensions and really high detail meshes on high end hardware). The alternative would be prerendered frames if I undrstand what you are saying. I think what Jim was saying is that the, for example, throttle quadrant, would be a separate 3D model with a separate scene graph. Of course I could be talking out my ass I'd hazard a guess that external light sources aren't applied. The reason I'm going on about this is I'd like to mention a serious downside of the Fly! approach (even though I think the fly cockpits are the best I've ever seen): it takes an awful lot of time and committment to produce even a slightly useable cockpit. I would guess this is a major factor in the relatively small amount of aircraft development for Fly! ... I know of several people who have exterior models, but can't contemplate the effort required to assemble a working panel. I can't really say about Fly, but FGFS 2D panels/instruments are not *that* big a deal to put together. Our current virtual cockpit is the 2D panel overlayed on polygons that represent the vertical surface of the panel, and as such don't have the overhead of a fully 3d rendered (in the sense that every component of every instrument is a 3d model. My experience is that the actual artwork is the hard part. HH James ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
On Sunday 10 March 2002 05:32 am, you wrote: I would guess this is a major factor in the relatively small amount of aircraft development for Fly! ... I know of several people who have exterior models, but can't contemplate the effort required to assemble a working panel. I think this is a major flaw in developers of aircraft for MSFS and Fly! If you're going to make an aircraft, that means make an aircraft, with a model, panel, sounds and everything. Thanks, David Could possibly be that instrument makers need to get into actual code on these sims, instead of markup like FGFS. I dunno, I've no experience with either ___ 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] Virtual cockpit notes
So David Findlay says: I think this is a major flaw in developers of aircraft for MSFS and Fly! If you're going to make an aircraft, that means make an aircraft, with a model, panel, sounds and everything. If you're saying what I think you're saying (don't bother creating an aircraft unless you're going to create the whole package) I have to say I don't agree. Someone could be an aircraft nut who just wants to recreate a cool paintjob he saw on an aircraft once. Someone else might be a pilot who doesn't like the available panels for an aircraft and decides to make one himself. Someone else might be an aeronautical engineer who decides to improve the flight model for an aircraft. I think it would be an enormous waste if all these people were forced to also provide all the other parts of the package, because in that case they probably wouldn't bother at all. Then there's the element of re-use. The airframe, panel, FDM and sounds for a given aircraft probably don't change much from one individual aircraft to the other, so why create those if you just want to paint an aircraft. You'd be better of re-using what's already there. Provided you give credit where it's due, of course. I think this is one area where MSFS got it right: decouple all the individual pieces of the puzzle, so people can concentrate on their area of expertise, and allow the end-user to pick and choose their favourite elements. My 2 cents. Groeten,- Jacco -- Think about it: | In Real Life: Jacco van Schaik If the wheel had never been | Mail me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] reinvented, we'd still be | Spam bait:postmaster@localhost driving on logs...| See also http://www.frontier.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Jim Wilson writes: Fly! uses a 3D cockpit. They use 2D for most of the instrumentation, switches and knobs, and 3D models for the things that really need it like levers. I have no experience with FLY2K or FLY2, so I cannot comment on those, but FLY1 definitely uses a 2D cockpit. Granted that there might be a couple of small, animated 3D objects, but the panel is a flat picture projected in its own coordinates that slides in the X/Y axes independently of the outside scene -- that's exactly the definition of a 2D panel. Unlike FlightGear, FLY1 limits the viewing direction to fixed viewpoints and has a separate 2D picture to project for each one. The pictures are beautiful, but there is nothing 3D about it. More than likely the legability problem is your LCD at 1600x1200 ;-) No, it's a 1600x1200 LCD trying to do 1024x768. Unlike CRTs, LCDs have a fixed number of pixels, so they have to double or leave out individual pixels when changing resolutions. The picture is clearer in some ways when I change FLY! to 800x600, but now I've lost 75% of my resolution. Again, I cannot comment on later FLY! versions, except that when I go to window mode (and lose 3D acceleration), the panel becomes clear. In any case we'd be doing great to come up with something as nice and usable as the Fly! cockpits. Artistically, I agree -- they're beautifully rendered and pay a lot of attention to detail. From a modelling perspective, however, they're years out of date, and I think we should aim a lot higher than fixed 2D renditions. Try the Battle of Britain demo to see what a 3D cockpit is like, and you won't want to go back. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, David Megginson wrote: Jim Brennan jjb - writes: The photorealistic instruments in some simulators are good to have, but (IMHO) not as importaint as proper flight modeling. I personally see NO need for the nice views of the airplane, and its moving parts as seen from other airplanes except if one is flying formation or shooting at the airplane. ... or replaying a finished flight to study it, or watching a student's progress in external view on a second monitor, or watching OK, I'll grant you the validity of those two points. the propeller from inside the airplane. but not that one grin! snip While this is nice to have for some limited purpose, it adds nothing to the realism of the simulator from the perspective of the person flying the sim. No, but it might be useful for the instructor to watch, or for the student during a replay of a failed flight. Ok I'll grant you that. These efforts could better be used in improving the flight models, and the functionality of the sim to interface to other sims and external programs and more realistic views (such as those for KSJC). It's not a zero-sum game. The people who are good at flight models (Jon, Tony, Andy, etc.) are already spending pretty-much all their time on flight modelling; contributions to other areas from other people aren't taking away from that. Well, I'll even agree (mostly) with that. I guess my point is that work being done on exterior views of the airplane is not as valuable (from the pilots point of view) as as would work doine to produce more detailed airport areas (as is the case with KSJC). Just IMHO. jj All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Jim Brennan jjb - writes: OK, I'll grant you the validity of those two points. the propeller from inside the airplane. but not that one grin! To start a DC-3 engine, I read that you count 12 blades before you release the starter. I'm not sure whether, in an engine-out on a twin, you're supposed to try to get visual confirmation of which prop is spinning more slowly. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
David Megginson writes: Jim Brennan jjb - writes: OK, I'll grant you the validity of those two points. the propeller from inside the airplane. but not that one grin! To start a DC-3 engine, I read that you count 12 blades before you release the starter. I'm not sure whether, in an engine-out on a twin, you're supposed to try to get visual confirmation of which prop is spinning more slowly. Hey, sort of on the same subject, all of you tracking cvs source/base should do a cvs update -d and check out the new engine starting sequence/sounds. Really cool on the DC-3, especially when watching from an outside view. Good work Eric! If I can get something going with runway lights in the next week or two we might have to start thinking about the next release. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
On Sun, 2002-03-10 at 12:08, David Megginson wrote: Jim Brennan jjb - writes: OK, I'll grant you the validity of those two points. the propeller from inside the airplane. but not that one grin! To start a DC-3 engine, I read that you count 12 blades before you release the starter. I'm not sure whether, in an engine-out on a twin, you're supposed to try to get visual confirmation of which prop is spinning more slowly. In a twin, you'll definitely know which engine is out without looking. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Tony Peden writes: In a twin, you'll definitely know which engine is out without looking. If you are well trained and practiced at it ... otherwise if there is a lot of other stuff going on at the time it really may not be so intuitive. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
I agree, full 3D is the way new sims work and FGFS should have that as well and not implement now a feature that was state of the art some years ago. It is easy to make the yoke optional. While modelling the cockpit I would strive for realism and then let FGFS disable it if the user wants. There may be small artistic freedoms to make things more legible, for example shadows on gauges that partly and non-uniformly shadow digits on gauge faces can make it more realistic and pretty, but harder to read. Also, if in reality there is much space between gauges, you can increase the size of the gauges. I also love a fully 3D, fully functional, fully clickable cockpit. But it is a lot of work, more than exteriour models. Also, an artist can make an exteriour model without help from a coder. If an aritist does a 3D cockpit that holds a switch or gauge or whatever that has not been coded before, he needs the help of a coder. It should off course be possible to change the view direction. I have heard (IIRC from warbirds or Aces High users) that a very nice effect is if the eyepoint moves at the same time. If you sit and look in another direction, turning your head, the eyes move since you will probably hold your neck fairly constant. Also, it should be possible to move the eyepoint via keys so that you can look around things. This may go so far that you can open the canopy and stick your head out to look besides the large obstructing engine. If this is realistic (this technique is used for some planes in RL), then users appreciate this effect a lot. Also, g forces should move the eyepoint as an option (some people like me like this, some don't). AFAIK, this is already in the code. Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Wolfram Kuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I agree, full 3D is the way new sims work and FGFS should have that as well and not implement now a feature that was state of the art some years ago. Fly! is a 3D cockpit. I was talking about usability, and IMHO it is a more usable panel because of its inaccurate eye point when in use. Just as the panel disappears when you use the mouse scrolling and reappears with a click, it'd be easy enough to snap to an operational centered viewpoint. There may be small artistic freedoms to make things more legible, for example shadows on gauges that partly and non-uniformly shadow digits on gauge faces can make it more realistic and pretty, but harder to read. Also, if in reality there is much space between gauges, you can increase the size of the gauges. Yes, unfortunately reality occurs in much higer resolution than even the best monitor can deliver. How about when the sun is right in your eyes and you can't see anything, even with sunglasses? It amazes me sometimes that people define reality in 3D as being something that looks like it was done with a video camera. To me its a more realistic experience if the gauge I'm looking at can easily be used and is closer to what it would be in size and perspective from my eyes sitting in the chair, not the camera's little box on the screen. I also love a fully 3D, fully functional, fully clickable cockpit. But it is a lot of work, more than exteriour models. Also, an artist can make an exteriour model without help from a coder. If an aritist does a 3D cockpit that holds a switch or gauge or whatever that has not been coded before, he needs the help of a coder. Yeah they are pretty cool, but for me once you've got them figured out (solved the puzzle and repeated it a few times) it's pretty dull. When I first got Fly! a couple years ago I used it a lot for a few months. Now I just dig it out when I'm interested in how the developers might have done something. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
It amazes me sometimes that people define reality in 3D as being something that looks like it was done with a video camera. To me its a more realistic experience if the gauge I'm looking at can easily be used and is closer to what it would be in size and perspective from my eyes sitting in the chair, not the camera's little box on the screen. Any simulator should have as it primary function SIMULATING as closely as possable the real thing. This applies to both the flight model and the controls and instruments. The fact that most folks only have a single monitor complicates this greatly. The fact that most folks have controls that do not have the proper sizes and forces complictes this. The best way for a simulator (such as FlightGear) to approach this is to give the users the ability to add and interface with such programs at the project magenta instruments, or the glass cockpit being worked on by John and others. The ability to open and close additional views for operating controls (such as FLY and PS-1 do) is needed as well, for those who have to rely on a single monitor. The photorealistic instruments in some simulators are good to have, but (IMHO) not as importaint as proper flight modeling. I personally see NO need for the nice views of the airplane, and its moving parts as seen from other airplanes except if one is flying formation or shooting at the airplane. While this is nice to have for some limited purpose, it adds nothing to the realism of the simulator from the perspective of the person flying the sim. These efforts could better be used in improving the flight models, and the functionality of the sim to interface to other sims and external programs and more realistic views (such as those for KSJC). jj ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Jim Brennan jjb - writes: The photorealistic instruments in some simulators are good to have, but (IMHO) not as importaint as proper flight modeling. I personally see NO need for the nice views of the airplane, and its moving parts as seen from other airplanes except if one is flying formation or shooting at the airplane. ... or replaying a finished flight to study it, or watching a student's progress in external view on a second monitor, or watching the propeller from inside the airplane. More importantly, I think that soon we won't be making the same distinction between internal and external view -- we might even use the same 3D model for both. In that case, the same animation code that spins the propeller can move the yoke, throttle levers, rudder pedals, etc. (I imagine that needles on gauges will still be done with rotating textures). While this is nice to have for some limited purpose, it adds nothing to the realism of the simulator from the perspective of the person flying the sim. No, but it might be useful for the instructor to watch, or for the student during a replay of a failed flight. These efforts could better be used in improving the flight models, and the functionality of the sim to interface to other sims and external programs and more realistic views (such as those for KSJC). It's not a zero-sum game. The people who are good at flight models (Jon, Tony, Andy, etc.) are already spending pretty-much all their time on flight modelling; contributions to other areas from other people aren't taking away from that. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Jim wrote: While this is nice to have for some limited purpose, it adds nothing to the realism of the simulator from the perspective of the person flying the sim. I think more people use flight sims for fun or entertainment than for serious uses. Including me, although I am a pilot. But lets stop this discussion and agree that whether you find good exteriour 3D models fun is a matter of taste (additional to the serious uses David wrote about). jj Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
Jim wrote: Fly! is a 3D cockpit. I was talking about usability, and IMHO it is a more usable panel because of its inaccurate eye point when in use. Just as the panel disappears when you use the mouse scrolling and reappears with a click, it'd be easy enough to snap to an operational centered viewpoint. In 3D, its easy to let the user move the eyepoint. It amazes me sometimes that people define reality in 3D as being something that looks like it was done with a video camera. To me its a more realistic experience if the gauge I'm looking at can easily be used I agree. Strangely enough, just a few days ago I had the same discussion on a forum and said what you say, legibility is more important than just good looks. They had smudges on the faces, different varieties of shadows, aging effects (white - yellow) etc. My only fear is - maybe I am missunderstanding - that we will implement some scheme that was state of the art 5 years ago when someone started work on a sim that was shipped 2 years later. As long as we don't close doors to future development by choosing the wrong scheme or waste time by doing several schemes, I am happy :-). IMHO the decision for a 3D cockpit is not a decision for bad legibility. Worse than a pure 2D cockpit, hand optimized for the resolution, yes, but not bad. and is closer to what it would be in size and perspective from my eyes sitting in the chair, not the camera's little box on the screen. In a 3D cockpit, this can be chosen via FoV. Actually, when I start a plane and click all the things in the cockpit, I reduce FoV a bit (zoom in, move my nose closer to the panel). OTOH, when I land, I zoom out very much to see the horizon left and right to judge my angle etc. Best, Jim Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
FWIW thought I'd make a few comments on the new 3D view stuff, realizing that it is still being worked on. While the commercial sims give a 3D feel to the cockpit they aren't always attempting to be true models. In this screenshot from fs2k, note that while the perspective (eye to panel) is ok, the left piller is missing to give better viewing with 3D mapped to 2D display...where the pilot cannot move their head to change the view. It looks like there are a lot of photo textures being used. It also appears that the perspective is not consistant with the exterior view angle. In some cases it makes sense to do this so that you can see the panel pretty much straight on (necessary to read the gauges) and be able to see the runway well. The yoke must get in the way though (you can't lift your chin and look down over to see a gauge): http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/dmarch/images/fs2k.jpg This screenshot of a 747? panel shows little concern for 3D realism, but is a highly functional and usable panel. There's only so much you can do with guages anyway. The view perspective gives the computer pilot a straight on view of the panel: http://www.simaviator.com/screen/iam/30.jpg These are in Fly!. And I have to say that the Fly! panels are the ones I like the best. It isn't just the graphics and 3D modeling, but the fact that the panels are unrealistically close to the (in 3D world) pilot's nose and the perspective is always straight on (the same plane). What is rightly sacrificed in realism makes them look sharp, and of course readable. The panels scroll very much like the current 2D FlightGear panels: http://www.intelligamer.com/features/qa/fly/fly03.jpg http://www.avsim.com/pages/1299/fly/capt1pnl.jpg Note that when you change the 3D cockpit view angle in Fly!, the panel in effect becomes disabled and as far as I can tell is just a static texture on the front wall of the aircraft model interior. The knobs and controls are hard enough to see and control using a mouse with a straight on view, let alone when 3D perspective angles are mapped to 2D. Anyway, just thought I'd bring these ideas to the discussion in case they are of any value. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Virtual cockpit notes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 09:48, you wrote: FWIW thought I'd make a few comments on the new 3D view stuff, realizing that it is still being worked on. Note that when you change the 3D cockpit view angle in Fly!, the panel in effect becomes disabled and as far as I can tell is just a static texture on the front wall of the aircraft model interior. The knobs and controls are hard enough to see and control using a mouse with a straight on view, let alone when 3D perspective angles are mapped to 2D. I think we should be closest to Fly than to MSFS in this regard. The cockpit should be exactly the way it is in the real thing, minus the yokes because they get in the way. This will make FlightGear a usual tool for cockpit familiarisation. Fly's implementation of a 3d cockpit is a little lacking in a key area. It isn't really 3d. FGFS's is and should be a real 3d cockpit that is totally mouse scrollable. It can still have number keys locked to bookmark view positions, but it should be free scrolling. It should also have every single button doing exactly what it does in the real thing. That's my opinion anyway, FWIW. Thanks, David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8iXg5F2H7v0XOYBIRAnahAJ4w4lmvrzb1QJoyoYTBh6LKG6NAwwCdEPr4 Xk1mxmIh8DAAtmDto1Op62M= =m2z8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
