Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC client
Eftychios Eftychiou wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: 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. Mmmmh it's not my understanding of Open Source Community when you have to sign a license agreement, in which you basically waive all your rights, before you're permitted to _read_ the source code. It's also quite interesting that they care that much about patenting clauses, is their software covered by patents they don't want to share with the public ? [...] I just suggested that there might not be a need to re-invent the wheel when there is solution out there already. Exactly my intention - considering the fact that OpenRADAR had seen life years before SkyGuide made their first announcement ;-) 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] development directory
On 1 Dec 2010, at 03:54, Jacob Burbach wrote: 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... This is supposed to be automatic - I updated the code in Nasal that sets up the IORules, so each additional aircraft directions should be on the read-allowed list. Of course, it's entirely possible I didn't get this 100% correct - it's awkward logic to test. If you can, please investigate a bit further, especially the code that sets up Nasal security (startup.nas?) and see if your aircraft dir path is getting processed. 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
Martin wrote: 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. (...) 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. Hm, I gather you don't like my idea (this seems to become a habit with us...). But I can't really figure out why. One interpretation I have is that you really want to say that I can't judge the level of visual detail by looking at a cockpit, I'd have to have real-life flying experience in the airplane. But it doesn't seem likely that this is what you mean, because for example I don't need to ever have entered an YF-23 to know that the cockpit of the Flightgear model has no visual detail - that's just obvious to me. The other interpretation I can think of is that you somehow mix up a rating of visual detail of the cockpit model (which I did) with a rating of aircraft realism based on a real life comparison (which I did not). But that also doesn't seem likely, because I set down a clear description of by what procedure the numbers are obtained, so you'd then call a rating 'inappropriate' because it is derived according to my (published) standards rather than your (unpublished) standards, and that doesn't make too much sense to me either. So I am a bit lost as to what you are actually criticizing, sorry. Curt wrote: 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. I have the idea of a scheme in which in addition systems and instrumentation (0-10) and FDM (0-10) are rated, and I would absolutely love the idea of having that info along with the visual detail. The problem is time - my optimistic figure to get a rough idea of the flight characteristics is something like 2 hours (certainly more to appreciate the fine points of high-level FDMs, not including research). Applied to the aircraft database, that's 800+ hours of work. Given that it took me 3 weeks to complete the project so far, it's simply not something that I can see is done in a systematic way for all aircraft we have. But in a more limited scope, there is some information out there about realism of FDMs (see the recent p51d discussion) - and even on the limited level of what FDMs are the favourites of people here, I think that would be very useful information to have out and to counterbalance the inherent bias of the visual detail rating. So if anyone wants to comment on what good FDMs are, please go ahead! James wrote: 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. Hm, see my comment in the forum - it's not that I am completely unaware of things... *** First, it seems to me there is a fundamental (and unfair) mismatch between what a developer wants and what a user perspective (from which ratings are done) does. A developer usually wants some appreciation for hard work. A user wants a finished product which looks and feels great, and if it does suit his fancy, he expresses appreciation. Here's the problem: I spent the better part of 5 months coding work to make something disappear from the weather system. Now it's largely gone and doesn't bother me any more - but do you really think that any future user is ever going to express his gratitude that it's not there? Of course not - he'll never notice, which is just the point. He'll just notice that cloud texture X looks spectacular, which is nice, but that's 5 hours of work instead of 5 months. Also with cockpit design - it's obviously much easier to create a 'wow!' effect when you have a glider cockpit with 5 instruments, rather than the Concorde with 200. But a user simply isn't interested in the time it took to get something going - if I can't start a plane because it creates an error, I don't appreciate the hours gone into that plane. If someone spent 100 hours to get a nice cockpit,
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
-Original Message- From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 01 December 2010 08:58 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating ... snip ... 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. The seahawk was rated 5, meaning I saw a complete 3d operational 3d cockpit without any glaring omissions of gauges or buttons, but without any fancy additions like metal texturing (most surfaces are just a single color), 3d effects (gauges look a bit like flat pictures glued onto the panel) or work on the sidewalls. Not an 'How nice!' or 'Wow!' cockpit, clearly not photorealistic, but good work. Would you disagree with this assessment, and if so, where? (I actually like to fly the seahawk very much... much better than the 5 would suggest). I'd like to stress again that this is in no way a judgement if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is complete down to the last detail - in order to do that, I'd need to acquire cockpit photographs which in many cases I don't have (and much more time). I must have misunderstood what you meant by is 2d, is 3d but largely untextured, lacks details, appears flat. But thank you for you other comments. The model was developed with the assistance of a pilot who flew that particular aircraft in the late '50s. I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does matter if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is complete down to the last detail. Under your grading a cockpit could be a complete figment of the imagination, but by looking pretty or having a wow factor it will get a high score. I would suggest that as such it has little value for a Flight Sim such as ours which values accuracy above all else. Bit of fun for the forum though. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does matter if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is complete down to the last detail. Under your grading a cockpit could be a complete figment of the imagination, but by looking pretty or having a wow factor it will get a high score. I would suggest that as such it has little value for a Flight Sim such as ours which values accuracy above all else. Bit of fun for the forum though. I wish we could dispense with such disparaging comments. To get it out of the way - yes, a cockpit could theoretically be completely fictional and get a high rating. So there are cases in which the rating could be or actually is misleading - so what? But to call it a 'beauty contest' doesn't reflect what actually happens, because the basic assumption to trust developers that they try to place gauges and levers right isn't that bad. It is simply not the case that everyone tries to make up fictional assignments of instruments in cockpits to get a 'Wow!' factor, and once you allow for that basic trust in model developers, I find a decent correlation between realism of systems, FDM and 'beauty'. That may not be what you are interested in, you may be interested in accurate positioning of instruments above else, which is fair, but it doesn't equal 'little value' and it doesn't mean everyone else is like you. As for an accuracy rating of instrument positions, see what I wrote in the forum: You'd be looking at maybe 30 minutes work per aircraft to get cockpit photographs, search for the position of each lever and gauge and compare and then make sure there is actually no version of the aircraft beside the one you have photographs for in which the gauges and levers are not placed differently. That's 200 hours of work - if you do it as a full time job with 8 hours per day, it's a whopping 5 weeks. Natural question - who spends that time? So, to get that out of the way as well - you can always make a point for the perfect rating which is much fairer and reflects your particular interests much better, then we find we can never invest the time to actually do it systematically, and then we all go home. I concede that point, you can make the case for having no rating at all because a completely fair one which can't be misused is too time consuming. Cheers to that! * 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] development directory
On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:45, James Turner wrote: This is supposed to be automatic - I updated the code in Nasal that sets up the IORules, so each additional aircraft directions should be on the read-allowed list. Of course, it's entirely possible I didn't get this 100% correct - it's awkward logic to test. If you can, please investigate a bit further, especially the code that sets up Nasal security (startup.nas?) and see if your aircraft dir path is getting processed. Apologies, io.nas is the file to look at. Add some print statements to see what's going on, if you can. 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
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does matter if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is complete down to the last detail. Under your grading a cockpit could be a complete figment of the imagination, but by looking pretty or having a wow factor it will get a high score. I would suggest that as such it has little value for a Flight Sim such as ours which values accuracy above all else. Martin wrote: 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. But to call it a 'beauty contest' doesn't reflect what actually happens, because the basic assumption to trust developers that they try to place gauges and levers right isn't that bad. [... large fractions of the correspondig responses not cited here ...] So, what actually triggers the impression of a detailed cockpit ? I agree that you don't need to have a license for judging about a simulated replica of an aircraft cockpit, but the license at least qualifies for claiming a certain familiarity with those cockpits I've been 'operating' in real life - and only this small subset is what I'm talking about. Now, when I know a cockpit from real life, when I start FlightGear with the corresponding aircraft (or vice versa) and I'm instantly getting the feeling ah, this looks pretty familiar, then I very much claim this to be a valid criteria for judging about the grade of detail _and_ realism. I suspect this effect is mostly influenced by gauges and instruments looking familiar and being in the expected or at least a reasonable place (especially in SEP aircraft, where there is a wide spread in how 'optional' instruments are placed), proportions (of instruments, gauges as well as their placement) feeling sensible, gauges and procedures working as expected (within the limits of the respective FDM software). In this context I'd like to point out that the simple act of applying photo textures let's say to the cockpit panel does _not_ necessarily add to the feeling neither of realism nor of detail. In contrast, quite a few of these photo textured panels make the cockpit look more 'artificial' than a stupid, coarse grey or black texture would do, because these photo texture don't adapt to the sunlight as you would expect (in real life). So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's left as a criteria for your rating ? 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
So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's left as a criteria for your rating ? Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please read the explanations I have given so far, if you feel dissatisfied there is a factor of three times more explanation, response and disclaimer in the forum. If you think the scheme is grossly flawed, please point to a specific example where, then we can discuss that, maybe that's more productive. Now, when I know a cockpit from real life, when I start FlightGear with the corresponding aircraft (or vice versa) and I'm instantly getting the feeling ah, this looks pretty familiar, then I very much claim this to be a valid criteria for judging about the grade of detail _and_ realism. I'd be happy if this were the main issue as it would indicate we have a high level of realism to begin with, but a fair share of aircraft has _no_ gauges at all... 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] development directory
It seems to work fine here without any additional changes , but I only have one aircraft in that folder at the moment On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:36 AM, James Turner zakal...@mac.com wrote: On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:45, James Turner wrote: This is supposed to be automatic - I updated the code in Nasal that sets up the IORules, so each additional aircraft directions should be on the read-allowed list. Of course, it's entirely possible I didn't get this 100% correct - it's awkward logic to test. If you can, please investigate a bit further, especially the code that sets up Nasal security (startup.nas?) and see if your aircraft dir path is getting processed. Apologies, io.nas is the file to look at. Add some print statements to see what's going on, if you can. 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 -- 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 Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Martin Spott wrote: So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's left as a criteria for your rating ? Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please read the explanations I have given so far, if you feel dissatisfied there is a factor of three times more explanation, response and disclaimer in the forum. If you think the scheme is grossly flawed, please point to a specific example where, then we can discuss that, maybe that's more productive. One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) The cockpit interior is complete, down to panel lighting switches, parking brake handle etc. There may be a slight mis-alignment issue with regard to the fuel gauge and clock, but other than that, there really isn't anything further required. I don't think adding photo textures would add significantly to the look and feel, and in fact might detract from usability given the constraints on resolution, screen space view angle inherent in a simulator. I'm with Martin and Vivian on this - I don't believe that photo-textures add much to the wow factor, and I also agree with Vivian that this isn't really a particularly good indication of quality. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;) As Curt and others have pointed out, there certainly is a place for rating aircraft to publicise those that are hidden gems, and your list is certainly going to make me look at some new aircraft. I think a more fruitful approach would be to formalize various rating requirements, such that anyone can evaluate an aircraft against largely objective criteria. This would remove the need for one person to evaluate all the aircraft, which as you've pointed out is a herculean task. Such ratings would certainly need to include cockpit quality, and your criteria would form a good basis, even if we disagree on the importance of photo-textures :) This has been discussed many times on the list and elsewhere before, but the actual criteria have never been really agreed, and the ratings (which one would want to encode into the -set.xml file) have never been implemented. There's a wiki page that discusses this here: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status Personally, I prefer a numeric rating system as you have created, and a limited number of areas - possible just FDM, systems, cockpit and exterior model. I particularly like the option you've provided to add and extra point - it could be used to indicate a particularly nice feature not covered by the criteria itself, for example well modeled failure modes. The FDM is possibly the hardest to define, but I think it is certainly possible - from a basic Aeromatic or YASIM geometric model, through models that meet the PoH climb, cruise numbers to those like the P51d-JSBSim that match flight test data. -Stuart -- 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
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? I'm with Martin and Vivian on this - I don't believe that photo-textures add much to the wow factor Please take a look at the aircraft which actually are at the top of the list. They don't necessarily use (as far as I can tell) photographs as textures, but they resemble a photograph rather than rendered polygons - textures show rust, wear and tear, gauges show glass reflections and so on. I think the c172p could get a 'wow!' factor that way, rather than by using actual photos as textures. I don't know if I messed up the word - 'photo-realistic' doesn't mean 'photo-texture' in what I wanted to say, it means that the cockpit screenshot resembles a photograph of the cockpit. and I also agree with Vivian that this isn't really a particularly good indication of quality. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;) *sigh* Correlation is not causation - I seem to be unable to get that point across. There is no causal relationship between visual detail and quality, i.e. it is *theoretically* possible to make a model which scores high in visual detail, but is low quality. *In practice*, it turns out that I find my (vague) idea of the quality of the model usually close to the visual detail. To give an example - the quality of the instrumentation/procedures in the c172p I would rate with a full 10 of 10. The visual detail has 7 - that's just 3 points away. If that generalizes, it means that if you pick an aircraft with visuals 8, you are never really going to be completely disappointed by its systems, so while the list would not really correspond to a quality rating, it would give you some useful indication of how the quality list is going to look like. About the worst failure of the scheme I'm aware of is the Concorde to which I would assign 10 for procedures and instrumentation, but have rated 5 in visuals - in all other cases I know of, visuals and instrumentation/procedures are typically no more than 2, rarely 3 points different. From a different perspective - take again a look at the top of the list - the IAR 80 has emergency procedures to get out the gear without power, the MiG-15bis has a detailed startup procedure, models stresses on airframe, you can overheat the engine, the F-14b comes with the seeking missiles and a really detailed radar system - I can't really see that the scheme has moved aircraft to the top which 'just look pretty' and wouldn't have a good measure of quality to them as well. So while I am aware that there is no reason that visual detail and quality *must* correlate, I find that in practice they do. Which means that the list works better in practice than theoretical considerations a priori would suggest. That's something I did not know before making it, nor did I expect it, but I realized it after the fact. Is that easier to understand? As Curt and others have pointed out, there certainly is a place for rating aircraft to publicise those that are hidden gems, and your list is certainly going to make me look at some new aircraft. Well, you just made me happy :-) I think a more fruitful approach would be to formalize various rating requirements, such that anyone can evaluate an aircraft against largely objective criteria. This would remove the need for one person to evaluate all the aircraft, which as you've pointed out is a herculean task. Such ratings would certainly need to include cockpit quality, and your criteria would form a good basis, even if we disagree on the importance of photo-textures :) Hm, after skimming the page, there's basically a set of ko criteria for many of the suggested schemes. I've thought about this for a while, and as far as I understand, any scheme which could sort the whole set of aircraft needs to be fair, needs to generalize and needs to be viable. if you're interested in discussing only a subset of 20 aircraft, then much more involved schemes are possible. 'fair' means that every aircraft is judged the same way - which means either by a single person (or a group of persons with averaging the opinions), or by a set of sufficiently well defined objective criteria as you state above. 'generalization' means that one needs to be able to apply it to (almost) every aircraft in the repository. Judging realism based on first-hand experience in real aircraft is a good criterion and works really well for a number of aircraft, but it doesn't generalize (and it isn't necessarily 'fair') - I'm guessing we have a serious lack of people who fly supersonic jets on a regular basis. And 'viability' means that it must be doable in a realistic amount of time -
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:06 +0200, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? Maybe it's an idea to differentiate between usefulness and pleasing factor, say 1 to 10 for usefulness and * to *** for a more appealing look? 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
Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 14:06:11, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit : One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? Hi, I am not fully aware with such talk, so my answer could be out of your target. A cockpit must be close to the real one, instrument position, and functionality ( i have read from Mr Martin Spott and Mr Vivian Meazza a similar opinion ) . The instruments must be readable, nothing else, no additional , suppose to be, eye candy artifact which would be unacceptable on a real aircraft. Yes, we can accept flat instrument. We can notice some instruments on some models which are crazy and unrealistic, yes eye candy, but unusable. And i am not talking about the stupid indications which could be given. Does Flightgear is a simulator or a Van Gogh painting ? The c172p is to me the first , since it it is validated by real pilot , and probably the Tu-154b. May be the A-10 and F-14b are right, may be not , as long a pilot did not say yes it is OK. Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the main approach. I hope i didn't hurt anybody with my answer, in case of, i apologize. Thanks for your work. Alva -- 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] Fwd: Aircraft model/cockpit rating
-- Forwarded message -- From: henri orange hohora...@gmail.com Date: 2010/12/1 Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 14:06:11, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit : One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? Hi, I am not fully aware with such talk, so my answer could be out of your target. A cockpit must be close to the real one, instrument position, and functionality ( i have read from Mr Martin Spott and Mr Vivian Meazza a similar opinion ) . The instruments must be readable, nothing else, no additional , suppose to be, eye candy artifact which would be unacceptable on a real aircraft. Yes, we can accept flat instrument. We can notice some instruments on some models which are crazy and unrealistic, yes eye candy, but unusable. And i am not talking about the stupid indications which could be given. Does Flightgear is a simulator or a Van Gogh painting ? The c172p is to me the first , since it it is validated by real pilot , and probably the Tu-154b. May be the A-10 and F-14b are right, may be not , as long a pilot did not say yes it is OK. Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the main approach. I hope i didn't hurt anybody with my answer, in case of, i apologize. Thanks for your work. Alva -- 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: One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? I don't know how the real A-10 looks like, I'm having some 'historic' documentation on the F-14 (including a really interesting book I bought on a school trip to London, more than 20 years ago) - but this probably still doesn't qualify for rating the cockpit model in FlightGear. On the other hand I _do_ know, among others, the C172-cockpit which is modelled here and I may tell you that FlightGear's C172 cockpit is done quite accurately - the real ones do indeed look pretty cheap, consisting of just a painted metal sheet with a plastic cover in the upper region. Not only the cover is pretty realistic, also the gauges, audio panel, avionics and switches are (the real switches are providing a rather 'cheap' haptic experience as well). 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
Thorsten wrote -Original Message- From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 01 December 2010 11:43 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's left as a criteria for your rating ? Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please read the explanations I have given so far, if you feel dissatisfied there is a factor of three times more explanation, response and disclaimer in the forum. If you think the scheme is grossly flawed, please point to a specific example where, then we can discuss that, maybe that's more productive. Now, when I know a cockpit from real life, when I start FlightGear with the corresponding aircraft (or vice versa) and I'm instantly getting the feeling ah, this looks pretty familiar, then I very much claim this to be a valid criteria for judging about the grade of detail _and_ realism. I'd be happy if this were the main issue as it would indicate we have a high level of realism to begin with, but a fair share of aircraft has _no_ gauges at all... Cheers, If I might interject here, I would draw your attention to the KC135. It has a nice cockpit, albeit 2D. A working autopilot, a radar, a reasonable looking exterior. And, hey, it pumps gas! It should get a medium/low score shouldn't it? Perhaps equivalent to one of our early B737s? Or something? Now let me tell you that I knocked it up over a weekend in response to a request for a flyable tanker. The panel is a modified B737 with a few more bells and whistles. It has some photo-realism, but it is absolutely NOTHING like any version of the KC135 that I'm aware of. The 3d model is a conversion of the B707 which was already in data. It shouldn't be - the fuselage of a KC135 is narrower than a B707. The FDM is auto-generated by Aeromatic: good enough for government work. The only really authentic bit is the livery. How should it be rated now? Nil? Nevertheless, it's fun to use and fulfills a role in FG. I'm aware of several more models which come into this category. The point is that your rating system can't possibly pick this up. It is a subjective opinion of the attractiveness of a cockpit. Or, as I said, a beauty contest. This does have some value, and we certainly gain from drawing attention to those models that have no, or only rudimentary, cockpit interior details. 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
Martin wrote thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? I don't know how the real A-10 looks like, I'm having some 'historic' documentation on the F-14 (including a really interesting book I bought on a school trip to London, more than 20 years ago) - but this probably still doesn't qualify for rating the cockpit model in FlightGear. On the other hand I _do_ know, among others, the C172-cockpit which is modelled here and I may tell you that FlightGear's C172 cockpit is done quite accurately - the real ones do indeed look pretty cheap, consisting of just a painted metal sheet with a plastic cover in the upper region. Not only the cover is pretty realistic, also the gauges, audio panel, avionics and switches are (the real switches are providing a rather 'cheap' haptic experience as well). I thought I was a native English speaker, but I had to look up haptic. Nice one! So an old dog (me) can learn new tricks :-). 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC client
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: Eftychios Eftychiou wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote: 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. Mmmmh it's not my understanding of Open Source Community when you have to sign a license agreement, in which you basically waive all your rights, before you're permitted to _read_ the source code. It's also quite interesting that they care that much about patenting clauses, is their software covered by patents they don't want to share with the public ? The code is there and available released under GNU 2. [...] I just suggested that there might not be a need to re-invent the wheel when there is solution out there already. Exactly my intention - considering the fact that OpenRADAR had seen life years before SkyGuide made their first announcement ;-) As I mentioned earlier, they are two different animals. I am not suggesting dropping openradar altogether however adding functionality to FG based on industry standards would be beneficial to the project overall. 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
I like the work that Thorsten has done with the rating system, but you guys are getting all tangled up in the details. Why not build a pretty objective score card and then rate the aircraft on that? For example, you can have a list like this: Exterior --- Animated Control Surfaces Animated Landing Gear Livery/texture for 3D model Model is generally representative of depicted type Exterior Lighting Interior --- 2D Cockpit 3D Cockpit Photorealistic Textures/Panel Photorealistic Textures/General interior Panel controls generally representative of depicted type etc. Each one would add a point for a present feature and deduct a point for a feature it should have, but does not. No point would be awarded or deducted for a feature that doesn't apply. An example of this would be Animated Landing Gear - you would score that a zero on a Cessna 172 (if it's not the R model) since the 172 has fixed gear. These things are scorable based on the fact that either a model has this thing or not. It doesn't allow for well it just kinda looks wrong scoring. For the flight model, you can score it against how it compares to data in the POH or pilot's notes. I suspect a flight model evaluation script could be put together in Nasal that would prevent human interaction from ganking the flight test. :) Once the objective score is assembled, you could have another block that was strictly for the reviewers subjective opinon on the aircraft or vehicle being reviewed. Thorsten's made an awesome contribution here - quit flogging it and help refine it! g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- 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 2010-12-01 15.18, Vivian Meazza wrote: The point is that your rating system can't possibly pick this up. It is a subjective opinion of the attractiveness of a cockpit. Or, as I said, a beauty contest. This does have some value, and we certainly gain from drawing attention to those models that have no, or only rudimentary, cockpit interior details. Vivian Can't we just accept Thorsten's list as a review? Just like films have reviewers and their taste might fit yours. Either you trust the film review or not, and follow the recommendation. After a while you find your favourite reviewers and know which ones actually have similar film taste as you, or even better, draws your attention to films that you might miss otherwise. The same goes with Thorsten's list, either you think the ratings are useful or not. Or better yet, create your own reviews based on more or less subject scores. I hope that Thorsten will keep his list up to date with the development of the different models ... and one day all models have a wow factor! As several others stated before me, I think the list is useful and I'll test a few of the higher ranked planes. Cheers, Jari -- 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'm with Jari here. Let's not get all bent out of shape and make this way more complicated than it was intended. Sure, someone could design the mother of all ratings systems and build an online web based system to track aircraft and ratings and sort and dice and do it all -- nothing wrong with that. Of course there is some subjectivity to Thorsten's ratings. Of course his rating system doesn't cover every aspect of every aircraft -- he intentionally kept it extremely simple. I think this thread is classic evidence that some people can find the negative in just about anything. No good deed is left unpunished! :-) As Jari points out, Thorsten has essentially done a review of the FlightGear aircraft based on a clearly defined perspective and rating system. I think we could thank him for his efforts to provide us with some interesting information. We should all be able to understand the context and then leave it at that. I'd rather go check out some cool airplanes I haven't looked at yet or forgot about, rather than wasting too much time nitpicking the reviewer's evaluation system. I still haven't figure out how to start the IAR80, but I'm fascinated by all the exposed tube structure inside the cockpit. :-) Hey, let's at least keep the fun stuff fun! Curt. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Jari Häkkinen wrote: Can't we just accept Thorsten's list as a review? Just like films have reviewers and their taste might fit yours. Either you trust the film review or not, and follow the recommendation. After a while you find your favourite reviewers and know which ones actually have similar film taste as you, or even better, draws your attention to films that you might miss otherwise. The same goes with Thorsten's list, either you think the ratings are useful or not. Or better yet, create your own reviews based on more or less subject scores. I hope that Thorsten will keep his list up to date with the development of the different models ... and one day all models have a wow factor! As several others stated before me, I think the list is useful and I'll test a few of the higher ranked planes. Cheers, Jari -- 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 12/01/2010 08:14 AM, Gene Buckle wrote: I like the work that Thorsten has done with the rating system, but you guys are getting all tangled up in the details. Why not build a pretty objective score card and then rate the aircraft on that? For example, you can have a list like this: Exterior --- Animated Control Surfaces Animated Landing Gear Livery/texture for 3D model Model is generally representative of depicted type Exterior Lighting Interior --- 2D Cockpit 3D Cockpit Photorealistic Textures/Panel Photorealistic Textures/General interior Panel controls generally representative of depicted type etc. Each one would add a point for a present feature and deduct a point for a feature it should have, but does not. No point would be awarded or deducted for a feature that doesn't apply. An example of this would be Animated Landing Gear - you would score that a zero on a Cessna 172 (if it's not the R model) since the 172 has fixed gear. These things are scorable based on the fact that either a model has this thing or not. It doesn't allow for well it just kinda looks wrong scoring. For the flight model, you can score it against how it compares to data in the POH or pilot's notes. I suspect a flight model evaluation script could be put together in Nasal that would prevent human interaction from ganking the flight test. :) Once the objective score is assembled, you could have another block that was strictly for the reviewers subjective opinon on the aircraft or vehicle being reviewed. Thorsten's made an awesome contribution here - quit flogging it and help refine it! g. Actually, fixed gear can have animations. The C172 gear flexes with gear compression. The wheels spin (when on the ground) and the nose gear links are animated. There are a number of fixed gear aircraft in fgfs that don't have one or more of these animations. I recently added such animation to the Pitts, including reducing the spring and compression in the fdm which improved ground handling. With rudder pedals I can now do takeoffs and landings w/o whacking the lower wing tips on the ground. ; -) I agree with the last comment concerning Thorsten's contribution. Dave P. -- 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 Wed, 1 Dec 2010, dave perry wrote: Actually, fixed gear can have animations. The C172 gear flexes with gear compression. The wheels spin (when on the ground) and the nose I *knew* this was going to come up. *laughs* gear links are animated. There are a number of fixed gear aircraft in fgfs that don't have one or more of these animations. I recently added such animation to the Pitts, including reducing the spring and compression in the fdm which improved ground handling. With rudder pedals I can now do takeoffs and landings w/o whacking the lower wing tips on the ground. ; -) Try taxiing the F-15 some time. The stupid thing tips over. :( g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. -- 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: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: Eftychios Eftychiou wrote: You will need to sign up at http://forge.osor.eu/projects/albadisp/ and join the project to get the code. Mmmmh it's not my understanding of Open Source Community when you have to sign a license agreement, in which you basically waive all your rights, before you're permitted to _read_ the source code. It's also quite interesting that they care that much about patenting clauses, is their software covered by patents they don't want to share with the public ? The code is there and available released under GNU 2. Please show it to me - if I have to sign a dubious agreement first, then the point is rather weak. As I mentioned earlier, they are two different animals. I am not suggesting dropping openradar altogether however adding functionality to FG based on industry standards would be beneficial to the project overall. Exactly this is what OpenRADAR does: Implementing a user interface in compilance with industry standards (EUROCONTROL EEC references in this case). In fact, when you look at real-life RADAR operators' screens (been there, done that), you'll find, to put it mildly, a certain variety, even within a single European country. There is not just one standard, but more and more European countries are introducing frontends which are in compilance with EEC user interface guidelines. 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] development directory
Apologies, looks to be a misunderstanding on my part. I was putting `--fg-aircraft=/some/path/Aircraft', when it seems I should have just been putting `--fg-aircraft=/some/path'. Using the latter and permissions work properly, the former needs the path in IOrules and then it will also work apparently. So yeah, bit of user on my part. :) -- 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
On 1 Dec 2010, at 16:44, Jacob Burbach wrote: Apologies, looks to be a misunderstanding on my part. I was putting `--fg-aircraft=/some/path/Aircraft', when it seems I should have just been putting `--fg-aircraft=/some/path'. Using the latter and permissions work properly, the former needs the path in IOrules and then it will also work apparently. So yeah, bit of user on my part. :) This is only partly your fault - in the first attempt at --fg-aircraft, I *did* require the /some/path/Aircraft format, but changed my mind after some discussion here. There's argument for both, but the IORules has to pick one or the other (or the code gets very messy). I suspect I need some better cinit here, to detect an 'Aircraft' subdir and modify the path, so from the user's perspective, either works. Feel free to create a bug for that, and assign it to me. 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
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Newsletter - Novem ber 2010
Hi all, time for yet another newsletter! The November edition is full of interesting developments, from the newly released 737NG series, to some wonderful ideas (and actual models) for auto-generated cities. Special attention is in place for world's first DIY collimated display system, a Christmas present we all dream of... Once again I would like to emphasize the need for contributions from all of you. Even if it is just adding one screenshot, or correcting someone else's English... I would like to thank all those that contribued to the November edition! Well, here it is: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/FlightGear_Newsletter_November_2010 Contributions for next month's edition are welcome at this page. 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] development directory
I think what kind of through me off was that the aircraft loads either way you give it the path. Except in the case of giving it an Aircraft directory directly as I was doing, and for aircraft that make use of IO functions in nasal, I would get lots of permissions errors and aircraft would be missing functionality. So rather than realizing I was giving it improper paths, my initial thought was that I need to add permission entries to make it work...which seemed odd..but does work. So current implementation is probably just fine, but maybe the help text and/or other docs should be more explicit about what kind of path it expects? cheers! -- 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 don't want to flog a dead horse, but you deserve answers to your questions. On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Thorsten wrote: One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? Probably slightly less, if I'm honest. However, those aircraft have much more complex cockpits, which naturally adds to the apparent level of detail. I'm with Martin and Vivian on this - I don't believe that photo-textures add much to the wow factor Please take a look at the aircraft which actually are at the top of the list. They don't necessarily use (as far as I can tell) photographs as textures, but they resemble a photograph rather than rendered polygons - textures show rust, wear and tear, gauges show glass reflections and so on. I think the c172p could get a 'wow!' factor that way, rather than by using actual photos as textures. I don't know if I messed up the word - 'photo-realistic' doesn't mean 'photo-texture' in what I wanted to say, it means that the cockpit screenshot resembles a photograph of the cockpit. I may well have mis-interpretted photo-realistic with photo-texture. and I also agree with Vivian that this isn't really a particularly good indication of quality. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;) *sigh* Correlation is not causation - I seem to be unable to get that point across. There is no causal relationship between visual detail and quality, i.e. it is *theoretically* possible to make a model which scores high in visual detail, but is low quality. *In practice*, it turns out that I find my (vague) idea of the quality of the model usually close to the visual detail. To give an example - the quality of the instrumentation/procedures in the c172p I would rate with a full 10 of 10. The visual detail has 7 - that's just 3 points away. If that generalizes, it means that if you pick an aircraft with visuals 8, you are never really going to be completely disappointed by its systems, so while the list would not really correspond to a quality rating, it would give you some useful indication of how the quality list is going to look like. I'd say that 3 points is quite a difference in this case. Given the number of aircraft, a new user will naturally start at the top and work downwards, and may never bother trying anything below (say) an 8. About the worst failure of the scheme I'm aware of is the Concorde to which I would assign 10 for procedures and instrumentation, but have rated 5 in visuals - in all other cases I know of, visuals and instrumentation/procedures are typically no more than 2, rarely 3 points different. From a different perspective - take again a look at the top of the list - the IAR 80 has emergency procedures to get out the gear without power, the MiG-15bis has a detailed startup procedure, models stresses on airframe, you can overheat the engine, the F-14b comes with the seeking missiles and a really detailed radar system - I can't really see that the scheme has moved aircraft to the top which 'just look pretty' and wouldn't have a good measure of quality to them as well. I think my issue is that it misses aircraft that are particularly rich in other ways, and to me that seems more of an issue. I think a more fruitful approach would be to formalize various rating requirements, such that anyone can evaluate an aircraft against largely objective criteria. This would remove the need for one person to evaluate all the aircraft, which as you've pointed out is a herculean task. Such ratings would certainly need to include cockpit quality, and your criteria would form a good basis, even if we disagree on the importance of photo-textures :) Hm, after skimming the page, there's basically a set of ko criteria for many of the suggested schemes. I've thought about this for a while, and as far as I understand, any scheme which could sort the whole set of aircraft needs to be fair, needs to generalize and needs to be viable. if you're interested in discussing only a subset of 20 aircraft, then much more involved schemes are possible. snip Applying these three requirements to proposed ideas cuts things pretty much down. Which is why I came up with such a dumb 'visual' scheme in the first place :-) Given sufficiently objective criteria, aircraft developers can easily evaluate their own aircraft pretty quickly and efficiently as Hal has mentioned. As others have pointed out, the developers tend to be their own worst critics (though I may be an exception with my comments on the c172p :) In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria: - FDM - Systems - Cockpit - External
[Flightgear-devel] Bughunt!
There's a release looming, and it would be great if it had fewer bugs than the last one. To help with that, there's many thing you (yes, you!) can do: http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/list - file bugs if they're not in the tracker - even if they're widely discussed on the forums, don't assume anyone reads those. - review bugs marked as 'testing' - this indicates that the bug can't be fixed without help, eg graphics card problems, platform bugs, or things that can't be reproduced by some people. Positive and negative results are useful, if it helps to narrow down why the bug only happens for some people. - review open and unassigned bugs - eg if you think there's a duplicate, or more information required, or if a particular developer should be CC-d on an issue. I do this periodically, but more eyes would be better. And obviously if you file a bug, keep an eye on it. - run nightly builds, or Git builds, and test (and then file bugs!) - ideally keeping a copy of 2.0 working to compare behaviours / performance / anything else. - pick a bug tagged as 'fixable', and have a go! This is the tag I'm using for things that can be fixed without deep knowledge of all of FG - the hope being to have a supply of things for coders new to FG to get a taste. (Not many of these at the moment, unfortunately) Note we're mostly keeping aircraft-specific bugs out of the tracker, but there are some in there - the same for scenery data bugs. If you're not sure if something should be filed, ideally check if it's specific to one aircraft, and if not, file it. Regards, 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
On 2 Dec 2010, at 00:18, Hal V. Engel wrote: Total is 15 average is 3.75. For a developer this is very quick to do as it took me all of perhaps 2 minutes. In addition this has very few things that are at all subjective. I like it. It is perhaps a little simplistic in some ways but it does allow the devs a way to rate their aircraft this is quick, easy and objective that will allow users to know approx. how good each model is. My one reservation is that the system category could be problematic for very simple aircraft like a glider since even in a perfectly modeled glider it may never be possible to get the full 5 points allowed. This is a minor issue however. +1 to Stuart's system here. 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
[Flightgear-devel] 737-300
OpenSuSE 11.4 Milestone4 - Nvidia GeForce 7600 GS video As of today someone mentioned a 737-300 as a new version of FGFS aircraft. I downloaded it a unzipped it, installed it in /usr/share/flightgear/Aircraft as 737-300/ Called it up and fgfs --aircraft=737-300 and got this error right off Runtime ERROR # fgfs --aircraft=737-300 Processing command line arguments Got an X11ErrorHandling call display=0x88e25b0 event=0xbfbf682c BadWindow (invalid Window parameter) Major opcode: 138 Minor opcode: 4 Error code: 3 Request serial: 54 Current serial: 54 ResourceID: 102760451 Error: In Texture::Extensions::setupGLExtensions(..) OpenGL version test failed, requires valid graphics context. Unknown exception in the main loop. Aborting... Possible cause: Cannot allocate memory Segmentation fault As information This system is a NVidia GeForce 7600 GS AGP card using an NV.run NVIDIA-Linux-x86-260.19.21.run /usr/lib/libGL.la /usr/lib/libGL.so /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 /usr/lib/libGL.so.1.2 /usr/lib/libGL.so.260.19.21 -- 73 de Donn Washburn 307 Savoy Street Email: n5...@comcast.net Sugar Land, TX 77478 LL# 1.281.242.3256 Ham Callsign N5XWB HAMs : n5...@arrl.net VoIP via Gizmo: bmw_87kbike / via Skype: n5xwbg BMW MOA #: 4146 - Ambassador http://counter.li.org #279316 -- 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
Running through the same exercise for the p51d-jsbsim: FDM: 5 Systems: 4 (still needs some electrical systems stuff) Model: 3 (missing cooling door animation, liveries and Ambient Occlusion effect) Cockpit: 3 (what is there is a 4 but it is missing a few things IE. not complete) Total is 15 average is 3.75. For a developer this is very quick to do as it took me all of perhaps 2 minutes. In addition this has very few things that are at all subjective. I like it. ... Hal I also think that the criteria laid out is good. One thing, though (and I apologize if this has already been discussed), but it might be fair to point out examples of a five somewhere for each category. The point being that can we really expect to find an aircraft model that is a solid 5? What is the gold standard? We know how much effort Hal has expended on the P51 flight model, and I will certainly agree that it rates a 5. Which aircraft models rate a 5 in which categories? Jon -- 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] ProFlightSImulator
Woohoo!!! I clicked on one of those ProFlightSimulator ads, and it took me to a page saying: ACCOUNT SUSPENDED. See for yourself here! http://www.proflightsimulator.com/cgi- sys/suspendedpage.cgi?hop=txflyer20 Cheers! Drinks all around! Check Six, Jack It's back. I was viewing a page on Facebook (with a picture of an older jet fighter on the Hornet that someone had taken ... you may have seen it :-) and the simulator ad was right there. It links to this page: http://www.pennystock-pro.info/ProFligthSimulator.html It's funny, because flight simulator isn't even spelled right in the link. Jon -- 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] ProFlightSImulator
Sounds like the dude is getting desperate... Dan H Freeman says he is located at 13 Hickson Rd, Marsh Bay, Sydney. There is a website that covers that precinct, listing the businesses in that area. Among the names are some very well to do businesses and people (top lawyers, exclusive restaurants etc), defintely the high end of town - I've walked down that street on a visit to Sydney once, and as much as I wanted to I didn't eat there because I thought I probably couldn't afford to! Actress Cate Blanchett even runs a theatre company in a suite on that street! You get the picture... The only thing I found is a business called Stephenson Mansell Group, who describe themselves as an executive coaching and mentoring group - the contact name for the group was a Sophie Freeman - probably unrelated, as the business looks fairly legit. So its a false street address supplied, as it would also need to look like Suite 1, 13 Hickson Road to be valid for Australia Post to deliver to it - there are maybe a dozen business suites running at that street address, and 84 businesses in the whole precinct. This guy is a slimebag. Actually I take that back - pond scum has vastly greater dignity than this guy. Regards, Chris Wilkinson, YBBN/BNE. From: Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 3:33:20 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ProFlightSImulator Woohoo!!! I clicked on one of those ProFlightSimulator ads, and it took me to a page saying: ACCOUNT SUSPENDED. See for yourself here! http://www.proflightsimulator.com/cgi- sys/suspendedpage.cgi?hop=txflyer20 Cheers! Drinks all around! Check Six, Jack It's back. I was viewing a page on Facebook (with a picture of an older jet fighter on the Hornet that someone had taken ... you may have seen it :-) and the simulator ad was right there. It links to this page: http://www.pennystock-pro.info/ProFligthSimulator.html It's funny, because flight simulator isn't even spelled right in the link. Jon -- 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] SegFault on Current Git
On 29/11/10 12:45 AM, Erik Hofman wrote: So it looks like to be a JSBSim problem, now you could try to test a turbine powered aircraft like the F-16 to try to pinpoint the problem. It would probably be a good idea to try running FlightGear inside a debugger an provide a backtrace if possible. The F-16 works. I have updated to current git (as of the time of this e-mail). I'll post the backtrace again. It hasn't changed since I last posted, but here it is. My guess is that it's a graphics problem, and something specific to the c172p triggers it. Also, randomly, remember that I know how to use the debugger, so if it helps, I can probe variables, etc. Backtrace from gdb: #0 0x75fb6410 in osgText::String::createUTF8EncodedString() const () from /usr/local/lib64/libosgText.so.68 #1 0x00919946 in SGText::UpdateCallback::operator() (this=0x117b5900, node=0x11832ff0, nv=0xdf6260) at SGText.cxx:76 #2 0x004396f8 in handle_geode_callbacks (this=0xdf6260, node=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:94 #3 osgUtil::UpdateVisitor::apply (this=0xdf6260, node=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:51 #4 0x74e69898 in osg::Geode::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #5 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #6 0x0043ba36 in traverse (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osg/NodeVisitor:191 #7 handle_callbacks_and_traverse (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:86 #8 apply (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:57 #9 SGUpdateVisitor::apply (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/simgear/scene/util/SGUpdateVisitor.hxx:162 #10 0x74f0e25a in osg::NodeVisitor::apply(osg::MatrixTransform) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #11 0x765bdb30 in osg::MatrixTransform::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosgViewer.so.68 #12 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #13 0x76f37234 in osg::Group::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosgFX.so.68 #14 0x74ef4847 in osg::LOD::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #15 0x74ef4f12 in osg::LOD::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #16 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #17 0x76f37234 in osg::Group::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosgFX.so.68 #18 0x74ef4847 in osg::LOD::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #19 0x74ef4f12 in osg::LOD::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #20 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #21 0x0043ba36 in traverse (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osg/NodeVisitor:191 #22 handle_callbacks_and_traverse (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:86 #23 apply (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:57 #24 SGUpdateVisitor::apply (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/simgear/scene/util/SGUpdateVisitor.hxx:162 #25 0x74f0e25a in osg::NodeVisitor::apply(osg::MatrixTransform) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #26 0x765bdb30 in osg::MatrixTransform::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosgViewer.so.68 #27 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #28 0x0043ba36 in traverse (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osg/NodeVisitor:191 #29 handle_callbacks_and_traverse (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:86 #30 apply (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/osgUtil/UpdateVisitor:57 #31 SGUpdateVisitor::apply (this=0xdf6260, transform=...) at /usr/local/include/simgear/scene/util/SGUpdateVisitor.hxx:162 #32 0x74f0e28c in osg::NodeVisitor::apply(osg::PositionAttitudeTransform) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #33 0x74f28ba2 in osg::PositionAttitudeTransform::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #34 0x74f930ea in osg::Switch::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #35 0x74f940a0 in osg::Switch::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #36 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #37 0x76f37234 in osg::Group::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosgFX.so.68 #38 0x74ec3009 in osg::Group::traverse(osg::NodeVisitor) () from /usr/local/lib64/libosg.so.68 #39 0x76f37234 in osg::Group::accept(osg::NodeVisitor) ()
