Re: [Flightgear-devel] Help getting Pitch and Roll Values - FlightGear
Le 29 juin 2012 à 01:07, Marcelo Schmidt a écrit : > Hey! > > I'm Marcelo, a student of master degree on a Brazil University and work with > Microsoft C#.NET at Government IT (sorry for my english) > > I'm intersted in FlightGear, i've download the source-code and got immersed > by the complexity of the software, and you guys deserves my appreciation! > > I'm in need to find Pitch and Roll value of the airplane, can you guys can > tellme what's the correct class where i can get this information? And it's on > what's version? > > Thx a lot, i need these to make a prototype of a robotic and make flightgear > to comunicate with this, please help me =/// > Hi Marcelo, You do not need the source code to get these values. You have to use the so-called property tree. This is where you can get and set all params you need : http://wiki.flightgear.org/Property_Tree An easy way is to use the native protocol. you can configure FlightGear to put Pitch and Roll values in an UDP socket : http://wiki.flightgear.org/Howto:Create_a_generic_protocol Best, Jonathan. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Help getting Pitch and Roll Values - FlightGear
Hey! I'm Marcelo, a student of master degree on a Brazil University and work with Microsoft C#.NET at Government IT (sorry for my english) I'm intersted in FlightGear, i've download the source-code and got immersed by the complexity of the software, and you guys deserves my appreciation! I'm in need to find Pitch and Roll value of the airplane, can you guys can tellme what's the correct class where i can get this information? And it's on what's version? Thx a lot, i need these to make a prototype of a robotic and make flightgear to comunicate with this, please help me =/// -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next,
Oops, probably a copy paste typo -- pasted one too many times or something. Thanks for catching ... On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote: > Hi Curt, > > Flightgear-commitlogs wrote: > > > diff --git a/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh b/package/ > make-base-package.noarch.sh > > index bec5472..63e467c 100755 > > --- a/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh > > +++ b/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh > > @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ tar \ > >data/materials.dtd \ > >data/materials.xml \ > >data/mice.xml \ > > + data/Materials \ > > + data/Models \ > >data/Models \ > >data/MP \ > >data/N* \ > > Did you really mean to include the "Models" directory twice ? > > Cheers, >Martin. > -- > Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! > -- > > > -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > ___ > 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://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next,
Hi Curt, Flightgear-commitlogs wrote: > diff --git a/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh > b/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh > index bec5472..63e467c 100755 > --- a/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh > +++ b/package/make-base-package.noarch.sh > @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ tar \ >data/materials.dtd \ >data/materials.xml \ >data/mice.xml \ > + data/Materials \ > + data/Models \ >data/Models \ >data/MP \ >data/N* \ Did you really mean to include the "Models" directory twice ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shader menu structure
Thorsten, FIRST: I'm not criticing your work. Instead I really appreciate your work, as you try to make things right! But I criticise the way we handle new features. Due to this I can pretty well understand Freds concerns about adding a simple switch for enabling Rembrandt, which is a experimental feature as well. Keep it more or less only available to them who does know what they do and understand that there are still problems seems the better way sometimes. SECOND: I'm following FGFS's developement as much as I can, but sometimes I try to see things from users perspective view. And my critiscm is based on that. > You're kidding yourself if you claim the skydome ever worked properly in > > 2.6. ... > I don't think it's a good idea to put cool features which work > sometimes > if you cherry-pick conditions into a release. Doing so in 2.6 with the > skydome shader turned out to be a mistake. Going further into the > direction of the mistake makes the problem worse, not better. If I remember right, in 2.6.0 the skydome shader was marked as experimental. So of course that means that things doesn't work right, and yes, and under some circumstances the shader didn't work properly. And so it is now. But we changed a skydome shader with problems with another skydome shader with other problems which needs to be fixed. >From developers view that's o.k.- that's how development works. But from users view it is difficult to understand, as we already could see (I was not the only one who did not understand the whole thing). That's why I hoped we can get something like a compromise and that's why I came up here with. I can see now that it isn't possible, so I hope we are able to sort out the problems in the next developement semester. Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shader menu structure
My (completely biased) opinion: > *2.6.0 > In 2.6.0 we had only the choice between default sky or Zan's sky shader. > In both variants shaders on aircraft and on terrain worked, but there > was the problem with horizon. > > It gave us pretty cool looking skies, as you can see on the 2.6.0 > gallery. I think the correct way to phrase this is: Under certain conditions (correct view angle, correct weather, correct time of the day) you could make pretty plausible screenshots. Under most real flight conditions, it gave visual artefacts ranging from mildly annoying to outright wrong. > *2.8.0 > Now in 2.8.0 we have the choice between the default sky, or your > Lightfield shader, also named as Atmospheric scattering. > I disregard Rembrandt, as most users won't use it yet for different > reason. Rembrandt has precisely the same issues - not all shaders work with it, so using Rembrandt you will not have some shaders available. I've explained that a (subjective) 1000 times, but let me try again: There is no such thing as 'the skydome having just a problem with the horizon' that can be fixed independently of aircraft effect shaders. If you want to match the horizon, you have to modify the terrain shader because terrain needs to blend into skydome always under all conditions. If you modify the terrain shader, you have to modify the default model shader, otherwise distant models will have different light and fog and stick out. If you modify the default model shader, effect shaders of your aircraft will break unless you take care to modify them as well. > With Lightfield shader also named as Atmospheric Sky Scattering enabled: > we get pretty cool looking skies, a correct horizon but terrain colors > which looks somehow pale Yes. That's realistic physical fogging ~ exp(-x/d) as opposed to non-physical fogging ~exp(-x^2/d^2) as done in the default scheme - complain to nature, I didn't invent the real fog function :-) In the atmospheric light scattering scheme (as in reality) the near zone is a lot more fogged than in default Flightgear for the same visibility range (defined as 'range out to which you can recognize an object). As a result, the overall impression is a lot more pale colors. Plus, currently in Basic Weather there is no way to control the visibility in the ground layer, so you're stuck with the default 16 km - I've asked a few times here if anyone is interested in modifying Basic Weather to support the details of the atmospheric scattering scheme, so far no response. Thus, currently only Advanced Weather makes full use of the features of the scheme. > Limitations are there because some cool shaders like reflection, > lightmap (important for dusk/dawn/night flights) and transition aren't > working. > If we want to show cool images or videos we have to decide if we want a > cool looking sky, or a cool looking everything else. > Both together isn't possible as it was in 2.6.0. That http://imgbin.org/index.php?page=image&id=6391 is how cool it looked in 2.6 to have the skydome rendered in one scheme and the terrain in a different scheme when you don't cherry-pick conditions for the screenshot. That http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/pics/skydome1.jpg is how beautiful the horizon looked when there was no mountain range to hide it. I rest my case. You never had a cool looking sky matching everything else. You carefully had to design the situations in which this wasn't problematic. > The big problem again is, that there isn't a simple developement line > visible anymore. > It is difficult to explain users why some cool features advertised in > 2.6.0 will be "broken" again in the next stable release 2.8.0. > Or with other words: things that wasn't finished yet, had been changed > with new things which aren't finished yet again, but behaves now > different again. To say this again: The only way to 'finish' the skydome shader is to continue what I have started to do, i.e. to change fogging and lighting in every other shader. That is the development line that is happening. Rembrandt adds to the confusion, because making the skydome work with Rembrandt requires to change every shader again to support Rembrandt as well. The manpower to do that is pretty limited - that's FredB, Emilian, Vivian and myself currently working on the shader zoo. So you don't get to combine all cool features at the same time yet, because there are like 30 shaders waiting in line to be processed. But then again, most people start complaining when all the cool features result in ~5 fps, so it's not enough to write the shaders, they also have to be optimized. I manage about one shader per month, which isn't so bad if you think about it. > I'm not sure about. From users point of view we have a skydome shader, > and the lightfield shader which makes use of this skydome shader and > adds some further features but with the side effect of a lot non-working > shaders. I giv
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shader menu structure
Hello, > I'm lost. > Can you explain and give screenshots? I am seeing correctly rendered > terrain and reasonably rendered aircraft when using the atmospheric > scattering. > I'm not seeing detailed aircraft effects because the shader hasn't been > > converted. In principle, I think here one could think of just allowing > to run the default scheme shaders because the atmospheric scattering > scheme wouldn't do much extra to your own aircraft - the problem is MP > and wrong fogging and lighting for other people's planes. I don't know. ... > If there's anything recently broken, please explain with details - I'm > not seeing it. First, let my try it, so I can try to answer the other questions: As Today: *2.6.0 In 2.6.0 we had only the choice between default sky or Zan's sky shader. In both variants shaders on aircraft and on terrain worked, but there was the problem with horizon. It gave us pretty cool looking skies, as you can see on the 2.6.0 gallery. *2.8.0 Now in 2.8.0 we have the choice between the default sky, or your Lightfield shader, also named as Atmospheric scattering. I disregard Rembrandt, as most users won't use it yet for different reason. With default sky everything is working, it is just the sky which looks like it has be done since years. http://www.hoerbird.net/DefaultSky1.jpg http://www.hoerbird.net/DefaultSky2.jpg (reflection on aircraft increased to show the effect better here) With Lightfield shader also named as Atmospheric Sky Scattering enabled: we get pretty cool looking skies, a correct horizon but terrain colors which looks somehow pale,but as you can see only an optical illusion, as the colors doesn't seems to match. http://www.hoerbird.net/AtmosphericScatter1.jpg http://www.hoerbird.net/AtmosphericScatter2.jpg All aircraft shaders like reflection, bumpmap, lightmap and the combined versions aren't working anymore. Terrain shaders like Transition, Urban and Crop aren't working anymore. Landmass is working. Water is working as well (even changes color depending on Global position). And only with Advanced weather enabled we get additional cool looking horizon, volumetric looking fog and snow transition (= snow line). Images used with Fair weather. Limitations are there because some cool shaders like reflection, lightmap (important for dusk/dawn/night flights) and transition aren't working. If we want to show cool images or videos we have to decide if we want a cool looking sky, or a cool looking everything else. Both together isn't possible as it was in 2.6.0. The big problem again is, that there isn't a simple developement line visible anymore. It is difficult to explain users why some cool features advertised in 2.6.0 will be "broken" again in the next stable release 2.8.0. Or with other words: things that wasn't finished yet, had been changed with new things which aren't finished yet again, but behaves now different again. Emilian said: > Allowing a decoupling between the Skydome and the ligthfield/haze > shaders, > would lead only to inconsistent settings, and useless bug reports from > users > blindingly enabling every switch available to them. I'm not sure about. From users point of view we have a skydome shader, and the lightfield shader which makes use of this skydome shader and adds some further features but with the side effect of a lot non-working shaders. Now to the other question: > How to present it to the user? > (...) > Please give some feedback - how can we communicate better what is > happening and why there are limitations? Limitations explained above. I have no idea how to communicate it or present it. That's why I hoped that we maybe can have all three skydome variants selectable. So we would have the default skydome, the skydome shader and the Lightfield/Haze aka Atmospheric shader selectable. That would have made it easily to present different developement stages and performance requirements to the user. I helped myself with having only skydome shader and Lightfield/Haze aka Atmospheric shader selectable, but that's a very personal solution (and prevents me to create to make screenshots for 2.8.0 gallery. But as Emilian said, there are technical reasons, and so myself can live with it. The horse has already been bolted. I hope I made it a bit more clear, as my english reached its limits. Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-de
