Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Custom sceneries and new a/c, are there any? Comments...
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 00:01, Chris Wilkinson wrote: Liveries are easy; I'm handy with Gimp so thats not a problem, but getting something like a 777-200ER to paint in my fave livery? Not so easy... Just a little heads-up: As part of my research into AI traffic models I came across a number of MSFS models that we can possibly use in FlightGear. I say possibly, because I haven't had a chance to directly contact the author himself. This set of aircraft also includes a 777-200 model in Emirates color. If we get the green light from the author, fgfs ready models should be made available for flightgear sometime next year. At least this would give you the exterior view... Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 17:26, AJ MacLeod wrote: I have never seen a set of CH pedals in the flesh as it were so I can't say what kind of action they have or how nice they are to use. I can say that having rudder pedals is a big improvement - you get your legs thinking instead of just being stuck there uselessly - I can only see that can be a good thing for someone learning to fly IRL. No point in trying to twist the control column to get the rudder to move in most planes :-) I got hooked on CH's products after I got a usb Flight yoke for next to nothing during Linuxtag 2001 in Germany. A year later or so, during my stay in the USA, I decided to extend the system with a pair of pedals, which I can highly recommend. My personal use of FlightGear tends toward showing a serious interest getting to know the real procedures, but with an occasional gaming touch, and also occasional test runs during bug hunts. If you're a bit more of a serious user than I am, than I can highly recommend the CH yoke/panel combination. I'd say you'd need them (or any custom-build pedals) if you want to seriously practice cross-wind landings, and stuff like that. The main disadvantage is that they come without force-feedback, but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, IMHO Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] error in airport data
On Monday 28 November 2005 23:00, Andy Ross wrote: Basically, it sounds like you are asking the FlightGear/X-Plane airport database to understand that takeoffs are not allowed on runway 36 and therefore place the aircraft on some other runway at startup, which is something is just isn't prepared to do. Airport policy is a political issue, not a simulation thing. The runway definitely exists, even if takeoffs are disallowed. Maybe this is a good moment to mention that I have submitted some code that allows one to set up a preferential runway use schedule, depending on wind, traffic type, tail and cross wind allowances, and time of day. The code doesn't disallow the use of certain runways completely (there's always a fallback mechanism for extreme weather), but it could at least strongly discourage the use of certain runways. For an example: have a look at data/Airports/AI/EHAM/rwyUse.xml, present in FG 0.9.9 Note: This currently only works with AI traffic, but obviously, runway use should be synchronized between AI and user traffic. At least that's part of my long term goals. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: AW: [Flightgear-users] FG 0.9.9 Crashes on launch
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 00:51, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi Dene dene maxwell writes Just a couple of things Innis; 0.9.8a started fine and worked within a few minor limitations (long flights over land in fast a/c seemed to make the autopilot lose a grip at about 2 hours). This is not a totally new problem Durk Talsma found a year or so ago that the sim would crash after a couple of hours on longhaul flights but he was testing between Amsterdam and the states and I thought that the problem was fixed, Durk?. Hmm, no that was actually something else. When flying out of range of any AI aircraft, the aircraft model was unloaded from memory, unbeknownst to Flightgear, upon hitting land again, That bug was fixed shortly afterwards. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] AI Aircraft
Hi Shelton, Well, I guess David Luff and David Culp have already explained quite a bit. If you're interested in helping with AI traffic generation, you're mostly welcome. I do have some documentation concerning the generation of traffic files that I could send you off-list if you're interested (It's not quite ready for general release). In addition, as I mentioned earlier, I am currently working on a traffic pattern editor that should eliminate the need to understand the details of the AI traffic files. So if you would like to test out an early alpha version, I'm more than happy to send you a pre-release. This might take a while though, as I just started this project last weekend... :-) As for your question why we have only 737's for AI traffic. The reason is that most of the traffic manager AI is in a relatively early stage of development and the supplied patterns serve mainly as a proof of principle. The 737 is one of the aircraft that is supplied by default in the base package. With the new traffic pattern editor, I'm moving away from the idea of using regular aircraft for AI traffic, but use dedicated AI models, which are somewhat lower in detail, because they're not regularly seen from small distances. However, this is again still in it's early stages. Cheers, Durk On Monday 31 October 2005 01:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Durk Thank you very much for the explanation - Let me know if you need a hand with the AI part of FlightGear. I have some knowledge in XML. BTW, how is the AI traffic generated in FlightGear - is there somewhere where I can take a look, I would like to see some more heavy traffic landing in KSFO. I mean if the 737s are implementated in KSFO, why not the A320? Let me know if you want a hand at this. I used to play Flight Unlimited 2 and 3 before I moved onto Linux, and they did an exceptional job when it came to AI traffic. Regards, Shelton. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] AI Aircraft
On Monday 31 October 2005 10:08, Dave Culp wrote: ... I would like to see some more heavy traffic landing in KSFO. I mean if the 737s are implementated in KSFO, why not the A320? If you want heavy aircraft then you'll have to use either the AI Traffic system, or the scripted AI. See the data/Data/Traffic directory for the XML files which define the AI Traffic. You can add more traffic there. Euhh, that should actually be data/Traffic (without the extra /Data/) Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] AI Aircraft
On Monday 31 October 2005 10:39, Shelton D'Cruz wrote: sorry guys - i actually have FlightGear-0.9.4 installed - and there is no /Data/AI or AI Traffic directory How do I upgrade to 0.9.8 ? Do you use a preinstalled version? If so, I would recommend using your linux distribution's installer to remove the flightgear packages (usually something like FlightGear, FlightGear-data, simgear, and plib). For linux, you need to build the program yourself: Just go to www.flightgear.org, and follow the instructions for downloading and installing. You can either download the release version, or if you're adventurous, you can try to get the cvs version. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] AI Aircraft
On Sunday 30 October 2005 10:38, Shelton D'Cruz wrote: Hi Just installed FlightGear and I am quite impressed. I just did a flight from Half Moon Bay to KSFO and was little disappointed because I did not see any AI (moving) aircraft, only 1 static one that was ready for take off but did not have any wheels!! I have the AI setting to 3 . Hi Shelton, There are currently three AI systems in FlightGear; 1) The AI/ATC system written by David Luff, which models local traffic at tower-equipped airports, 2) the AIModels system written by David Culp, which runs by playing dedicated scenarios, and 3) the traffic management system (by me), which is an extension to the AIModels system. All thee systems model slightly different aspects of AI traffic, are in various stages of completion, and are also not yet integrated with each other (although we're working on that). If you have AI activated through the menus, you should get the local traffic, however, it takes a while before the aircraft start to appear. In addition local traffic is banned from KSFO. So flying back might give you some traffic at Half moon bay. If you want to see airliner traffic at KSFO, you need to edit your preferences file, and change the traffic manager and ai sections as below. traffic-manager enabled type=booltrue/enabled /traffic-manager ai enabled type=booltrue/enabled ... ... /ai Once you've done that, you might be able to see some 737's at KSFO. Mind though that this is still fairly experimental code (no parking, or realistic taxiing yet), and traffic density is low. FWIW, FlightGear cvs, now has support for realistic taxiway following, and I've also started building a ground network for KSFO. In addition, I'm working on a traffic pattern editor, so hopefully the traffic situation at KSFO will improve drastically in the next few months. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] mem leaks ?
On Thursday 13 October 2005 14:09, Buchanan, Stuart wrote: When the same thing happened to me recently, I'd had a couple of warnings about the TrafficManager being unable to find a valid runway. No idea whether it is related or not. I was flying around Dundee Airport at the time (EGPN I think), and it was compaining about Leuchars another airport in the area. Stuart, Do you have any specific details about this message? I sent out a little note about the fact that the Failed to update aircraft schedule in traffic manager message is really innocent, and can be ignored. Which version of FlightGear are you using? Did you customize the AI traffic system? Just curious, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Enabling AI traffic into patterns/loop
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 18:16, Durk Talsma wrote: On Wednesday 21 September 2005 17:05, Mike Rawlins wrote: traffic-manager enabled type=booltrue/enabled /traffic-manager and got repeated messages: Failed to update aircraft schedule in traffic manager Failed to update aircraft schedule in traffic manager . . The traffic manager is sort of a higher level traffic generator that interfaces with David Culp's AI objects (that is aircraft). The error messages you are seeing indicate an initialization error of the traffic manager. During initialization, I'm scanning for invalid airport codes, and schedules containing one or more invalid (i.e. non-existent in FlightGear), should be discarded from the traffic manager during initialization. If the system isn't properly initialized, this error message may occur. I haven't exactly figured out why this message may pop up yet, even after initialization, but that's on my todo list. Just for the record: I looked at this yesterday, and found that the error message is generated by an extremely minor bug in the the schedule update code. I've fixed this in my local copy and will submit this with my next round of traffic manager updates, which should be out fairly soon. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear 0.98a windows startup problems
On Thursday 26 May 2005 04:02, Roux Heyns wrote: My motherboard is an Asus a7n8x (Nforce2) so yes it has onboard sound, but not video. Roux On 5/25/05, Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Roux Roux Heyns writes Hi everyone, I'm running windows 2k professional sp4 on an Athlon Xp 2500+ with 512MB ram and a Raydeon 9000 pro graphics card. Recently I downloaded the Flightgear 0.98a binaries from flightgear.org. The installation procedure seemed to go off without a hitch but when I try and start flightgear (with either the graphical launcher or the console) I get the error Unknown exception in the main loop. Aborting... Possible cause: No such file or directory regardless of which startup options I choose. Please, does anyone know of possible causes or solutions? I had this problem at one time with the AI traffic manager but I am sure it was fixed for 9.8.Also are you using a M/B with onboard sound or graphics. After that I will leave it to the experts. Thanks Roux Cheers Innis The AI traffic problems were finally fixed in 0.9.8a, which should be available from the website as well (I think). I would doubt, however, if that is causing your abort, becuase the traffic manager is by default disabled. You might want see if you can grab the latest sound drivers. IIRC, many onboard sound drivers don't work well with openal unless you have the latest drivers. Regards, I would try installing 0.9.8a first, and if that doesn't work, have a look at the sound drivers. HTH, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Entering a series of waypoints
On Sunday 22 May 2005 17:30, Pat Manzi wrote: Thanks Durk for the response. If I understand it correctly, then the waypoints I could enter via the text file are airports that are already known. I would actually have to look into the source code to see what is exactly supported, but I believe currently valid waypoints consist of either ariports or fixes. See data/Navaids/fix.dat.gz data/Airports/apt.dat.gz for a list of valid waypoints IIRC, VORs and NDBs are not supported, because they don't have unique IDs. Would it be possible to hardcode some waypoints if I go enter them directly using the route manager? If I understand the code correctly, the waypoints that are entered there are defined as lat/lon and alt points (among other things), right? This would be possible, but as far as I can tell this would require some modification of the code. Currently, each identifier is checked against the master navaid/airport database, and the corresponding lat/lon positions are returned. As it is right now, I've got 3 different approaches I want to fly into Stockholm Arlanda, and so if possible, I was thinking I'd just hard code them and do the interfacing with the route manager myself. Do you think this could work? Personally, I think the AI flightplan code is much more flexible than the original route manager code. So, if you would like to have a look at interfacing the AI flightplan reading code with the master route manager than I surely would engourage you to do so. I was actually thinking about putting this back on my todo list, but just don't have enough time in the near future to work on this. Should you decide to have a stab at this, you might want to consider moving this thread over to FlightGear-devel, as that might the more appropriate platform for coding issues. Also feel free to ask me any questions should they arise. Cheers, Durk Thanks, /Pat -Original Message- From: Durk Talsma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: den 19 maj 2005 19:19 To: FlightGear user discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Entering a series of waypoints On Thursday 19 May 2005 13:30, Pat Manzi wrote: Hello, Does anyone know if there's a way to enter a series of waypoints via an XML config file? Something similar the Flight plans used in AI would be great. Hi Pat, As far as I know that is not implimented yet. You can make a very primitive flightplan by listing a series of waypoints (with optional altitude) in a txt file as in: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc, etc. Suppose you save this as myflight.txt you would call flightgear using something like fgfs --flight-plan=myflight.txt What you are suggesting is indeed something I would like to implement one day, but this would require adding/improving Flight Management Computer (FMC) capabilities. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Entering a series of waypoints
On Thursday 19 May 2005 13:30, Pat Manzi wrote: Hello, Does anyone know if there's a way to enter a series of waypoints via an XML config file? Something similar the Flight plans used in AI would be great. Hi Pat, As far as I know that is not implimented yet. You can make a very primitive flightplan by listing a series of waypoints (with optional altitude) in a txt file as in: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc, etc. Suppose you save this as myflight.txt you would call flightgear using something like fgfs --flight-plan=myflight.txt What you are suggesting is indeed something I would like to implement one day, but this would require adding/improving Flight Management Computer (FMC) capabilities. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] engine or hard drive sputter ???
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 04:54, Jon Elson wrote: Any ideas? I thought maybe the C172 needs fuel mixture adjustments??? The regularity of this is uncanny! I *think* this is the Astro component of FlightGear updating the positions of objects in the sky. The time discontinuity is probably responsible for the pitch changes. (Although it shouldn't have that effect.) What speed CPU do you have? The astronomical objects used to be updated once every 10 minutes and the whole celestial spere is rotated on a frame to frame basis. At least it used to be like this. The scheduling may have changed, as I haven't looked at the code in ages. Updating the position of the celestial is done within a few microseconds or so, so I would find it hard to believe that this causes any discontinuities. Just out of curiousity, Jon what made you assume that the astronomical code was causing the discontinuity? Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] aborted
On Monday 07 February 2005 21:09, Christian Bendele wrote: Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. [Switching to Thread -1213798208 (LWP 11924)] 0xe410 in ?? () (gdb) Basically the same, with the c172 too, I tried that. Now, I'm not much programmer, and this is the first time I even tried to use gdb. Maybe one of you guys can tell me what would be the next thing to check. Next time you run FlightGear from within gdb and it crashes, try typing bt, to print out a stack trace. Please post the output here as it will help in locating the problem. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] aborted
On Monday 07 February 2005 22:03, Christian Bendele wrote: (gdb) run --enable-auto-coordination --aircraft=pa28-161 Starting program: /usr/bin/fgfs --enable-auto-coordination --aircraft=pa28-161 [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread -1213798208 (LWP 12050)] __driCreateNewScreen - succeeded [New Thread -1440097360 (LWP 12053)] [New Thread -1463891024 (LWP 12054)] Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. [Switching to Thread -1213798208 (LWP 12050)] 0xe410 in ?? () (gdb) bt #0 0xe410 in ?? () #1 0xbfffeecc in ?? () #2 0x0006 in ?? () #3 0xb7a9f6f5 in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6 #4 0xbfffeee0 in ?? () #5 0x in ?? () #6 0x0020 in ?? () Previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?) This output is indeed not as helpful as I'd hoped. I've seen this occasionally in my local development copy, when things were wrong. So, I suspect you're either running a combination of options or settings that revealed a bug, or something on your system might be wrong (driver, or memory problem). Since you mentioned using gdb, I assume you run linux? Did you create a .fgfsrc file, or are the above options (autocoordination and pa28-161) the only ones you used? Did you change anyting in preferences.xml? Also, what system are you running on (i.e. video card, memory, processor)? Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: aborted
On Tuesday 08 February 2005 00:19, Christian Bendele wrote: Hi :) Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Christian Bendele -- Monday 07 February 2005 22:03: #0 0xe410 in ?? () #1 0xbfffeecc in ?? () You also have to *link* with -g. Thanks a lot for trying to help. Unfortunatelly I dtill got no luck. I recompiled all three packages (plib, simgear, flightgear) with CFLAGS CXXFLAGS = -O0 -g and LDFLAGS = -g. Still the gdb output looks very unhelpful to me... Maybe that's what it's supposed to look like, and I'm just too dumb to use it? Normally, you wouldn't have to need to recompile with -g, because thats the default (IIRC). Normally, the gdb stack trace (bt) would give you a list of (human readable) functions, that gives a fairly good estimate where and when the program crashed. The last line in your gdb: Previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?), suggests that part of the stack (i.e. part of memory where the sequence of function calls is stored) is overwritten by faulty code. Cheers, Durk P.S., Also no need to cc me. I'm also subscribed to the list ;-) ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Problems with Version 0.98 - sound card
On Monday 24 January 2005 21:51, Frederic Bouvier wrote: By popular demand, here they are : ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Win32/fgrun-0.4.5-20050124.zip ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Win32/fgfs-0.9.8-20050124.zip Changes includes : fgfs : - right version number - sound fix from Erik - spin animation changes - metar changes from Melchior ( CVS ) - traffic manager fix from Durk fgrun : - better resizing policy with adjustable split bar in the aircraft selection panel - modal dialog to block fgrun when fgfs is running - basic options available in run panel - command line hidable Thanks! ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Problems with Version 0.98 - sound card
On Monday 24 January 2005 19:22, Erik Hofman wrote: Frederic Bouvier wrote: Quoting Erik Hofman: Fred, it might be a good idea to create a new executable compiled against the new libsgsound.a file as it is in CVS now. That should solve the problem. It is not a problem to build the executable if Curt is ready to make a new win32 package. You might want to do a binary only release for those who encounter this problem? A new binary-only release would also solve the traffic manager problem. I'm in favor of it. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] dutch person needed
On Thursday 04 November 2004 18:48, David Megginson wrote: I don't speak Dutch either (at all), but here's my guess: =***= Hello Carsten Hoefer: Wow, that's a pretty impressive translation. Are you sure you never learned Dutch? I would have offered to help if I hadn't been flying back from visiting new New York yesterday. Looks like the question has already been taken care of. Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 707 model
Just a little trivia: After landing at Washington Dulles Intl. Airport yesterday morning I saw a 707 painted exactly like this one parked there. It was too far away too read the reg, but I guess there aren't many of these around anymore... I did manage to take a picture, but I need to wait until they get developed. For those wondering: I've been back to North Carolina for four weeks, and had a 5 hour layover at Dulles, while connecting to Amsterdam. So I spent a couple of hours in the new Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. Pretty impressive: A concorde, the original Dash 8, an SR-71 Blackbird, and the Space Shuttle Enterprise. Unfortunately the space hangar wasn't open yet, but I could see a glimpse of Enterprise while it was being restored. :-) Cheers, Durk On Monday 02 August 2004 21:34, David Culp wrote: Innis Cunningham has made a 707 model for FG 0.9.4, and I'm adapting it to 0.9.5. Here's a screen shot: http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/707.jpg Looks alot like John Travolta's plane: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/587530/M/ I'll have the package up at my hanger today: http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/hangar/hangar.html Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Problems with CVS as of Feb 5:
I'm cross posting this to the developers list, just in case somebody's inclined to do some bug fixing... :-) Yeah, that's exactly what I experienced yesterday, when I was testing out a sample file for a reply to this list. B.t.w., It's not only the --flight-plan option, but also the --wp= option. On the other hand, adding a way point while in flight seems to work still Just a random thought: The --flight-plan and --wp options related code is interacting heavily with the auto pilot code, so is there anything going wrong? Cheers, Durk I put three waypoints with altitudes in a textfile in the format: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I issue fgfs --flight-plan=test.plan I had save the file as that already) I get an immediate segfault. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Internationalization of Live-CD
In Dutch: Om in het nederlands te starten typt u: In English, I'd also say To start in English please type: Cheers, Durk On Monday 26 January 2004 09:06, Ronny Standtke wrote: Hi, I am in the process of i18n of the Live-CD. I need your assistance here. I only speek German and my own version of English. I need the sentence For starting in insert your language here please type: in all the languages you speak. (Please correct my English version too, if necessary.) Greetings Ronny ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
