Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simple atmospheric scattering shader for skydome

2011-04-15 Thread Erik Hofman
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 00:16 +0200, Christian Schmitt wrote:
 I can only agee with Vivian here: lets get this change into GIT, so that it 
 doesn't get lost as so many others in the past. The shader is not perfect 
 yet, but that should not hurt, as it is disabled as a default. Those who 
 want to test and improve it are free to do so.
 Let me add that it's good to have people who work on things like shaders (we 
 need every single one of them).

I'm not opposed to adding the shaders but I want a good look at the code
to make sure that current functionality is not lost with the patch
before it gets committed.

Erik


--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] release discussion

2011-04-15 Thread Martin Spott
ThorstenB wrote:
 On 15.04.2011 01:22, Martin Spott wrote:

 Note that there are a couple of updates/additions (and removals) to the
 Base Package which have, as far a I can tell, not yet been migrated to
 the release branch. At least the stuff Jon Stockill and I have
 committed to the Models/ subdirectory is affected.
 
 Ok, not sure what has changed there, but is it important enough to be 
 migrated to 2.2?

Definitely. The changes to the Base Package _I_ was having in mind are
the addition of a couple of new shared models (which are in active use
with the World Scenery), updates/improvements/bug-fixes to old models
and replacement of RGB textures by PNG's. Nothing complicated, but
certainly worth putting into the release.

Cheers,
Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simple atmospheric scattering shader for skydome

2011-04-15 Thread Arnt Karlsen
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:41:42 +0200, Erik wrote in message 
1302849702.1655.1.camel@Raptor:

 On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 00:16 +0200, Christian Schmitt wrote:
  I can only agee with Vivian here: lets get this change into GIT, so
  that it doesn't get lost as so many others in the past. The shader
  is not perfect yet, but that should not hurt, as it is disabled as
  a default. Those who want to test and improve it are free to do so.
  Let me add that it's good to have people who work on things like
  shaders (we need every single one of them).
 
 I'm not opposed to adding the shaders but I want a good look at the
 code to make sure that current functionality is not lost with the
 patch before it gets committed.
 
 Erik

..and, we better find out what's going on with the shader 
artifacts on ATI cards, if FG-2.2 is anything like FG-git,
it is _not_ ready.  

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...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.

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Valgrind logs

2011-04-15 Thread Andreas Gaeb
Am 14.04.2011 21:39, schrieb Torsten Dreyer:
 Isn't that what SGReferenced objects were made for? Automatic deletion?
 Minimal but slight more complex example [...]
yes, this works as expected -- as long as one uses SGSharedPtr. The
componentForge map uses standard pointers at the moment, so it doesn't
work here. However, I have no idea how SGSharedPtr can be used in
combination with functor,
static mapstring,SGSharedPtrFunctorBaseDigitalFilterImplementation 
 componentForge;
doesn't even compile.

The input value lists seems to fulfil both conditions (SGSharedPtr
pointing to SGReferenced), so in theory, automatic deletion should work
here. Still, valgrind complains. Could the problem here be related to
calling the componentForge functor?

Best regards,
Andreas

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simple atmospheric scattering shader for skydome

2011-04-15 Thread Durk Talsma

On 15 Apr 2011, at 08:41, Erik Hofman wrote:

 On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 00:16 +0200, Christian Schmitt wrote:
 I can only agee with Vivian here: lets get this change into GIT, so that it 
 doesn't get lost as so many others in the past. The shader is not perfect 
 yet, but that should not hurt, as it is disabled as a default. Those who 
 want to test and improve it are free to do so.
 Let me add that it's good to have people who work on things like shaders (we 
 need every single one of them).
 
 I'm not opposed to adding the shaders but I want a good look at the code
 to make sure that current functionality is not lost with the patch
 before it gets committed.
 

Like, Christian and Vivian stated earlier, I would also hate to see a patch 
getting lost, especially when it contains promise.  This is why I originally 
suggested committing it. 

I would suggest that (even though it may not be production-ready yet), we 
commit the patch on the condition that; 1) the shader in question is disabled 
by default, and 2) in its disabled state doesn't have an adverse impact . 

Thoughts / Ideas?

Cheers,
Durk


--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simple atmospheric scattering shader for skydome

2011-04-15 Thread Erik Hofman
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 11:22 +0200, Durk Talsma wrote:
 Like, Christian and Vivian stated earlier, I would also hate to see a patch 
 getting lost, especially when it contains promise.  This is why I originally 
 suggested committing it. 
 
 I would suggest that (even though it may not be production-ready yet), we 
 commit the patch on the condition that; 1) the shader in question is disabled 
 by default, and 2) in its disabled state doesn't have an adverse impact . 
 
 Thoughts / Ideas?

Let me take a look at it this weekend and I'll commit it then.

Erik


--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simple atmospheric scattering shader for skydome

2011-04-15 Thread Lauri Peltonen
Hi.

Nice to see my shader brought up some discussion :)

First, Vivian, I tried to see your screenshots, but the link wasn't
working (server down or something?) so I cannot comment them right
now. And I didn't mean the bug with sun reflection on the water being
misplaced from the real shader, but sometimes it seems like the sunset
effect on the (non shader) skydome is someting like 90 degrees to the
left. I'm not sure if it always was like that or did I change
something or am I just seeing things. It looks like the brightest spot
of the horizon is not where the sun is, but to the left. If someone
can confirm (with old version  my version if possible), would be much
appreciated.

Second, Erik, I tried not to change the old behaviour but I needed to
move some code around to get better precision in the skydom model. I
hope everything works like it did with the non shader version, I
didn't quite understand all the equations but the code should not
change those.

Only behaviour that I did change is the clear color in FG from fog
color to black. I don't see anything changing near the ground, but the
effect near space is better :)


Other topics, mie and rayleigh coefficients are exposed, but maybe I
shuold expose the wavelength dependency too, because that is what
affects the sky color the most. The idea is that some code in FG/SG
would write the proper coefficients depending on weather conditions to
make different looking skies.

I also uploaded the python code I used for evaluating the shader and
calculating the scale coefficients etc. It is here:
http://users.tkk.fi/~lapelto2/fgfs/scatter/scatter.py  I can also
write a wiki article on the subject should it be necessary.

In the future, I'd like to see this shader as a post processing effect
applied over all rendered objects so we would get a consistent look
and feel everywhere. And also, I didn't think about getting this to
the next release, it's too late for that. But maybe to the one after
that, so we have time to test things first.

Wbr, Zan
-- 
Lauri Peltonen

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread Adrian Musceac
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 21:40:10 Gary Neely wrote:
 Adrian,
 
 Great catch on the fuel and glideslope issues. You're right-- 
despite
 parsing the fuel attributes and supplying defaults if necessary, 
it
 has the defaults hard-coded right in the Airplane::compile block. 
It
 seems to consider the user-supplied values for aircraft mass, but 
not
 elsewhere. Makes me feel dumb that I'd not noticed this before. I 
hope
 this one makes it in the new build!
 
 -Gary
 

Well, I'm glad it helps. The patch should not affect the solution 
too much in most cases, I've checked this myself.

Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally 
represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff 
and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think 
using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking 
precision, wouldn't it?

Cheers,
Adrian

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simple atmospheric scattering shader forskydome

2011-04-15 Thread Vivian Meazza
Durk wrote

 
 On 15 Apr 2011, at 08:41, Erik Hofman wrote:
 
  On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 00:16 +0200, Christian Schmitt wrote:
  I can only agee with Vivian here: lets get this change into GIT, so
 that it
  doesn't get lost as so many others in the past. The shader is not
 perfect
  yet, but that should not hurt, as it is disabled as a default. Those
 who
  want to test and improve it are free to do so.
  Let me add that it's good to have people who work on things like
 shaders (we
  need every single one of them).
 
  I'm not opposed to adding the shaders but I want a good look at the code
  to make sure that current functionality is not lost with the patch
  before it gets committed.
 
 
 Like, Christian and Vivian stated earlier, I would also hate to see a
 patch getting lost, especially when it contains promise.  This is why I
 originally suggested committing it.
 
 I would suggest that (even though it may not be production-ready yet), we
 commit the patch on the condition that; 1) the shader in question is
 disabled by default, and 2) in its disabled state doesn't have an adverse
 impact .
 
 Thoughts / Ideas?
 

I'm just putting together a data commit to do just that. But it will still
need the Fg/SG patches

Vivian 



--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] download_and_compile.sh script link

2011-04-15 Thread Geoff McLane
Hi Arnt,

http://geoffair.org/tmp/makefg  
 ..idea for makefg-1.3.0: WEUSESYSTEMPLIB=1, WEUSESYSTEMOSG=1 

Already thought of, and done ;=))

For all the recent versions there are options -

PLIBPATH=path
OSGPATH=path

Which should do what you ask, but I have NEVER installed
PLIB nor OSG into a 'standard' system path, so have
never tried these options in that case, but they should
work...

That is why the only relevant thing I get is 'openal' 
when I run things like -
for i in openal plib openscene simgear \ 
flightgear ; do dpkg -l |grep $i ;done |fmt -tu 

I have used, and tested them when I do _NOT_ want
to download and build yet another of these 2, thus 
when building in say ~/fg/fg14, I can reuse say
my builds in ~/fg/fg12/install/[plib|osgvers]...

And likewise there are options -
BOOSTPATH=path
BOOSTLIBS=path
to point to where BOOST is either installed or
'staged' (not built or installed)...

And a very, _VERY_ important one these days :-
FGDATADIR=path 
to _NOT_ re-clone this massive block multiple 
times ;=)) time and space... 

However, at present you have to do MANUAL updates 
of such sources if the path is outside the 'root' 
build... and I think it will stay that way...

As you may have learned, once a build completes
successfully, some 'configuration' information is
written to ~/bin/makefg-version.conf file, so you
do _NOT_ have to remember to re-input such paths when
it is run again, again, and again...

Of course, with care you can manually adjust this
'conf' file... but it is easy to mess up the simple
parsing that is done... so not particularly 
recommended ;=()

And that is why there is a option NO_CONF, to tell the
script to ignore any 'configuration' file information,
when you want to really 'change' the setup 
drastically...

Lots of options ;=)) over 80-90 at last count...

Regards,
Geoff.



--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread syd adams
 Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally
 represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff
 and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think
 using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking
 precision, wouldn't it?

 Cheers,
 Adrian

Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i
have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been
tried .
I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able
too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash
property remains unset
Cheers

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread Heiko Schulz
Hi Syd,

As Oliver Thurau (ot-666) found out, many fuselage sections will decrease 
framerates.

That's why it is better to have fuselage section only when necessary.

Heiko

 Von: syd adams adams@gmail.com
 Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
 An: FlightGear developers discussions 
 flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 Datum: Freitag, 15. April, 2011 16:36 Uhr
  Syd, about the fuselage contact
 points: they are internally
  represented as a gear object, only without the
 compression stuff
  and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic
 friction. I think
  using fake gears directly would give a little better
 tweaking
  precision, wouldn't it?
 
  Cheers,
  Adrian
 
 Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the
 code than i
 have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it
 hadn't been
 tried .
 I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't
 been able
 too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the
 crash
 property remains unset
 Cheers
 
 --
 Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial
 Workload 
 Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server
 virtualization is a top
 priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify
 management, and improve 
 application availability and disaster protection. Learn
 more about boosting 
 the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
 ___
 Flightgear-devel mailing list
 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
 

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread Adrian Musceac

 Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i
 have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been
 tried .
 I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able
 too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash
 property remains unset
 Cheers
 

Indeed, I think it's impossible to trigger the crash with the aerostar, 
because the distance between the gear positions and the lowest contact points 
is smaller than 1 meter. Would you please try with the IAR80?

Adrian

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread Emilian Huminiuc
On Friday 15 April 2011 17:36:12 syd adams wrote:
  Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally
  represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff
  and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think
  using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking
  precision, wouldn't it?
  
  Cheers,
  Adrian
 
 Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i
 have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been
 tried .
 I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able
 too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash
 property remains unset
 Cheers
 
To trigger it you'd have to use a plane with tall gear struts, as the iar80. 
It will trigger the crash as you're barely touching the ground with the prop 
(it might not even touch the ground and still trigger it if you're not 
perfectly level). Even with a fake gear under the belly, to prevent yasim 
triggering the crash property, it needs to be set pretty low, and as such the 
plane seems to float ~1-2ft off the ground. (propeller hast enable-hot set to 
false)
Take a look at this: http://ompldr.org/vOGEyaQ
(Forgot to put the crashed property up there too :( )

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads up: AI/ATC interactions

2011-04-15 Thread Mathias Fröhlich

Hi,

On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:52:30 Durk Talsma wrote:
 Oh, and just hitting the send button a little too early, I had wanted to
 add that Martin Spott pointed me that the possibilities of using the new
 HLA layer for this purpose. I'm currently not familiar with HLA myself to
 comment on that though, so I'm just passing this on.
Ack.
That is actually my next thing to try.

Currently my time went into a hla/rti that is actually easy to use. Something 
that in the easiest case is not even noticable that it runs below. So there is 
some work left on that topic. It took me longer than expected. Actually my 
personal factor of about 2 for underestimating programming effort showed up 
again :)

Major benefits would be to move the AI code out of the main loop - may be even 
into a seperate process/thread. Also runnig one instance of tha AI traffic for 
installations like we used to have at the linux tag booth would be a major 
advantage there.

So, yes, building up something here ...

Greetings
Mathias

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread syd adams
One small ,narrow fuselage piece inside and at the bottom of the main
fuselage doesnt make a difference here, you don't need a lot . And
they don't seem to trigger a crash like gear does.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de wrote:
 Hi Syd,

 As Oliver Thurau (ot-666) found out, many fuselage sections will decrease 
 framerates.

 That's why it is better to have fuselage section only when necessary.

 Heiko

 Von: syd adams adams@gmail.com
 Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
 An: FlightGear developers discussions 
 flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 Datum: Freitag, 15. April, 2011 16:36 Uhr
  Syd, about the fuselage contact
 points: they are internally
  represented as a gear object, only without the
 compression stuff
  and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic
 friction. I think
  using fake gears directly would give a little better
 tweaking
  precision, wouldn't it?
 
  Cheers,
  Adrian

 Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the
 code than i
 have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it
 hadn't been
 tried .
 I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't
 been able
 too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the
 crash
 property remains unset
 Cheers

 --
 Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial
 Workload
 Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server
 virtualization is a top
 priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify
 management, and improve
 application availability and disaster protection. Learn
 more about boosting
 the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
 ___
 Flightgear-devel mailing list
 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


 --
 Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
 Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
 priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve
 application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting
 the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
 ___
 Flightgear-devel mailing list
 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads up: AI/ATC interactions

2011-04-15 Thread Mathias Fröhlich

Hi,

On Thursday, April 14, 2011 06:07:18 cas...@mminternet.com wrote:
 Agree with the first part about hacking, but disagree with the second idea
 of cost
 
 HLA is a follow-on to DIS and SimNet developed by DARPA and would require
 either an extensive rewrite of FG to be HLA (Stanag 4603)
 compliant or a wrapper function, In addition, there is a thing called
 Run-Time Infrastructure (RTI) that handles the federates interfaces
[...]
 Maybe something along the lines of an HLA-lite.  From Durk's suggestion,
 and the excerpt above it sounds like the multiplayer server might function
 in the manner of an RTI for a limited set of object model types ( unless
 we want to include submarines, tanks, bad guys, etc, etc... ;-) )

What you cited above is something that an RTI should implement in the end to 
be maximum scalable. But, you can implement an rti with just fewer of these 
options working.
Much more than the above, the spatial indices implemented in the rti regions 
will be a huge benefit, since you will only recieve the messages that are 
relevant near the region of your interrest.
Also the way an rti provides time management and time stamped messages, is 
benefitial. This enables hard syncronized hla federates, exchanging data at 
relatively high rates with the least possible communication latency.
Regarding the ongoing threading discussion and the amount of cores an avarage 
cpu has today, an rti will provide a way to implement components of the 
simulation in a single threaded way, living in its own process.
This can be done while still having a deterministic and tight coupling with 
other federates simulating in the same federation. This kind of coupling is 
required for example for a good simulation of glider towing for example.

 However, a quick search indicates there is an open source HLA on
 sourceforge License is Apache License V2.0, no idea how that compare to
 GPL or LGPL, but might be worth a look-see.  Whatever, it is going to take
 time and effort (cost) to make FG compliant amd/or turn the multi-player
 server into an RTI clone or play-alike.  And perhaps it would add a bit
 of formalism to the FG development track. :-)
There is also one, at
http://developer.berlios.de/projects/openrti/
Which is subject to envolve.

But appart from that, the API is standardized by an IEEE standard and used 
with commertial simulation systems as well.

Simgear also already has some rti abstraction library that should help to 
implement hla federates.

Flightgear git already has an alternative multiplayer implementation in place 
that uses hla. But that is only thought as a proof of concept. The next step 
is probably to provide a seperate hla federate that runs the ai traffic and 
feeds that into an rti federation. All I did here started using the above hla 
implementation. So this one already works for this kind of stuff.

So, there is already something in place, and I think that its definitely worth 
keeping that in mind.

Greetings

Mathias

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread syd adams
Still trying to take off ;) .Very nicely done model ...but a bit too
much detail for my laptop ...I get 10 fps where I'm used to getting
30-40 .

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Adrian Musceac kanto...@gmail.com wrote:

 Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i
 have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been
 tried .
 I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able
 too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash
 property remains unset
 Cheers


 Indeed, I think it's impossible to trigger the crash with the aerostar,
 because the distance between the gear positions and the lowest contact points
 is smaller than 1 meter. Would you please try with the IAR80?

 Adrian

 --
 Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
 Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
 priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve
 application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting
 the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
 ___
 Flightgear-devel mailing list
 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Valgrind logs

2011-04-15 Thread ThorstenB
On 15.04.2011 11:11, Andreas Gaeb wrote:
 The input value lists seems to fulfil both conditions (SGSharedPtr
 pointing to SGReferenced), so in theory, automatic deletion should work
 here. Still, valgrind complains. Could the problem here be related to
 calling the componentForge functor?

Remember that SGReferenced does reference counting. In theory, the root 
cause could be completely elsewhere in the code, if there were other 
references to the same InputValue. If only a single of these 
references wasn't removed, then the actual InputValue object is never 
deleted (and let's hope there are no cyclic references anywhere...).

cheers,
Thorsten

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread Emilian Huminiuc
On Friday 15 April 2011 21:07:12 syd adams wrote:
 Still trying to take off ;) .Very nicely done model ...but a bit too
 much detail for my laptop ...I get 10 fps where I'm used to getting
 30-40 .
 
No need to take off :), just raise the gear with the engine running  (otherways 
it doesn't raise :) )while on gound.

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread Adrian Musceac
On Friday, April 15, 2011 20:43:45 syd adams wrote:
 One small ,narrow fuselage piece inside and at the bottom of the main
 fuselage doesnt make a difference here, you don't need a lot . And
 they don't seem to trigger a crash like gear does.
 

The gear only triggers a crash when its absolute height above ground level is 
-1. This happens because gear position doesn't change when retracted 
(obviously it would be quite hard to calculate its position during the 
extension phase, because every airplane might have a different way to extend 
and retract).
There is no force computed and applied to the model when the gear is 
retracted, however the collision check still happens and if you have a long 
enough gear strut it will go below -1 AGL when flying low or crash landing.
It should be pretty easy to replicate this with the IAR80, I haven't tried 
with other aircraft.

Adrian

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues

2011-04-15 Thread syd adams
Ok success. It does rest slightly off the ground at the nose ... i
removed the fake gear and all the mstab objects (clever use of mstab ,
by the way :)) , and still the same results... I have to admit I've
never noticed this behavior before.


On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Adrian Musceac kanto...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Friday, April 15, 2011 20:43:45 syd adams wrote:
 One small ,narrow fuselage piece inside and at the bottom of the main
 fuselage doesnt make a difference here, you don't need a lot . And
 they don't seem to trigger a crash like gear does.


 The gear only triggers a crash when its absolute height above ground level is
 -1. This happens because gear position doesn't change when retracted
 (obviously it would be quite hard to calculate its position during the
 extension phase, because every airplane might have a different way to extend
 and retract).
 There is no force computed and applied to the model when the gear is
 retracted, however the collision check still happens and if you have a long
 enough gear strut it will go below -1 AGL when flying low or crash landing.
 It should be pretty easy to replicate this with the IAR80, I haven't tried
 with other aircraft.

 Adrian

 --
 Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
 Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
 priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve
 application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting
 the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
 ___
 Flightgear-devel mailing list
 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] release discussion

2011-04-15 Thread Bertrand Coconnier
2011/4/15 ThorstenB bre...@gmail.com:

 Ok, not sure what has changed there, but is it important enough to be
 migrated to 2.2? I know it's tempting to make all the new features
 available right now (I'd like to see my new TCAS in the release, we've
 had 2 JSBSim updates, new HLA support, tank properties, joystick
 reloading, of course many many really nice Aircraft updates...). But
 they are not release-blocking.

 Last 2.2.0 fixes were applied on February 19th. I'll have a look at the
 commits on next/master since then. Anyone else aware of missing and
 release-blocking commits apart from the Models subdirectory?

 cheers,
 Thorsten


Hi Thorsten,

Yes, a bug fix has been committed to fix instant replay with JSBSim
aircraft (bug #294)
https://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/commit/11320e6b008eb85b8dff66a137f671743cc04580

I think it should be applied to 2.2.0 as well.

Bertrand.

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] props protocol problem

2011-04-15 Thread Pascal J. Bourguignon

The props data protocol ls command has a problem: there's no way to
determine that its output is complete (unless we use a timer, which
would mean that all ls commands would suspend the client for the time out
duration).

I'm proposing to add a lsx command, similar to ls, but that will
terminate its output with an empty line.

In props.cxx, replace:

if (command == ls) {
with:

if((command == ls)||(command == lsx)){

and add:

if (command == lsx){
push( getTerminator() );
}

at the end of the branch.



-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

--
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel