Re: [Flightgear-devel] p51d-jsbsim merge request.
Hal V. Engel wrote: It would be really nice to get a similar pano of a D/K cockpit since that would be very helpful getting the cockpit modeled. This is the only one I'm aware of, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
Hi, I recently implemented the GPWS according to the tutorial: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/GPWS and let it merged into FGdata To my own surprise it isn't working, though I can remember that the same tutorial worked perfectly shortly after fixing of the GPWS. I tried to fix it and had a look into the 777-200. Though I implemented all subsystems (electrical, instrumentation... it is still not working. I wonder whats wrong with the 733 in FGdata, obviously I miss something. Can someone help me? Thanks Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:33 +, Heiko Schulz wrote: Hi, I recently implemented the GPWS according to the tutorial: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/GPWS and let it merged into FGdata To my own surprise it isn't working, though I can remember that the same tutorial worked perfectly shortly after fixing of the GPWS. I tried to fix it and had a look into the 777-200. Though I implemented all subsystems (electrical, instrumentation... it is still not working. I wonder whats wrong with the 733 in FGdata, obviously I miss something. Can someone help me? Thanks Heiko Heiko, I'd be interested to hear how this goes, I also implemented everything according to the Wiki tutorial, I remember it all worked quite a while ago, but I can't remember the last time I heard it working... scott. -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
On 30 Nov 2010, at 12:37, Scott Hamilton wrote: I'd be interested to hear how this goes, I also implemented everything according to the Wiki tutorial, I remember it all worked quite a while ago, but I can't remember the last time I heard it working... Thorsten B has done a huge amount of work on the GPWS in the past few months, my impression is that with the latest Git code, it's working better than at any point in its history - with the caveat, assuming you have configured it correctly! James -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
Hi Thorsten B has done a huge amount of work on the GPWS in the past few months, my impression is that with the latest Git code, it's working better than at any point in its history - with the caveat, assuming you have configured it correctly! James We just followed ThorstenB's wiki tutorial for implementing the GPWS... And that's our question: it seems something changed, but not in the wiki. And we are just asking for help to get it working again Heiko -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
I'd like to let everyone know that I just finished a project assigning each aircraft model/cockpit a number between 0 and 10 indicating the visual level of quality of the cockpit. The results can be found in the forum here: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=10080 Why did I do this? == My prime reason is that this is information I would like to have as a Flightgear user. Faced with 400+ aircraft, I was often annoyed to download one and see that it was basically unfinished in spite of the official status indicator. Eventually I gave up and stuck with the few aircraft I knew well - which means that I completely missed some truly great aircraft. To give an example, I think the Pipers (pa-22-160, pa24-250-CIII,...) are really great models with lots of attention on the proper handling of the on-board systems - and I only found them just now (and am enjoying them since). I did not do the list to en- or discourage developers. If an aircraft is still under development, and it scores low in visual detail, there is no shame in that - a low score means nothing but 'needs more developement'. More explanations and disclaimers in the forum. What do the numbers mean? = Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9 an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'. What does the list represent? = On face value, the list represents my partially subjective, partially objective judgement of the visual quality of a cockpit. After having made it however, there appears to be more to it. There is usually a correlation between the level of detail of the modelling of systems and procedures and the level of visual detail in the cockpit - realistic procedures require more gauges and buttons, and immediately the cockpit increases in detail. About the weakest correlation in this respect is the Concorde, which is very detailed in procedures and in modelling systems, but scores only a 5 in visual detail. Usually, the correlation is way better. There is also a (weaker) correlation between visual quality of the cockpit and the FDM - planes with great cockpits tend to have at least a better than average FDM. I think that's because developers who spend long time researching cockpit photographs usually don't ignore the FDM. The list is unfair in the sense that there are planes with really great and well-tuned FDMs which don't score too high on the visual detail. The problem is that it is impossible to make a similar list for the FDM quality for all 400+ aircraft in a finite amount of time. But I think all in all the list does tend to draw attention to the aircraft Flightgear can be really proud of. What do I want to do with it? = Basically nothing - it's up to the community what to do with the numbers and thumbnails. Options which have at one point or the other mentioned and discussed in the forum range from doing nothing nothing via creating a Wiki page using the numbers or introducing options on the download website and in fgrun to sort aircraft acccording to the rating all the way to structuring the FGData on GIT according to status. I clearly can forsee useful applications, but I consider my work done at this point, and it's not up to me to decide if e.g. any sorting scheme for aircraft downloads is useful or not. * Thorsten -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. d66903e9ad63b91182ccc25d9bb82f18f8dd98b6
On 30 Nov 2010, at 13:14, Flightgear-commitlogs wrote: commit c44948041b9356c9d16acc2d888de109bf7866e7 Author: Erik Hofman Date: Mon Nov 29 09:57:45 2010 +0100 PAtch by Andreas Gaeb to eliminate NaN's in the location code Erik, can you talk a little about what this patch fixes? I can read the description, and it sounds really great, but it seems very fortunate that a patch should appear for the exact problem we're having in FlightGear, at this time. Am I hoping for too much, based upon the description? James -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. d66903e9ad63b91182ccc25d9bb82f18f8dd98b6
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 14:03 +, James Turner wrote: On 30 Nov 2010, at 13:14, Flightgear-commitlogs wrote: PAtch by Andreas Gaeb to eliminate NaN's in the location code Erik, can you talk a little about what this patch fixes? I can read the description, and it sounds really great, but it seems very fortunate that a patch should appear for the exact problem we're having in FlightGear, at this time. Am I hoping for too much, based upon the description? Form the JSBSim developers list: recently I've run into some floating point exceptions. Tracing them down, I found that FGLocation could produce them. This is due to the derived values not being initialized. If the copy constructor or operator= are called, they copy over the uninitialized garbage in the derived values -- which on my system happens to evaluate to NaN, thus causing FPEs. Coincidentally it was posted the same day someone mentioned the startup 'crash' of the C172p. I was hoping it might solve it but was (and still am) skeptical it does. Due to the lack of feedback so far I don't know for certain either. Erik -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: What do the numbers mean? = Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9 an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'. I think the risk of doing harm by rating aircraft and their cockpits after just a quick test is rather high compared to the potential benefit - especially when you're too unfamiliar with some of the respective real-life references. To put in into different words: By assigning too many inappropriate ratings, you're putting the entire effort at the risk of not being taken as seriously as you would expect. If I were you, I'd refrain from posting ratings as 'delicate' as this one. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: What do the numbers mean? = Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9 an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'. I think the risk of doing harm by rating aircraft and their cockpits after just a quick test is rather high compared to the potential benefit - especially when you're too unfamiliar with some of the respective real-life references. To put in into different words: By assigning too many inappropriate ratings, you're putting the entire effort at the risk of not being taken as seriously as you would expect. If I were you, I'd refrain from posting ratings as 'delicate' as this one. I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that their egos aren't so fragile as to be discouraged by a low rating! Tim Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Tim Moore wrote: I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that their egos aren't so fragile as to be discouraged by a low rating! My own ego is not affected in any way, last but not least because I didn't model any of these aircraft. But I do know some of the respective real-life counterparts (mostly single engined aircraft) pretty well because I'm flying these as PIC or at least as co-pilot and for almost all of them I'd end up with a different rating. This is the rather simple background to my 'complaint'. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com wrote: I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that their egos aren't so fragile as to be discouraged by a low rating! Right, I also have a couple new aircraft I'm going to go check out in a few minutes. I think ratings can be good if put in the proper context ... and in this case it's one person's opinion. Thorsten has been clear about how his rating system works, and as a result, I think it's reasonably fair. In order to maintain such a ratings system over time, it must be kept fairly simple. However, I could come up with many ideas to extend the system ... 1. It would be interesting if there was a system where everyone could vote on the rating for a particular aircraft ... kind of like rating a youtube video. 2. The rating could be broken down into 3 (or more) subsections and the overall rating could be a combination of the parts. 3 broad categories I see are: (a) cockpit/interior, (b) exterior model, and (c) flight model (how well does the thing fly, not to be confused with how hard the thing is to fly.) We could also talk about sound effects, systems modeling (electrical system, hydraulic system), fault modeling, night lighting ... and on and on. 3. Ratings are imperfect, especially end user ratings. If I can't figure out how to start some airplane or I crash on take off because of some operator error, I might give it a really low rating out of frustration. On the other hand we all intuitively get eye candy and model details so some aircraft might get really high ratings even though they don't fly right or they have severe systems modeling problems. At the end of the day, each of our aircraft has strengths and weaknesses, and even some low rated aircraft (rated low because of less detailed cockpits) might have other really cool features to offer. I've always liked the YF-23 because it handles so well across a wide speed range ... it's a blast to fly even though it doesn't have any 3d cockpit. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:04, Tim Moore wrote: If I were you, I'd refrain from posting ratings as 'delicate' as this one. I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that their egos aren't so fragile as to be discouraged by a low rating! Sadly, I agree with both Tim and Martin - judging people's work is pretty risky, especially when they don't know it's coming - but we do make it really hard for casual users to find out aircraft that suit their needs. A thick-skin is a requirement for publishing any creative work into the world, I'd say - Torsten's comments aren't meant to be critical (as he said), but I'd hate to do anything which means people keep aircraft 'secret' until they are 'finished' - we already know that leads to many bad results. Development needs to happen in the open - ideally without confusing end-users in the process, though. James -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
I do like Thorsten's list, especially since he attached images of each single cockpit. This makes it clear at what time of development he checked the aircraft. Anyway, it is still a delicate subject and I don't think we'll ever find a rating system that works for all... Curt wrote: 1. It would be interesting if there was a system where everyone could vote on the rating for a particular aircraft ... kind of like rating a youtube video. Bring us back to an old discussion. This was implemented in the wiki, but without dozens of people voting per-aircraft it isn't very usefull... (most votings are just the single author's 5 stars I guess :P) For example, see right side of page: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Boeing_747-400 And here's the top 20: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Ratings -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] (no subject)
Thanks Chris, Your letter seems pretty fairly written. What's emerging as my biggest concern with this guy is the number of people we are hearing from who haven't been able to get a refund without filing a complaint with their credit card company and going to extreme measures. That makes the prosim 100% moneyback guarantee sound pretty flimsy ... not that a new person would know that. So from my point of view: - rebranding and selling flightgear: ok and within the terms of the GPL - doing everything possible to hide the fact that it's flightgear: slimy - proflightsim marketing tactics: extreme sliminess, pushing ethical boundaries - not honoring your 100% money back guarantee and taking care of your customers: that could be downright illegal. If this guy would take care of his customers, he wouldn't have to work so hard to find new ones. :-) Thanks, Curt. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chris Wilkinson wrote: To whom it may concern, I note that you are hosting articles created by author Dan H Freeman. Please be aware that Mr Freeman appears to be running a scam. He says he is behind ProFlightSimulator, or software with variations on that name. The software can be purchased over the internet, and various claims are made as to it be being the most realistic simulator ever. In reality this software is nothing but a copy of open-source flight simulator FlightGear (fgfs), and an out-of-date verison of that at best. That fact is barely conceded or alluded to on his website. Please also be aware that Dan H Freeman may be an alias. Previously the name Charlie Taylor was used on his website, but was recently removed after I linked that name back to a historical figure in aviation history, Charles E Taylor, the 3rd Wright Brother, whose work ensured the Wright Flyer was able to take to the air. It is my belief that other opensource softwares are being scammed by this same person or organization. A software named Celestia (an opensource astronomy software) has also been copied, and the person mentioned on the website for that copy (John Bayer) also relates to a historical figure in astronomy, Johann Bayer, who created the first complete celestial atlas hundreds of years ago. It is obvious that the names put forward for each software are taken from historical data related to each software, in an attempt to hide who the scammer really is. FlightGear is released under the GPL v2, which allows some concessions to selling the software. However it is my belief, and the belief of a number of people within the FlightGear opensource community, that the conditions of the GPL v2 licence are not being followed completely with the sale and distribution of this software. Hence I would like to request that you consider removing Mr Freemans articles from your website until such time as the validity of his enterprise is determined. However legal Mr Freemans enterprise may or may not be, his ethical and moral standing is without doubt very poor. There are a number of people who recently have attested to being ripped off by this man, so to prevent more people losing money to this scam please consider this request seriously. Best regards, Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia. FlightGear community member. -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:30, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Bring us back to an old discussion. This was implemented in the wiki, but without dozens of people voting per-aircraft it isn't very usefull... (most votings are just the single author's 5 stars I guess :P) I voted! And I didn't make a single aircraft so far! :) James -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Cool, I wasn't aware of the wiki voting Here's a random idea: if we put the wiki link for each aircraft in the corresponding aircraft-set.xml file we could automatically link to it from the aircraft download page ... Curt. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote: I do like Thorsten's list, especially since he attached images of each single cockpit. This makes it clear at what time of development he checked the aircraft. Anyway, it is still a delicate subject and I don't think we'll ever find a rating system that works for all... Curt wrote: 1. It would be interesting if there was a system where everyone could vote on the rating for a particular aircraft ... kind of like rating a youtube video. Bring us back to an old discussion. This was implemented in the wiki, but without dozens of people voting per-aircraft it isn't very usefull... (most votings are just the single author's 5 stars I guess :P) For example, see right side of page: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Boeing_747-400 And here's the top 20: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Ratings -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Curt wrote: Here's a random idea: if we put the wiki link for each aircraft in the corresponding aircraft-set.xml file we could automatically link to it from the aircraft download page ... Wouldn't it be easier to create redirect in the wiki from (for example) http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/f-14b to http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat This would only require you to add a link with http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/aircraft to the boxes at the download page... Another possibility is to check the wiki for |fgname = occurences, as you can see at the F-14's page, there is |fgname = f-14b, which corresponds to --fgname=f-14b in Flightgear commands... Cheers, Gijs -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On 30 Nov 2010, at 18:16, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to create redirect in the wiki from (for example) http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/f-14b to http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat This would only require you to add a link with http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/aircraft to the boxes at the download page... Yes, this would be awesome! James -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote: Thorsten B has done a huge amount of work on the GPWS in the past few months, my impression is that with the latest Git code, it's working better than at any point in its history - with the caveat, assuming you have configured it correctly! James We just followed ThorstenB's wiki tutorial for implementing the GPWS... And that's our question: it seems something changed, but not in the wiki. And we are just asking for help to get it working again Yes, I kind of adopted the GPWS. And there haven't been any recent changes, so the wiki description should still be correct (unless there was a mistake from the beginning...). Have you tested the GPWS with the latest 777-200 (in GIT since Sunday)? It's definitely working there. If it wasn't working for you, then we need to look at some FG problem (like the recent sound or directory access issues). If the 777 GPWS is working for you, then it's related to aircraft configuration. I'll be testing and looking at the 733. And those interested in a full-blown GPWS integration could check the 777-200 now. It has a new gpws Nasal wrapper to provide functionality like flap-, gear- and G/S-override buttons. It also shows how to allow lower flap settings for landing (by default, the GPWS requires full flap extension), connection of the master warning light, and how to connect the PFD, i.e. to display the PULL UP TCW (time critical warning). Admittedly, the GPWS in FlightGear is a bit complicated. The main reason is that the original author chose to simulate an actual hardware device (a specific type made by Honeywell). All inputs and outputs match the real counterpart - even the binary encoding of digital I/O. And yes, the configuration parameters (category-1...) are also identical to the real device. It just doesn't get any more realistic than this. But while this may make integration/configuration a bit more complicated than usual, I still think his work is really great. And remember about FlightGear: it's not a game - it's a real sim! :) cheers, Thorsten -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
Hi ThorstenB, Yes, I kind of adopted the GPWS. And there haven't been any recent changes, so the wiki description should still be correct (unless there was a mistake from the beginning...). I tried it shortly after you finished the tutorial and it worked perfect. Now it stopped working... Have you tested the GPWS with the latest 777-200 (in GIT since Sunday)? It's definitely working there. If it wasn't working for you, then we need to look at some FG problem (like the recent sound or directory access issues). If the 777 GPWS is working for you, then it's related to aircraft configuration. I'll be testing and looking at the 733. The 777-200 is working perfect in every aspects. Thanks for! I had a look into, even ported the related subsystems over to the 733, but no success. Scott (working on the A380) noticed the same with the wiki-tutorial and the GPWS. Interesting to know and maybe a hint: A380 and 733 are both JSBsim. Admittedly, the GPWS in FlightGear is a bit complicated. The main reason is that the original author chose to simulate an actual hardware device (a specific type made by Honeywell). All inputs and outputs match the real counterpart - even the binary encoding of digital I/O. And yes, the configuration parameters (category-1...) are also identical to the real device. It just doesn't get any more realistic than this. But while this may make integration/configuration a bit more complicated than usual, I still think his work is really great. And remember about FlightGear: it's not a game - it's a real sim! :) Yep, great work. Maybe because ARINC uses (or used?) FlightGear for developement? Thanks Heiko -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC client
There is already an open source radar display screen http://www.albatross.aero/ It can take as input asterix formated data ( http://www.eurocontrol.int/asterix/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html) If FG or MPserver can provide an asterisk stream then it can be easily fed to albatross. Regards, Efty On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Pep Ribal pepri...@gmail.com wrote: El 29/11/10 20:44, Martin Spott escribió: Pep Ribal wrote: I've seen that there are plans to develop an ATC client for Flightgear. I'm very interested in this profect, and so I'm offering my help. Whoever is involved, please get in touch. http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/FlightGear_Newsletter_October_2010#OpenRadar Cheers, Martin. I would gladly mantain, or port to C++. But who can I contact? There's no contact information available in the websites. Regards. Pep. -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Thorsten wrote -Original Message- From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 30 November 2010 10:49 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating I'd like to let everyone know that I just finished a project assigning each aircraft model/cockpit a number between 0 and 10 indicating the visual level of quality of the cockpit. The results can be found in the forum here: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4t=10080 Why did I do this? == My prime reason is that this is information I would like to have as a Flightgear user. Faced with 400+ aircraft, I was often annoyed to download one and see that it was basically unfinished in spite of the official status indicator. Eventually I gave up and stuck with the few aircraft I knew well - which means that I completely missed some truly great aircraft. To give an example, I think the Pipers (pa-22-160, pa24-250-CIII,...) are really great models with lots of attention on the proper handling of the on-board systems - and I only found them just now (and am enjoying them since). I did not do the list to en- or discourage developers. If an aircraft is still under development, and it scores low in visual detail, there is no shame in that - a low score means nothing but 'needs more developement'. More explanations and disclaimers in the forum. What do the numbers mean? = Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9 an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'. What does the list represent? = On face value, the list represents my partially subjective, partially objective judgement of the visual quality of a cockpit. After having made it however, there appears to be more to it. There is usually a correlation between the level of detail of the modelling of systems and procedures and the level of visual detail in the cockpit - realistic procedures require more gauges and buttons, and immediately the cockpit increases in detail. About the weakest correlation in this respect is the Concorde, which is very detailed in procedures and in modelling systems, but scores only a 5 in visual detail. Usually, the correlation is way better. There is also a (weaker) correlation between visual quality of the cockpit and the FDM - planes with great cockpits tend to have at least a better than average FDM. I think that's because developers who spend long time researching cockpit photographs usually don't ignore the FDM. The list is unfair in the sense that there are planes with really great and well-tuned FDMs which don't score too high on the visual detail. The problem is that it is impossible to make a similar list for the FDM quality for all 400+ aircraft in a finite amount of time. But I think all in all the list does tend to draw attention to the aircraft Flightgear can be really proud of. What do I want to do with it? = Basically nothing - it's up to the community what to do with the numbers and thumbnails. Options which have at one point or the other mentioned and discussed in the forum range from doing nothing nothing via creating a Wiki page using the numbers or introducing options on the download website and in fgrun to sort aircraft acccording to the rating all the way to structuring the FGData on GIT according to status. I clearly can forsee useful applications, but I consider my work done at this point, and it's not up to me to decide if e.g. any sorting scheme for aircraft downloads is useful or not. * Thorsten Hmm - interesting. Are you sure you know what you are seeing? Your #2 is the Seahawk. It is a full 3d representation of the actual aircraft derived from the pilot's notes. There are no omissions from the main panel, although there are some secondary controls missing from the cockpit sidewalls, omitted in the interests of frame rate. I will at some stage tinker with the gunsight, but beyond that I have nothing to improve on the main panel. If technology permits I will add stuff to the cockpit sidewalls. Vivian -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] More good news on the FPS front...
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:15:39 + (GMT) From: The Flight Simulator Network m...@flightsimulatornetwork.com Reply-To: do-not-re...@flightsimulatornetwork.com To: ge...@deltasoft.com ge...@deltasoft.com Subject: Flight Pro Sim A message to all members of The Flight Simulator Network I don't normally send out an update mid week, but this is developing into a pretty big story.Given that there are potentially a lot of members not yet aware of it, I wanted to send everyone a message to hopefully prevent anyone else getting tangled up in the Flight Pro Sim web.Please have a read of the article (http://www.flightsimulatornetwork.com/page/why-you-dont-want-to-buy) I've put together on the subject.We've had a few people trying to join the site linking to Flight Pro Sim. Just so everyone is aware, I will remove any member that posts a link to their site or any associated affiliate site without warning. Also, if anyone spots a link to them, please let me know so I can deal with it.Thanks,Mark Visit The Flight Simulator Network at: http://www.flightsimulatornetwork.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC client
Eftychios Eftychiou wrote: There is already an open source radar display screen http://www.albatross.aero/ I'm surprised to read that they're actually now having source code on offer, do you have a pointer to the code ? It can take as input asterix formated data ( http://www.eurocontrol.int/asterix/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html) Well, OpenRADAR is going the opposite direction: It already provides FlightGear MP (plus HLA RTI via a side project), ASTERIX could be done as well by changing swapping another interface in ;-) I'm surprised to realize that a lot of people don't spare effort for discussing new ATC clients while a slightly rudimentary but rather functional system is already available Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote: I had a look into, even ported the related subsystems over to the 733, but no success. Scott (working on the A380) noticed the same with the wiki-tutorial and the GPWS. Interesting to know and maybe a hint: A380 and 733 are both JSBsim. Right, that is related to the problem. Depending on configuration the GPWS relies on a specific altitude source which is only available for YASim right now. You could switch the category-8 parameter to 3 (instead of 2) - and the GPWS will work with JSBSim and other FDMs. However, please wait before pushing any ac changes, since this solution isn't good enough. The point here is that the GPWS needs a pretty accurate altimeter source for main-gear-above-ground-level, otherwise the important final callouts 20.10 make no sense. Since there is no such FDM source (except for YASim) we'll need to hook it to the radio altimeter instrument - which isn't available as a GPWS default source yet. I'll be changing and testing something here - and hopefully push something later this week (also a Wiki update, if required). Thanks for the report! And to reiterate: everyone, please report if you notice something wasn't working. Just add something to the tracker. Yes, reports there are monitored and bugs fixed (eventually) - even if some issues cannot be fixed on the same day :). cheers, Thorsten -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
James Turner wrote: A thick-skin is a requirement for [...] everyone who's seriously trying to survive in the FlightGear developer's shark tank ;-) [...], but I'd hate to do anything which means people keep aircraft 'secret' until they are 'finished' - we already know that leads to many bad results. Well said !! Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
Last time I used the radar-altimeter instrument it took too much time IMO to update. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote: I had a look into, even ported the related subsystems over to the 733, but no success. Scott (working on the A380) noticed the same with the wiki-tutorial and the GPWS. Interesting to know and maybe a hint: A380 and 733 are both JSBsim. Right, that is related to the problem. Depending on configuration the GPWS relies on a specific altitude source which is only available for YASim right now. You could switch the category-8 parameter to 3 (instead of 2) - and the GPWS will work with JSBSim and other FDMs. However, please wait before pushing any ac changes, since this solution isn't good enough. The point here is that the GPWS needs a pretty accurate altimeter source for main-gear-above-ground-level, otherwise the important final callouts 20.10 make no sense. Since there is no such FDM source (except for YASim) we'll need to hook it to the radio altimeter instrument - which isn't available as a GPWS default source yet. I'll be changing and testing something here - and hopefully push something later this week (also a Wiki update, if required). Thanks for the report! And to reiterate: everyone, please report if you notice something wasn't working. Just add something to the tracker. Yes, reports there are monitored and bugs fixed (eventually) - even if some issues cannot be fixed on the same day :). cheers, Thorsten -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Martin Spott wrote: James Turner wrote: A thick-skin is a requirement for [...] everyone who's seriously trying to survive in the FlightGear developer's shark tank ;-) Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like this one and that really helps me feel better ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULU09VCu14feature=player_embedded Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] (no subject)
Curtis Olson wrote: On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:41 AM, cullam Bruce-Lockhart wrote: 1. you could cut out holes where the cliff polygons are situated, leaving these areas open in the final terragear result, and then place custom object models in those holes. You might be able to leverage terragear and make programming modifications to assist in this process, but it will be hard to do any kind of natural blending with the surrounding areas ... and that's hard anyway and is something terragear doesn't address very well. 2. you could do the entire terrain block as a custom model generated with some other tool set (blender, creator, etc.) There's no reason a terrain block has to be in .btg format. The .stg file could reference and place any model format that is supported by OSG. Both 1. and 2. are asking for trouble in the long run, because future Scenery builds are _very_ likely not going to match the elevation of the (tile) borders of whatever you're going to insert. This is going to work properly only if you 1.) don't care about future updates to the surrounding Terrain or 2.) don't have to care about the Terrain outside your coverage. Also, is there an issue I should be concerned with in terms of texture priority? I know that there's a list of what gets drawn on top of what. But there seemed to be a few places where this list came up. At the very least, my attempts at adding to this list failed completely. Anyone know off the top of their head how to change the texture list, or add my own categories to it? This is more so for my own local use, rather than for the Terragear project, as I doubt anyone else needs a texture specific to the brown rocks in Newfoundland. Off the top of my head there is a names.cxx/hxx pair that contains the definitions and priority of the areas. Formerly there were _multiple_ different priority lists hardcoded into the source code. This has now been separated into two text files to be referenced via --usgs-map= and --priorities=, thus permitting changes without requiring a recompile. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] (no subject)
Cheers Curt, I'll keep writing letters to any e-site that publishes his material. I've also asked my facebook friends to click on his ads, then go back and remove them for being misleading. For at least the last 20 years I've happily stood up and raised my fist against many persons or organizations (governments included) who have willingly disadvantaged others, through greed, racism, bigotry, fascism, religious intervention, and more. As you say its OK to rebrand and sell fgfs, but the slimy means by which this scam makes its money gets a raised fist from me. Most of us do an honest days work in this contrived monetary society - those who gather wealth to the disadvantage of others (there are a LOT of these) should beware - it might only be matter of time before the economic crisis and other world issues serve as a catalyst for critical mass of actions from angry people. Regards, Chris Wilkinson, YBBN/BNE. From: Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Wed, 1 December, 2010 3:30:47 AM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] (no subject) Thanks Chris, Your letter seems pretty fairly written. What's emerging as my biggest concern with this guy is the number of people we are hearing from who haven't been able to get a refund without filing a complaint with their credit card company and going to extreme measures. That makes the prosim 100% moneyback guarantee sound pretty flimsy ... not that a new person would know that. So from my point of view: - rebranding and selling flightgear: ok and within the terms of the GPL - doing everything possible to hide the fact that it's flightgear: slimy - proflightsim marketing tactics: extreme sliminess, pushing ethical boundaries - not honoring your 100% money back guarantee and taking care of your customers: that could be downright illegal. If this guy would take care of his customers, he wouldn't have to work so hard to find new ones. :-) Thanks, Curt. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chris Wilkinson wrote: To whom it may concern, I note that you are hosting articles created by author Dan H Freeman. Please be aware that Mr Freeman appears to be running a scam. He says he is behind ProFlightSimulator, or software with variations on that name. The software can be purchased over the internet, and various claims are made as to it be being the most realistic simulator ever. In reality this software is nothing but a copy of open-source flight simulator FlightGear (fgfs), and an out-of-date verison of that at best. That fact is barely conceded or alluded to on his website. Please also be aware that Dan H Freeman may be an alias. Previously the name Charlie Taylor was used on his website, but was recently removed after I linked that name back to a historical figure in aviation history, Charles E Taylor, the 3rd Wright Brother, whose work ensured the Wright Flyer was able to take to the air. It is my belief that other opensource softwares are being scammed by this same person or organization. A software named Celestia (an opensource astronomy software) has also been copied, and the person mentioned on the website for that copy (John Bayer) also relates to a historical figure in astronomy, Johann Bayer, who created the first complete celestial atlas hundreds of years ago. It is obvious that the names put forward for each software are taken from historical data related to each software, in an attempt to hide who the scammer really is. FlightGear is released under the GPL v2, which allows some concessions to selling the software. However it is my belief, and the belief of a number of people within the FlightGear opensource community, that the conditions of the GPL v2 licence are not being followed completely with the sale and distribution of this software. Hence I would like to request that you consider removing Mr Freemans articles from your website until such time as the validity of his enterprise is determined. However legal Mr Freemans enterprise may or may not be, his ethical and moral standing is without doubt very poor. There are a number of people who recently have attested to being ripped off by this man, so to prevent more people losing money to this scam please consider this request seriously. Best regards, Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia. FlightGear community member. -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Curtis Olson wrote: Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like this one and that really helps me feel better ... Aaaah, good recipe, will try next time ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
Hi, Right, that is related to the problem. Depending on configuration the GPWS relies on a specific altitude source which is only available for YASim right now. You could switch the category-8 parameter to 3 (instead of 2) - and the GPWS will work with JSBSim and other FDMs. Yep, does work again... However, please wait before pushing any ac changes, since this solution isn't good enough. The point here is that the GPWS needs a pretty accurate altimeter source for main-gear-above-ground-level, otherwise the important final callouts 20.10 make no sense. Since there is no such FDM source (except for YASim) we'll need to hook it to the radio altimeter instrument - which isn't available as a GPWS default source yet. As this is a pretty accurate emulation of the real thing (or maybe it is even the real thing.. ;-)), how it gets its datas in real life? What is the source in reallife? And to reiterate: everyone, please report if you notice something wasn't working. Just add something to the tracker. Yes, reports there are monitored and bugs fixed (eventually) - even if some issues cannot be fixed on the same day :). We had this now several times now here on the list. My thought about this is before I report a bug to the bug-tracker, I want to know first if the bug isn't sitting in front of the pc.;-) Heiko -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
On 30 Nov 2010, at 21:55, Heiko Schulz wrote: We had this now several times now here on the list. My thought about this is before I report a bug to the bug-tracker, I want to know first if the bug isn't sitting in front of the pc.;-) It's much better to create a bug, and have it closed 30 minutes later because the error was with the user, than to wait days or weeks to file a real bug. Closing or merging bugs is easy. Of course, more people to look over the bugs, test them and update them, is always welcome too! James -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:10:19 +0100, Gijs wrote in message dub102-w12a229e288e123c22a53c5d3...@phx.gbl: In order to promote our statement, I've created a YouTube video, explaining some basic things about FlightSimPro and the like, and reference the viewers to our statement. If we all vote thumbs up on this video, add it to our public playlists, make it favourits etc., it will come up higher in the search results and thus be more visible to potential buyers. It's already third in row when searching for FlightSimPro! The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6LAWlRaydo Comments/ideas on the content of the video are welcome of course. ..links on the right now adds real to the pro sim flight name pieces, the scammer builds sim names from. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Scenemodels/MapServer.flightgear.org, planned outage
Hi folks, both sites - actually just two different Apache virtual hosts, running on the same system, fed from the same database - are subject to being transferred to a new system. Therefore you might will encounter inconsistencies during the phase of system- and DNS-transition, probably for two or three days from now. The GIT mirror update and other cyclic, automated jobs are going to get paused as long as the transition is in progress. Note, both sites are currently unavailable - this is _not_ linked to the transition but makes the transition easier ;-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPWS-implementation on the 733 failed- can someone help?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote: As this is a pretty accurate emulation of the real thing (or maybe it is even the real thing.. ;-)), how it gets its datas in real life? What is the source in reallife? The RL device may be configured to a number of radio altimeters - connecting to its analogue or digitial (ARINC) inputs. Anyone interested in designing a RL DIY radio altimeter may find this helpful. :) http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/radalt/radalt.html On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Victhor wrote: Last time I used the radar-altimeter instrument it took too much time IMO to update. It doesn't seem too bad now. And the update frequency is configurable - and a very limited update frequency is enough to drive the GPWS. And I'll add more options to select/configure the altimeter source... cheers, Thorsten -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
I think the list is a good start , but as already mentioned , I'm my own worst critic. Rating my own work , I'd say decent 3d model , working FDM's but plenty of room for improvement , and a FAIL for autopilot configuration . Hopefully I can get back to work on them once life stabilizes here , and once I figure out how to update via Git :) P.S. I'll keep the cat video in mind too ;) Cheers On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote: Curtis Olson wrote: Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like this one and that really helps me feel better ... Aaaah, good recipe, will try next time ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] development directory
Hi guys, how do I set the path for the development aircraft ... outside the FG-ROOT/Aircraft. I did some searching but couldn't find the email that announced this recent change. Thanks -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] development directory
found it : --fg-aircraft=/my/addons; On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:04 PM, syd adams adams@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, how do I set the path for the development aircraft ... outside the FG-ROOT/Aircraft. I did some searching but couldn't find the email that announced this recent change. Thanks -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] the 3d clouds rendering in the server accustomed to the client
how can i render the 3d clouds in the server according to the setting by the client?i just simple add a new item in the fdm for expeiment:fgSetString(/environment/clouds/layer[0]/coverage, few);but it didn't work.Is it possible to render the 3d clouds in real time accustomed to the client?-- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] development directory
I also needed to add an entry in Nasal/IOrules to allow reading in my custom aircraft directories when using this in order for most aircraft to load properly. This should be changed imho as IOrules has a READ entry for $FG_AIRCRAFT/* already, and I would think explicitly added aircraft directories should get covered by that..no? Unless I've completely missed something of course..in which case feel free to disreguard... cheers --Jacob -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC client
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: Eftychios Eftychiou wrote: There is already an open source radar display screen http://www.albatross.aero/ I'm surprised to read that they're actually now having source code on offer, do you have a pointer to the code ? You will need to sign up at http://forge.osor.eu/projects/albadisp/ and join the project to get the code. It can take as input asterix formated data ( http://www.eurocontrol.int/asterix/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html ) Well, OpenRADAR is going the opposite direction: It already provides FlightGear MP (plus HLA RTI via a side project), ASTERIX could be done as well by changing swapping another interface in ;-) I'm surprised to realize that a lot of people don't spare effort for discussing new ATC clients while a slightly rudimentary but rather functional system is already available I am not sure what you mean by the above. I did not try openradar with FG, but tried out albatross which is indeed a professional grade radar display. In any case albatross and openradar are two different animals. I just suggested that there might not be a need to re-invent the wheel when there is solution out there already. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Regards, Efty -- Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
