Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Vivian: I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of the water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't support Advanced Weather. When you implemented it, it had zero communication with Advanced Weather, I had to spend hours to figure out how it gets light and wind info and then code a hack for Advanced Weather to make it work. If this is a real concern to you - there has been a long weekend to get busy and change the interface. Looking at GIT, you haven't done so and we're still using the incomplete hack. Any plans to change that in the near future? I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one scheme/framework rather than another. As pointed out for the 3rd time now, that is a hypothetical problem in ALS. Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric effects or shadows, or anything else. I think I have said about 5 times now that I am perfectly willing to contribute to this, but I'm not doing it all on my own. I haven't seen you volunteer to help out here. I haven't seen you arguing with Fred that he should take care to help out. Somehow, it seems to be my fault. Also - you can burn framerate only once, and I have stated my opinion on that as well. My personal view is that OpenSource is about freedom, and freedom implies choice. It's nothing bad to deliver a rendering scheme for low end GPUs and one for high end GPUs and let the user pick, and I don't even see you acknowledging that argument. I acknowledge that we probably have a fundamental split of philosophy here: I see more merit in offering different choices to the user (think Linux with KDE or Gnome - I see myself well backed up by OpenSource tradition here) than in pre-selecting to the lowest common denominator we can all agree on so that the user doesn't have to choose. You see this differently, and we probably won't ever resolve this. Vivian, I don't see this getting any more constructive, and I don't have the impression that this is about me explaining to avoid a misunderstanding. I don't see my arguments acknowledged, much less refuted. I don't see you willing to take any action making the framework which you maintain accessible. So I will not justify the reasons behind what I do to you any further, and unless I see a constructive turn, I will also refrain from doing so in the future. Henri: How could you say you're both not even users of the scheme ? Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the period when i could use it without breaking others features. I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. As explained several times over, when the skydome used the default terrain shaders, it produced glaring graphical artefacts. What I have done is the only possible series of changes which could have fixed this. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that point, but maybe ask someone who does to explain it to you in detail. Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering - which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you don't use it. You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, Emilian is experienced and you rejected his know how. Would you say everybody but you is stupid. I'm a scientist. I don't believe in persons. I don't believe in Emilian, TIm, Fred or Mathias - I believe in verifiable facts and solid evidence. I believe that each of these person knows much, but that likewise each of these can get things wrong, and when anyone raises an issue, I make up my own mind by thinking it through and testing it myself. I don't think everyone else is stupid, but I do think everyone else can make mistakes just like me, and I have a very long professional experience in recognizing and dealing with my own mistakes. To expect that I would take advice from anyone without looking at the hard evidence available to me is unreasonable. I'm not impressed by titles, merits and experience - I argue with Nobel-price winners just as with students if I think they're wrong (I have done so on occasion). You will be able to verify that in each and every case someone backs up his critique with actual evidence which I can verify, I usually change my position quickly. You will also see me in these cases publicly acknowledge that I was wrong and crediting the person who corrected me. You will also be
[Flightgear-devel] No shader compilation error messages
With the recent FG, both Linux self-compiled and Jenkins for Windows, I no longer get compilation errors from the shaders thrown to the console - badly formed shaders just don't work without complaining. This makes developing a bit awkward now and will make it close to impossible to trace problems of other users in the pre-release testing phase. I assume this must be FG related, as I didn't change my OSG version under Linux or the graphics card drivers on either Windows or Linux? Does anyone have an idea what may have caused this, and if so would it be easy to put the error messages back in? * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tree issues
However, one reason I didn't spend more time on it was that it didn't seem particularly useful from a sim perspective. If found that to see the effect at reason (30kt) winds you either need to be sitting on the ground or at quite low altitude when your attention is elsewhere. I think you would see it quite well with a glider when ridge-riding - you're moving comparatively slow, you're close to the ground and there is strong wind. Also, helicopter pilots would probably appreciate good terrain close-up scenes in general - nowadays I quite often take a heli to some mountaintop and back to the airports, just because it's so nice to explore the terrain. In a more general sense, I find it an interesting avenue to make FG more interesting for a user community outside flight as well. For instance: Here http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19t=19626 is someone using Unity3D to walk through hires terrain with the skybox showing FG-rendered terrain and weather to the horizon. What if this were directly running in FG (the terrain resolution we can get is quite competitive) - so maybe we could eventually have a mode of a walker going out of the aircraft and exploring the terrain a bit. Whenever I land in L'Alpe d'Huez, I would like to go and have a virtual cup of coffee before heading back... One could start in a briefing room in the carrier and walk to the aircraft... You name it. Here is Chris driving through virtual Innsbruck with a car: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19t=19294start=60#p182039 apparently it's now good enough that this starts getting exciting in its own right. Do we perhaps get more of this? Just to be able to deliver an interesting scene from the ground might open FG up a bit more along these lines, and maybe draw some modellers in which contribute to the scene. Then there is the marketing argument - seeing the wind move trees and grass is cool - and we get often compared to e.g. Outerra in terms of scenes, so why not counter with some cool effects of our own? Reads well on a 'new features' list of 3.0... In practical terms, as you indicated, wind motion isn't excessively expensive - usually it's down to a few trigonometric function and some basic arithmetics, all of which runs very fast as compared to, say, getting a single noise frequency or computing an environment-map reflection. So while it's not immediately relevant for flight, I still think it has some reasonable gain for pain ratio, especially since we can implement it optional by checkbox. However bear in mind that the same constants would be used for both oaks and conifers, which I'd expect to move different amounts. You're right - same with the motion of grass and shrub... It's quite hard to come up with closeup motion that looks well on both corn and in the desert. We could pass stiffness constants as uniforms if we really like, but I think this would be over the top... * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] No shader compilation error messages
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:54, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: Does anyone have an idea what may have caused this, and if so would it be easy to put the error messages back in? When did it break? I did some work right after 2.10 to support custom logging, and one thing I started doing, but did not finish, was routing all OSG and related Simgear-log output to its own place (in addition to the normal ones) so that it could be show in a 'render failures' log. (And hence hopefully *easier* to spot OpenGL/shader related problems). As far as I recall, that work is incomplete (I didn't have time to build the actual dialog/extend the rendering dialog) but it should also be disabled. Maybe I committed it enabled by accident? Have a look in fg_os_osgviewer.cxx where OSG is initialised. If this is the cause, it's been that way since January, and I assume you would have compiled from source since then. Regards, James -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] No shader compilation error messages
If this is the cause, it's been that way since January, and I assume you
would have compiled from source since then.
I still have the funny GPU problem under Linux that the GPU refuses to go to
high performance, so I don't actually develop shader code under Linux but use
it just to interface with GIT and do quick tests. I update the Windows much
more rarely, since it's a royal pain to do, so it is well possible that I
didn't spot it since January despite compiling under Linux a few times.
Is this what I'm looking for? Not sure which is which.
void fgOSOpenWindow(bool stencil)
{
osg::setNotifyHandler(new NotifyLogger);
//osg::setNotifyLevel(osg::DEBUG_INFO);
(...)
* Thorsten
--
Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] No shader compilation error messages
On 29 Apr 2013, at 10:09, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
I still have the funny GPU problem under Linux that the GPU refuses to go to
high performance, so I don't actually develop shader code under Linux but use
it just to interface with GIT and do quick tests. I update the Windows much
more rarely, since it's a royal pain to do, so it is well possible that I
didn't spot it since January despite compiling under Linux a few times.
Well for Windows you could/should be using the nightly builds, but anyway :)
Is this what I'm looking for? Not sure which is which.
void fgOSOpenWindow(bool stencil)
{
osg::setNotifyHandler(new NotifyLogger);
//osg::setNotifyLevel(osg::DEBUG_INFO);
Right, comment out 'setNotifyHandler' and it will probably work as before. I'm
away from proper net access this week, will tidy things up at the weekend.
Regards,
James--
Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Renk, How could you say you're both not even users of the scheme ? Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the period when i could use it without breaking others features. I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering - which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you don't use it. Yes there not any contradiction ,since i said, quoting myself: To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. Where is your scientist mind?, since you are unable to apply an element on an other corresponding right element, Yes right now, ALS is not usable. So the argument: it don't need any Aircraft modification , is falling down by itself. Well let's say the debate to me it is close. I thought it was closed before. Ahmad (Henri) BTW: Real scientist are using the acknowledge from others, nobody is able to rebuild the world alone On 29 April 2013 08:49, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: Vivian: I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of the water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't support Advanced Weather. When you implemented it, it had zero communication with Advanced Weather, I had to spend hours to figure out how it gets light and wind info and then code a hack for Advanced Weather to make it work. If this is a real concern to you - there has been a long weekend to get busy and change the interface. Looking at GIT, you haven't done so and we're still using the incomplete hack. Any plans to change that in the near future? I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one scheme/framework rather than another. As pointed out for the 3rd time now, that is a hypothetical problem in ALS. Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric effects or shadows, or anything else. I think I have said about 5 times now that I am perfectly willing to contribute to this, but I'm not doing it all on my own. I haven't seen you volunteer to help out here. I haven't seen you arguing with Fred that he should take care to help out. Somehow, it seems to be my fault. Also - you can burn framerate only once, and I have stated my opinion on that as well. My personal view is that OpenSource is about freedom, and freedom implies choice. It's nothing bad to deliver a rendering scheme for low end GPUs and one for high end GPUs and let the user pick, and I don't even see you acknowledging that argument. I acknowledge that we probably have a fundamental split of philosophy here: I see more merit in offering different choices to the user (think Linux with KDE or Gnome - I see myself well backed up by OpenSource tradition here) than in pre-selecting to the lowest common denominator we can all agree on so that the user doesn't have to choose. You see this differently, and we probably won't ever resolve this. Vivian, I don't see this getting any more constructive, and I don't have the impression that this is about me explaining to avoid a misunderstanding. I don't see my arguments acknowledged, much less refuted. I don't see you willing to take any action making the framework which you maintain accessible. So I will not justify the reasons behind what I do to you any further, and unless I see a constructive turn, I will also refrain from doing so in the future. Henri: How could you say you're both not even users of the scheme ? Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the period when i could use it without breaking others features. I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. As explained several times over, when the skydome used the default terrain shaders, it produced glaring graphical artefacts. What I have done is the only possible series of changes which could have fixed this. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that point, but maybe ask someone who does to explain it to you in detail. Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering - which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
How could you say you're both not even users of the scheme ? (...) which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you don't use it. (...) Yes there not any contradiction ,since i said, quoting myself: To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. Where is your scientist mind? Note that in the English language the present tense 'you are not a user' has a meaning different from the past tense 'you were not a user' or the perfect tense 'you have never been a user'. Best, * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DDS warning message
Following a discussion with Vivian on IRC, it seems it was decided to remove the DDS warning message some weeks? months? years? ago. Someone could handle it ? I admit that using DDS materials and DDS aircrafts results in a thousand of warning messages in my console and it's really not easy to debug my Nasal code ( print(); ) with all these messages. Also I'm not convinced that our users are interested by this warning message because they can't do anything to solve it. (Considering that decompressing a DDS file is not a basic user action) Hi all, I haven't received answer from people about this. This message is wrote by simgear/scene/model/ModelRegistry.cxx at line 263~265 Switch this message to another log level will be perfect. Cheers, Clément -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Improve tranponder instrument
Hi all, I've improved the transponder instrument in order to have a generic transponder which work over network. For complet information about changes you can take a look at the forum topic : http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=75t=19826 For this I've create a merge request : https://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/merge_requests/1570 Also I've modified the KT76A in order to match the new transponder system : http://clemaez.fr/flightgear/KT76A.tar.gz The only changes needed on FGDATA is the mode tag in instrumentation XML. Also feel you free to add the KT76A in Aircraft/Instrument-3d This is fully compatible with old FG version, properties (id-code and altitude) are simply ignored by old FG version. For aircraft designer who want to use this new transponder, you just need to use the KT76A or implement your own with these specifications : - /systems/electrical/outputs/transponder must be 8.0 - /instrumentation/transponder/inputs/knob-mode is a INT with 0=OFF, 1=SBY, 2=ON, 3=ALT, 4=TST - OFF = no power / no transmission - SBY = standby, instrument is powered (e.g light animation) / no transmission - ON = power ON / transmit id-code (sqwak) - ALT = powerON / transmit id-code + altitude with 100ft precision for mode AC and 10ft precision for mode S - TST = test, same as ALT (test mode can't be generic because transponder model require different implementation, feel you free to suggest a generic test mode) - /instrumentation/transponder/inputs/digit[0-3] are INT from 0 to 7 - /instrumentation/transponder/inputs/serviceable must be TRUE - /instrumentation/transponder/inputs/mode is a STRING = A, C or S defined by the instrumentation.xml file (look at the forum topic for example) I'm ready to maintain this work and improve it when suggestion come to me. Cheers, Clément -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Improve tranponder instrument
De : Clement de l'Hamaide clem...@hotmail.fr Envoyé le : Lundi 29 avril 2013 22h12 Objet : [Flightgear-devel] Improve tranponder instrument I've improved the transponder instrument in order to have a generic transponder which work over network. Great news, thanks. -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Renk, There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one: I am quoting you Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? Aren't you talking about stuff you don't know? An aircraft which has been modified to fly with Rembrandt ( like said only transparencies are involved) , can be flown without Rembrandt. Hope, that will reassure the users , in case of Ahmad On 29 April 2013 08:49, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: Vivian: I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. Your actions don't match your words. You're the remaining maintainer of the water effect in default. Its environment interface still doesn't support Advanced Weather. When you implemented it, it had zero communication with Advanced Weather, I had to spend hours to figure out how it gets light and wind info and then code a hack for Advanced Weather to make it work. If this is a real concern to you - there has been a long weekend to get busy and change the interface. Looking at GIT, you haven't done so and we're still using the incomplete hack. Any plans to change that in the near future? I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one scheme/framework rather than another. As pointed out for the 3rd time now, that is a hypothetical problem in ALS. Only Rembrandt requires separate Rembrandt and no Rembrandt versions of aircraft. Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that point? I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric effects or shadows, or anything else. I think I have said about 5 times now that I am perfectly willing to contribute to this, but I'm not doing it all on my own. I haven't seen you volunteer to help out here. I haven't seen you arguing with Fred that he should take care to help out. Somehow, it seems to be my fault. Also - you can burn framerate only once, and I have stated my opinion on that as well. My personal view is that OpenSource is about freedom, and freedom implies choice. It's nothing bad to deliver a rendering scheme for low end GPUs and one for high end GPUs and let the user pick, and I don't even see you acknowledging that argument. I acknowledge that we probably have a fundamental split of philosophy here: I see more merit in offering different choices to the user (think Linux with KDE or Gnome - I see myself well backed up by OpenSource tradition here) than in pre-selecting to the lowest common denominator we can all agree on so that the user doesn't have to choose. You see this differently, and we probably won't ever resolve this. Vivian, I don't see this getting any more constructive, and I don't have the impression that this is about me explaining to avoid a misunderstanding. I don't see my arguments acknowledged, much less refuted. I don't see you willing to take any action making the framework which you maintain accessible. So I will not justify the reasons behind what I do to you any further, and unless I see a constructive turn, I will also refrain from doing so in the future. Henri: How could you say you're both not even users of the scheme ? Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the period when i could use it without breaking others features. I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. As explained several times over, when the skydome used the default terrain shaders, it produced glaring graphical artefacts. What I have done is the only possible series of changes which could have fixed this. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that point, but maybe ask someone who does to explain it to you in detail. Otherwise, when I say 'you are not a user', I mean that I have a mail in my inbox which is signed with your name from which I may quote the phrase introducing some unusable features like the atmospheric light scattering - which would appear to the English-speaking reader indicating that you don't use it. You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, Emilian is experienced and you rejected his know how. Would you say everybody but you is stupid. I'm a scientist. I don't believe in persons. I don't believe in Emilian, TIm, Fred or Mathias - I believe in verifiable facts and solid evidence. I believe that each of these person knows much, but that likewise each of these can get things wrong, and when anyone raises an issue, I make up my own mind by thinking it through and testing it myself. I don't think everyone else is stupid, but I do think everyone else can make mistakes just like me, and I have a very long professional experience in recognizing and dealing with my own mistakes. To expect that
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DDS warning message
Hi, Clement Yes these messages dds format related are very annoying. We never asked for it, since for month we used to modify the source when making a new compilation. it wants only SG_LOG(SG_IO, SG_WARN, Image \ fileName \\n instead of SG_LOG(SG_IO, SG_ALERT, Image \ fileName \\n On 29 April 2013 21:37, Clement de l'Hamaide clem...@hotmail.fr wrote: Following a discussion with Vivian on IRC, it seems it was decided to remove the DDS warning message some weeks? months? years? ago. Someone could handle it ? I admit that using DDS materials and DDS aircrafts results in a thousand of warning messages in my console and it's really not easy to debug my Nasal code ( print(); ) with all these messages. Also I'm not convinced that our users are interested by this warning message because they can't do anything to solve it. (Considering that decompressing a DDS file is not a basic user action) Hi all, I haven't received answer from people about this. This message is wrote by simgear/scene/model/ModelRegistry.cxx at line 263~265 Switch this message to another log level will be perfect. Cheers, Clément -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, grtuxhangar team wrote: Renk, There was so many wrong remarks , that i forgot that one: Just FYI, his _last_ name is Renk, not his first. That's Thorsten. :) His email client puts his last name first and doesn't insert a comma, so everyone thinks he's Renk Thorsten. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Try New Relic Now We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
