Re: [Flightgear-users] real helicopter crask
Erik Hofman wrote: I've committed a protocol configuration file that reads the ACMS file and puts its data in the property tree. Unfortunately there is no FDM that reads the accelerations and translates them into world coordinates so it's not very useful at the moment. One way to handle this data is to write a small FDM that does exactly that, read the values and convert it to lat/lon/alt positions. I have now updated the code to add a ACMS specific FDM. This requires the latest CVS version of the base package and of FlightGear. It also requires FlightGear to be compiled using --enable-sp-fdms When all is set you can run the flight using (providing the file is copied to /tmp first): fgfs --aircraft=bo105 \ --generic=file,in,1,/tmp/flight_007.txt,acms \ --fdm=acms Erik ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] transparent wing with 0.9.6
Further testing (Windows 0.9.6 binaries, ATI Mobility Radeon 9700) reveals that this problem seems only to occur where a moving object passes between the panel and the viewer; in the case of the wing, where the flaps are in the flaps up position (note, however, that you can still see the artefact with the flaps down), and the elevators, which obviously move. Also, the moving yoke, if rotated, passes under, not over, the panel. This effect is much more pronounced in the 182 - it is easy to move the yolk right under the tachometer. Is this a draw-order problem relating to moving surfaces? Giles Robertson -Original Message- From: Giles Robertson Sent: 13 October 2004 23:54 To: FlightGear user discussions Subject: RE: [Flightgear-users] transparent wing with 0.9.6 I recall seeing this around 0.9.3, but it happened with a lot of programs on my Intel card, so I never wrote about it, because I couldn't isolate it as an fgfs problem. Giles -Original Message- From: Chris Metzler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2004 20:41 To: FlightGear user discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] transparent wing with 0.9.6 On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:25:55 +0100 Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed that it occurs when the object that should block the view of the panel instruments is an enclosing volume. In the case of the wings, the panel instruments are visible through both upper and lower wing surfaces. You can see the instruments through the struts too and the same applies here - you're viewing the instruments through two opposite facing surfaces that are part of the same object. With objects that don't seem to be transparent to the instruments, such as the fuselage, there's only a single surface of any particular object between the viewer and the instruments. I don't know what would happen if the surfaces were split i.e. upper and lower wing surfaces, but that isn't really a solution to the problem and it wouldn't work well with the struts. Quite a curious problem. Could this be caused by the recent patches? I dunno anything about OpenGL so I don't know whether that's a stupid question. But I've flown the c172 a lot lately and did not see this before updating from CVS and applying Matthias' plib patch. -c P.S. I'd back them out to test but I'm off to see my first WC qualifier, woo hoo! -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] Libraries containing aluinit
Francisco Rinaldo wrote: Sent: 20 October 2004 16:52 To: flightgear-users Subject: RE: [Flightgear-users] Libraries containing aluinit Hi, Vivian Thank you I´ve just compiled the program.In order to do that I had to extract openal_cyg into /usr instead of into /usr/local. However I´ve had only some warnings during copilation process, I can´t make fgfs running. Before starting a new discussion That could well indicate that there's another /AL file somewhere. Running fgfs is another problem. I can´t make .., I´m going to do everyting from fresh following carefully your instructions and checking all steps. After that I will tell you the good news. Thank you very much for your attention Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Outa the box and outa sight
Innis Cunningham wrote: Also thanks to those involved in the speed increase.Havn't seen frame rates over 100 fps since 9.1. Has anybody really been able to achieve a framerate of *100* FPS ?? I am a bit surprised - what kind of hardware is/was involved, cause in one (gaming) machine I am using a very recent graphics adapter that doesn't give me much more than 15-20 FPS with FG if I am lucky. Only an old ATI Rage 128 gives me a really playable framerate (approx. twice that much), the only drawback being then is that there are some graphical problems with that sort of card (as previously reported discussed on the devel list). So if some of you really achieve that kind of framerate, I'd love to hear what hardware you're using - or what else may be different for your system (don't tell me now about wireframe mode, though) -- Boris ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Frame rates (was Re: Outa the box and outa sight)
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:25:27 +0200 Boris Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Innis Cunningham wrote: Also thanks to those involved in the speed increase.Havn't seen frame rates over 100 fps since 9.1. Has anybody really been able to achieve a framerate of *100* FPS ?? I am a bit surprised - what kind of hardware is/was involved, cause in one (gaming) machine I am using a very recent graphics adapter that doesn't give me much more than 15-20 FPS with FG if I am lucky. Only an old ATI Rage 128 gives me a really playable framerate (approx. twice that much), the only drawback being then is that there are some graphical problems with that sort of card (as previously reported discussed on the devel list). So if some of you really achieve that kind of framerate, I'd love to hear what hardware you're using - or what else may be different for your system (don't tell me now about wireframe mode, though) I'm not getting 100. However, I'm doing much better than the numbers you give, now. I have an Athlon XP 2000 pumping an nVidia GF4 Ti4600 128MB -- the hot card from 2 years ago. I run FG in 1600x1200 mode, with nothing turned off or down . . .so, fairly graphics intensive. After the recent patches, flying the Cessna around downtown SF, I typically get 25fps. Elsewhere, 30-50 is normal for me. Earlier today, while trying (and failing, dammit) to slow the Beaver down so I could land at less than 85 mph, I briefly hit about 80fps. My framerates are, for the most part, good enough that I've been experimenting with the values in materials.xml, increasing the surface density of ground structures. I was able to double the density of all the urban structures without a significant frame rate hit (but with some odd results in the timing of the first render for many of the structures). But sadly, the one I most wanted to up -- the tree density -- can't really be adjusted. There are already a lot of trees, even at low densities; and if I double the surface density, I get tons of DList stack overflow messages and the framerate drops to 2. It's a shame, because I'd love for the forests to be more flush. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpvh13CNHO6R.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
One of the problems, as I pointed out earlier, is that the download size of the base package is a bit on the huge size. Including all aircrafts into an already big download will not be a good idea. So, the best option will still be removing all the work-in-progress aircrafts from the base package, and keep the size of the download to a minimium. Ampere On October 19, 2004 06:20 pm, Boris Koenig wrote: Hi everybody ! Sorry to bring this up again - Just catching up on the hundreds of postings on both lists ... and I wanted to add the following: Jon Berndt wrote: Yes, I've made an attempt in the JSBSim config file format to include a done-ness specifier for the FDM: Beta, Alpha, Release, UNRELEASEABLE, etc. IMHO, probably ONLY Release models should be in the base package. I agree with much of what has been said so far - concerning the reputation of FlightGear suffering from various incomplete aircraft ... at times it's really hard to tell what's the cause of a problem, whether it's your hardware, the simulator or a particular aircraft ... So, I like the above idea, even though I don't think that it's necessary to remove immature aircarft, rather one could try a compromise - provide additional maturity flags within each aircraft's XML definition file, for example: experimental pre-alpha alpha pre-beta beta okay/working That way we would have one additional tag within the XML file, like: maturityalpha/maturity And would thereby enable the *user* to choose what kind of aircraft he/she wants to use. So, while the usual parameter --show-aircraft would currently display ALL available aircraft, we could have an additional parameter like: --min-maturity-level=beta to return only those aircraft in the base package that match the corresponding criteria. This would of course only be optional - but I think it could really reduce some of the frustration new users encounter when first trying out FG. So, one would end up having a definable maturity level for aircraft, in order to address the issues concerning too much realism it might be a good idea to also enable users to adjust the realism level on demand - this is something that other simulators offer, too - and it has been discussed on the devel list before ... One could still ship ALL aircraft, but prevent new users from trying unfinished aircraft and drawing false conclusions. Probably, it would not even be a bad idea to make --show-aircraft return by default only relatively mature aircraft instead of all the experimental stuff that's in the base package ? If that idea is accepted I would not mind taking care of the corresponding changes that make FlightGear return only aircraft meeting particular maturity requirements, frankly spoken simply because I was going to change one or two similar things, anyway - e.g. I wanted to be able to tell whether a particular aircraft is part of the base package or not, that's why I suggested some time ago to provide an additional tag for that purpose, too. -- Boris ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] fgds compiled
Hi, all Hi Vi NowI have fgfs compiled in my system.The programs size is 6,23 MB after sritp *.Is this size ok?.SO, how canI make it running? Regards Francisco PS There is somthing strange yet.I have to extract openal_cyg into /usr to make the program compiled .___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] classifying development status of aircraft extending fgrun
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On October 20, 2004 10:05 pm, Boris Koenig wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: One of the problems, as I pointed out earlier, is that the download size of the base package is a bit on the huge size. fully agreed, that's something most people seem to complain about - on the other hand it's fairly small to be honest - if you compare it to other simulators like MSFS, X-Plane etc. - so having a full simulator by downloading less than 100 MB data, sounds okay to me. FlightGear targets people who want to get something for free, while MSFS and X-Plane target people who are willing to pay. Therefore, you can't really compare FlightGear to the latters. well, somehow you folks permanently try to convince me that you cannot compare opensource projects with closed source projects - and on the other hand exactly that is done all the time... if not by the developers themselves (who nevertheless indicate to aim to outscore the commercial competitors one day) then by every new user who OF COURSE will make comparisons with previous experiences. On the other hand, you're of course true that the companies behind products like MSFS or X-Plane *target* commercial users, I'd assume that the non-commercial user community (=those who didn't pay) is significant for either project, too - particularly for MSFS this is very true. For people who just want to check out FlightGear, their mentallity is to download the executable, run it for five minutes, and delete it if they are not sastisfy. probably a good point, but then the whole process of compiling the thing is even more problematic than the big download in the first place !? If the download is too big, or the time for download takes too long, this group of people are going to get discourage, and FlightGear can potentially lose these new players as consequence. Okay, then one would need to think about creating kind of a preview or down-stripped version that contains only working stuff - preferably with a certain scenery already available and a handful of finished aircraft. Something like this could probably result in a significantly smaller package. 100MB is okay for me because I have broardband. But even so, I still think the download is too big, because it still takes time and 90% of the aircrafts that it contains are aircrafts that I don't fly. probably true, but one would need to determine what types of aircraft are interesting for the majority of people/users AND what aircraft can actually be used without problems - otherwise one might very end up packaging only stuff that some of us think should be integrated and leave out other aircraft that might appeal to others anyway. [...] The patch doesn't really solve the issue: people still have to download the entire base package when they first run FlightGear. That's of course true - and I didn't mean to imply anything else - it's only meant to provide a viable alternative for those who want to upgrade (or even down-grade) Beside, how many players do you think actually know about the patch? I am not sure about that, but I am confident that the patch will be added as an option to the official FlightGear download page as soon as there's been some experience made about the whole patching thing. We've talked about that already on the devel list. And I can understand Erik's objection or rather fear that patching might create a whole new bunch of problems the developers would then might have to face every now and then. On the other hand, the tardiff pages are quite extensive about the whole patching process and it would not take very long to add some advise about how to deal with unsuccessfully patched FlightGear base packages. So, I am not sure if it's such a good idea to simply stop packaging unfinished aircraft. You are correct; as a modeller, I do want my aircrafts to appear in the base package so that people can appreciate my work. That's what I figured, too However, forcing them to download my aircraft(s) isn't right. Well, I wouldn't call it forcing - the policy to integrate any new aircraft seems to me rather like some sort of artifact from the early beginnings where everybody was glad that a contribution was made - and I understand that it's somehow tough to declare now certain requirements in order for future aircraft to be considered for the base package. It may even be counter productive, and I certainly don't want that to happen. yes, this is a bit of a two-sided problem - both scenarious could probably become counter-productive. An alternative is to set up a section at FlightGear.org for aircraft downloads. I think it was Chris Metzler who brought up a similar idea some time ago - to set up a webpage for additional FlightGear-related downloads, which wouldn't necessarily have to consume Curt's resources - while all this was back then about scenery in general, it's certainly something that would fit together with some kind of Aircraft Repository - on the other hand that idea
