Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
Paul Johnson wrote: Vassilii Khachaturov wrote: So, is the FG pedal support/sensitivity good enough on planes like the c172p for a set of CH pedals to be a worthwhile investment? Yes, although I find the response of the pedals a bit too sensitive; also, the absense of the force feedback sucks. Still better than the keyboard. Isn't stick and pedal sensitivity something that can be adjusted? Seems like everything is adjustable, it's a matter of finding it. Case in point, FlightGear thinks the range of travel on my Logitech stick is larger than it's range of motion, I hit 100% of movement in any particular direction only moving the stick two thirds to three quarters of the way... Well, the sensitivity can be upped in the joystick driver, but if the hardware doesn't have the precision to go with it, you will get an increasing amount of noise in the signal. I think that most hardware is made with the cheapest components available, so you would probably start seeing this pretty quickly. As to your situation, it sounds like your joystick is not calibrated properly and you have actually lost quite a bit of sensitivity. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Modeling question - cockpit lighting
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Melchior FRANZ -- Tuesday 20 December 2005 09:13: * Josh Babcock -- Tuesday 20 December 2005 02:44: Also, does anyone have any sort of tool that would dump the structure of a branch of the scenegraph? I have: _branch-print() I should add that this takes three optional args. Verbose example: _branch-print(stderr, \t, 4); 4 is very verbose (each vertex, uv coord, etc. is output). Default is 3. You just need to find a place to put this. You could write _branch-getParent(0)-print() in one of the animations. Or in the aircraft model loader. m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Ahh, as usual you already have the answer. Is there by any chance a Nasal binding? A small script that reads the args from a property tree could be bound to a menu entry and that would be quite nice. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Modeling question - cockpit lighting
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Dave Culp -- Monday 19 December 2005 04:39: This should lighten the face of the instrument when the lighting value is increased. What I actually get is that *all* objects in that instrument get lighter, not just the face. The animation recipe looks good. I'm not sure what happens, but it must be one of those cases where different objects are forced together into one branch by some other animation. It looks as if both face and knob only have one common ssgSimpleState node. Check the animations and try splitting them, or assign a different material to both objects. Is this somewhere in CVS already to look at? m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d It seems like the solution to this (common) problem is usually limited to these two actions. When I make an animation with a long list of objects though, it is very inconvenient to use either method. Would it be sensible to have some sort of tag in an animation node that would tell fg to not group the objects listed there and treat the xml block as if there were an identical animation for each object? Also, does anyone have any sort of tool that would dump the structure of a branch of the scenegraph? It would be handy to see whether or not objects share ssgSimpleState nodes, or how and when they get grouped into branches. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Helicopter Controls
dene maxwell wrote: I'm going to give a helicopter a try. I understand the physics of a helicopter, the rotor provides downward thrust and the speed and pitch of the rotor control the amount of thrust and because of the torque of the main rotor a tail rotor is needed. this gives the impresion there are alot of this to control. Iintuatively I'd say the joystick is used for direction control, the throttle is for engine speed. What controls pitch and tail rotor? A url to some basic flight instructions would be appreciated and/or keyboard mappings for the other important controls. Any recommendations on a nice forgiving model to try first time? :-) Dene _ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Well, the basic breakdown goes like this: cyclic (joystick): Controls the pitch of the rotor disk (not the fuselage though) by changing the pitch of individual blades as they go around. This changes how much lateral thrust there is and what direction it is pointed in. collective (throttle): Controls the pitch of all the rotor blades, and thus the amount of lift. FADEC or throttle (located on the collective): Controls engine power and thus rotor RPM, which should remain constant while flying. pedals: Control tail rotor/fenstron pitch or the air gates on systems like NOTAR, and subsequently yaw. The pitch of the aircraft is independent of all that in older systems like teetering and hinged rotors, it just swings around down there independent of the rotor disk. Here is an excellent demonstration: http://tonyrogers.com/video/index.htm (second from the top) I think the new semi-rigid rotors actually can pitch and roll the aircraft directly. Rigid rotors are just a plain old dead end as far as I know. Helicopter aerodynamics are a lot more complicated than fixed wing, and a lot different as well. The following two sites give a pretty good intro. They are long reads, but worth it. http://www.dynamicflight.com/aerodynamics/ http://www.cybercom.net/~copters/ Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Helicopter Controls
Josh Babcock wrote: http://www.dynamicflight.com/aerodynamics/ http://www.cybercom.net/~copters/ Umm, I take that second one back. It's been a while since I looked at it :) Dynamicflight is definitely a good one though. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Helicopter Controls
dene maxwell wrote: A few observations though; (in the Euro-copter) a) the throttle works in reverse (what would be flat out in a cessna is actually minimum in the Euro-copter) hence my almost landing in the middle of the harbour. This is correct. In a helicopter, the collective is a horizontal lever located to the left of the pilot's seat. By convention, pulling back on a computer joystick throttle is equivalent to pulling up on a real collective. This isn't too hard to get used to, though switching to a tilt-rotor or vectored VTOL aircraft can be confusing, because in those cases pushing the throttle forward is what gets you up in the air. Try not to think of it as a throttle, think of it as a lever that makes the rotor disk convert rotational energy into lift. If you ever autorotate or fly something with a manual throttle (neither of which YASim supports IIRC) that will help you manage your energy. As it is you don't really have to worry about RPM, I don't think any of the fgfs helos are underpowered enough that you can actually drop the RPM past the green zone. b) the FG dsocumentation is wrong regarding rudder. It's not 0 ,, but0 and Enter on the numeric keypad. I think this is an old error. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Carrier Elevators
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le mercredi 07 décembre 2005 à 23:17 +, AJ MacLeod a écrit : On Wednesday 07 December 2005 22:56, Gerard ROBIN wrote: Carrier elevators are working perfectly (CVS update). We only need to define a Key Binding for toggle property property/ai/models/controls/elevators/property which key could be used ? I think a menu might be an appropriate way to control that sort of thing. I actually have a menu entry ready for it, but haven't actually got round to using it yet :-) No reason not to have both, of course. Cheers, AJ Why, not ? Usually i prefer short keys. I only want to be sure it is acceptable regarding the Carrier project. Cheers Well, there are only 104 of them on my computer, and most of them are quickly being sucked up by things that I actually use when flying. Not that I don't like the idea of elevators on the carriers, but this is a *flight* sim. I would go with AJ, and do both. That way curmudgeons like me can remove the entry from keyboard.xml and still use the feature. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] AI Flight Plans for objects other than a/c
Jon Stockill wrote: dene maxwell wrote: I'm sure that the realism added by having it steam across the harbour and executing a 180 for the return trip will suffice. I'm more interested in flying than being capitain of a ferry :-) This thread got me thinking (dangerous I know). AFAICR we now have a function which can get terrain elevation for arbitrary points. Does this now make AI ground vehicles a possibility? Things like bird scaring trucks, runway controllers, airport shuttle trains. Jon ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I always thought freight trains would be a good addition for VFR. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flight Deck taxiing and launch
Vivian Meazza wrote: Mathias Fröhlich On Freitag 25 November 2005 22:14, MPCEE French Bureau wrote: Yep! It was the launch bar not attached. It is difficult to note when it is attached. As I am landing with the 'wires, I taxi to a catapult, but it is very much trial and error to know you are in a catchment area. There is a little trick with mounting the launchbar. It is *required* to have very few relative movement of the gear relative to the surface to establish that connection. That is if you want to press L make sure that you are exactly above the catapult, apply the brakes to make sure you dont move anymore and then press L. You will notice that the aircraft is pulled slightly into its nosegears spring. That compressed gearspring helps to keep the aircraft on the deck as long as the gear is attached to the cat. That produces a negative angle of attack. When the launchbar is released, that compressed spring pushes the nose into the wind and helps getting a sufficient angle of attach suficiently fast. That is how the launchbar systems on /modern/ aircraft (F14,F18,A4...) typicaly work. The real life Seahawk has a slightly different mounting scheme. Looking forward to more models with the modelled modern scheme ... :) Well, my F-18 and the Crusader (I hope so, it is a great thing!) will hopefully arrive at some time in flightgear ... Yes, I had to hack the launchbar a bit to make it work with the Seahawk and Seafire to model the catapult strop arrangements. (Phase2 - model the strop - perhaps :-0). It works particularly well with the Seafire. In addition to the launchbar tensioning, which can be seen as you mentioned, the ac doesn't move when you release the brakes, which is a good indication! But I did rather wonder if we should show a brief legend in the manner of ATC messages to say that the launchbar was engaged. Vivian ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d How about a little animated launch officer giving a hand signal? Hard to animate, but extremely cool, especially if he salutes and does that I'm launching your ass of the boat move. In fact, hitting the launch key could just tell the system you want to launch instead of doing it, and then after a pause, the dude salutes and sends you on your way. Of course, the signals are probably different for every navy. I think I'm getting into too much eye-candy here :p Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: carriers
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 à 21:36 -0500, Josh Babcock a écrit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On November 24, 2005 12:46 pm, MPCEE French Bureau wrote: Hello Gerard: You know, the favourite for all the historians is the Fairy Swordfish, or commonly known as the Stringbag, carrying a Torpedo. As an afterthought, maybe the torpedo could be interactive, and then I could attack the Charles De Gaulle! This is exactly the reason why there should be no weapon in FlightGear. Ampere Yeah, really. I mean, attacking a US carrier seems sporting enough, but attacking those poor defenseless French sailors is just inhumane. Josh Hello Josh, I am getting surprised to know that attacking a US carrier seems sporting, virtual or real are sometime the same. FG is not a war game that is for virtual. In reality when the terrorists kill weeks after weeks US soldiers in Iraqi , you think it is sporting. I don't think so, i dislike to see these young men killed. Sorry i don't share your point of view. And thanks for the compliments, because we have some sailors very popular, woman and man who demonstrate courage when competing on their sail boat around the world. Sure they are defenseless against the tempest. Sure the sea is often inhumane (some of them are missing). Cheers Sporting means fair, as in it's sporting fight someone while they are standing, but it is not sporting to kick them when they are down. It's just an obligatory French military joke. We are obliged by law to make them here. Actually, I think that the French military is pretty competant. They just get a bad rap from typically getting into wars with slightly more competant armies (England, Germany, NVA). And then there was that Grand Armie thing that Napolean did. People always remember it when you start a land war in Asia in winter. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flight Deck taxiing and launch
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le vendredi 25 novembre 2005 à 18:39 +0100, MPCEE French Bureau a écrit : Hello All: On the flight deck with some power I find it difficult to turn with breaks etc, what with the carrier's perpetual motion. Also, when launching from catapult, full power, breaks off, presses 'C' and the Seahawk is thrusted at full power - backwards!!! Any comments as to the catapult settings and what to look for to rectify this? Thanks in Advance Martin Hello Martin, I hope you didn't forget to activate the LaunchBar upper case L before 'C' Sure it is not easy to taxi , and sometime the ground reaction is not right (probably to be fixed, in the source code). Cheers I don't think you are ever supposed to taxi on a carrier deck, except possible to get out of the landing area. They hag GSVs for that. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: carriers
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 à 20:15 +, Vivian Meazza a écrit : Gerard Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 à 18:46 +0100, MPCEE French Bureau a écrit : Hello Gerard: You know, the favourite for all the historians is the Fairy Swordfish, or commonly known as the Stringbag, carrying a Torpedo. As an afterthought, maybe the torpedo could be interactive, and then I could attack the Charles De Gaulle! I did not know, it is funny :=) We could worry if it was reality, because the royal french navy has had ^ many difficulties with that only one carrier, during making and after making. :=( Robespierre would be disappointed :-) Vivian Yes the French Navy continue to be named la royale. :=) Does that come with cheese? ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: carriers
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On November 24, 2005 12:46 pm, MPCEE French Bureau wrote: Hello Gerard: You know, the favourite for all the historians is the Fairy Swordfish, or commonly known as the Stringbag, carrying a Torpedo. As an afterthought, maybe the torpedo could be interactive, and then I could attack the Charles De Gaulle! This is exactly the reason why there should be no weapon in FlightGear. Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Yeah, really. I mean, attacking a US carrier seems sporting enough, but attacking those poor defenseless French sailors is just inhumane. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Contrails
Dave Culp wrote: The problem with that is that you have to climb to about 3 feet to see the contrails. This makes contrail development difficult. It's much easier to set the contrail level at 5000 feet or something, which is what I did with the 737 while developing/demonstrating submodel-based contrails. fgfs --alt=3 --vc=300 ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] always find your aircraft where you parked them last time
Melchior FRANZ wrote: You find it strange that you are put into a machine positioned on RWY28R? In your dhc2 water plane, or the bo105 helicopter? No more! Here's a small Nasal script that allows to save the parking position and overall state (parking brake, doors, beacons) on a per-aircraft basis. This encourages you to always leave the aircraft in a sane state on a sane place. Because next time you start fgfs with it, you'll have to deal with it! HOTWO = (1) download http://members.aon.at/mfranz/flightgear/state.nas [2.8 kB] (2) set FG_HOME on top of the file to a writable directory (3) add key binding to your keyboard.xml (see top of script) -- first run -- (4) start fgfs with your favorite aircraft (5) you'll end up on 28R as always; nothing to see here :-/ (6) whenever you feel like it, press the `-key to save the state; ideally when you've parked the aircraft and are about to exit from fgfs -- next run -- (7) start fgfs with same aircraft and find yourself parked where you left You can set the default in the script file (whether states should be retstored or not), and can always override with --prop:state=0. The script stores position, heading, controls, and /sim/model/aircraft. Not all aircraft have their private settings in /sim/model/aircraft. The bo105 and a few others have. That means, that you'll even find the bo105 doors open when you left them open. :-) The script does not autosave a state on exit. This would be possible with a few changes, but I thought that it's probably not such a good idea. Saving should be done when leaving the aircraft and locking the door. Not when you crashed it somewhere in the woods. Note: don't park on houses! The FDMs don't recognize that and put the aircraft *into* the house on ground. m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Cool. Now when do we get to see Robin Peel's startup points in FlightGear? I'm sure that a lot of airports have them, I know I put a bunch into KADW which should be in the next release in all it's taxiway-encrusted splendor. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] More than one waypoint of the same name
AJ MacLeod wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:04, Innis Cunningham wrote: As at a casual glance there seems to be many instances of more than one waypoint with the same name in the data base Not just fixes, either - airfields, too. EG73 (Fearn) for example, once worked fine - but somewhere along the line, somebody added some tiny strip in Englandshire and called it (incorrectly, AFAIK) EG73 too. I don't think this is the only example, either... Must this sort of thing be sorted out at Robin Peel's end? AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Airport data gets periodically overwritten by Robin's data, so yes. Plus, it is the polite thing to do. X-Plane users aren't bad people, just a little misdirected. Heck, I used to be one :) I would drop him an e-mail pointing out the duplication, possible after doing some research on the new mystery field. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Contrails
Dave Culp wrote: On Saturday 12 November 2005 10:08 pm, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All While using the 737 I noticed that I have what I assume are supposed to be contrails eminating from the engines.Is there a way to turn this feature off as it looks rather rediculous on the 737. The contrails are defined in the submodels.xml configuration file. You can remove them there, or you can go to the 737-set.xml file and remove the reference to submodels.xml. Or you can go to preferences.xml and raise the /environment/params/contrail-altitude to a higher number (note: this may also be overridden in the 737-set.xml file. Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Hmm, perhaps it would be appropriate to bash up a script that figures out a sane contrail altitude based on the other weather settings/data. (not that this has anything to do with the original problem). How would one go about calculating something like that? It also occurs to me that contrails, like shadows, might be better handled by fg than an airplane definition. Of course in the interim, it makes sense to do proof of concept stuff like that in the aircraft config, just like we used to do shadows. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] How honest are you today?
At the risk of promoting copyright violations, I think you all should check this out: http://avaxhome.ru/ebooks/2005/11/10/detail/ Free Detail and Scale book in a pdf file. Hmm. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Willie Fleming wrote: Josh wrote Perhaps we should track each aircraft's maintainer and more importantly, whether they are active or planning to be active with that AC soon. I think if we did that it would encourage people to step in and adopt planes. Even if a maintainer doesn't have a huge amount of extra time, they could still be an advocate and coordinate the work of other people on that AC. As it is now, I think there may be a reluctance to step on people's toes, so instead of finishing off an existing plane, people go out and start a new one which may or may not get completed. Meanwhile, planes that are in need of completion or updating to take advantage of new features become hangar queens. Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Josh PS, I'm still working on the B29 and Canberra, but having trouble getting FG to compile and run right. As soon as that happens I can make the final sprint to a v1.0 B29. Thanks for your efforts on these planes. I enjoyed having a circuit or two in the B-29 last night. Not the easiest beast to handle but I think it will be fun when complete. Problems I noticed included: the nose wheel retracts but the main gear stays down ground handling was unpredictable - sometimes no matter what I tried it would just go round clockwise like only the port engines were running - other times it was fine - diff braking helped but only slightly props don't turn - so I couldn't visually check which engines were running - all gauges and throttle positions seemed to suggest I had all 4 OK though. I havent much experience at this but if there is any help I can offer, please say. Regards Willie Fleming ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Thanks for the input. Those are actually all known problems. The version you are flying is really an alpha plane. Vivian has a new flight model that should be much easier to fly, but I haven't been able to get it in because I haven't been able to get any recent versions of FG to work with my radeon drivers. Still working on that. Anyway, there should be a big update soon. Oh, and the difficulty steering won't go away. The B29 has a castering nosewheel, so it will always be hard to steer :( In the real plane you are supposed to use both braking and differential thrust. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le lundi 07 novembre 2005 à 07:35 -0500, Josh Babcock a écrit : Willie Fleming wrote: Josh wrote Thanks for the input. Those are actually all known problems. The version you are flying is really an alpha plane. Vivian has a new flight model that should be much easier to fly, but I haven't been able to get it in because I haven't been able to get any recent versions of FG to work with my radeon drivers. Still working on that. Anyway, there should be a big update soon. Oh, and the difficulty steering won't go away. The B29 has a castering nosewheel, so it will always be hard to steer :( In the real plane you are supposed to use both braking and differential thrust. Josh Hi Josh I told you before your B29 is great, about differential thrust, isn't ' it a facility within Yasim to command differential thrust from the rudder when the a/c is on the ground (or may be a nasal command). That could make easier the ground handling. (i hope for you you will succeed in making FG to work with radeon, i did not find any solution on my wife computer) Cheers I hacked up my Cyborg-3D definition file so that it automatically does differential thrust when in taxi mode. You can even adjust the amount through the property interface. You can find it here: http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/scripts/ If you can read the Nasal, it should be no problem to adapt your own joystick file. There should be a way to make this a separate .nas file, but for me it was a quick fix, so I never worked it out. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Buchanan, Stuart wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! I think it depends on what sort of thing you prefer to fly. Are you interested in GA, Airliner, historic, or military flying? Personally, I'm generally interested in flying GA, with the occassional foray into military jets, so having a Cessna 150, 172 and 182 is great. Many of the military and historical planes are very high quality. The Spitfire is fascinating. I don't have much experience with the airliners, but the Concorde model is very good - with moving nose etc. However I think there is an issue that there are a large number of not-quite-perfect aircraft which can detract from the exceedingly high quality levels elsewhere. Many of them are no-longer in active development, and what they really need is a bit of extra polish - improving the panels/textures, fixing the minor bugs to bring them up to date with the capabilities of the latest level of FG. I'm currently working on improving the C182 so it is up to the same standard as the 152 and 172, and apart from everything else, it is giving me a great insight into the internals of FlightGear. -Stuart ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Perhaps we should track each aircraft's maintainer and more importantly, whether they are active or planning to be active with that AC soon. I think if we did that it would encourage people to step in and adopt planes. Even if a maintainer doesn't have a huge amount of extra time, they could still be an advocate and coordinate the work of other people on that AC. As it is now, I think there may be a reluctance to step on people's toes, so instead of finishing off an existing plane, people go out and start a new one which may or may not get completed. Meanwhile, planes that are in need of completion or updating to take advantage of new features become hangar queens. Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Josh PS, I'm still working on the B29 and Canberra, but having trouble getting FG to compile and run right. As soon as that happens I can make the final sprint to a v1.0 B29. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Dave Culp wrote: On Friday 04 November 2005 07:29 am, Josh Babcock wrote: Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Ditch? This means they get kicked out of the FG hangar? Who decides? Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I guess we take a vote. Hadn't thought about that. Point is, they only go if they are unwanted. I'm not talking about taking away stuff that people want. Besides, I also still believe that stuff should never be taken out of CVS, maybe put into another tree to make it easier to not check it out with the rest of base, but still keep it around. I was talking in the context of the release packages. Maybe I misunderstood the original discussion. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] CitatiionII
Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 03 Nov 2005 17:09, Andy Ross wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: However, I know Andy's intension was to produce plausible behavior across all flight regimes as best as can be guessed at, and there is clearly a bug where stalls come *way* to early in the negative aoa regime. Yes, this is a real bug. It's not the stall per se, I think, but a discontinuity somewhere in the lift curve. Every time this comes up I end up re-reading the (admittedly hairy) Surface.cpp code looking for it, and get lost. The stall handling itself, though, is fairly transparent and looks clean. Something else is going on. I should probably take some time and write up a test rig that graphs the lift curve that emerges from the model, but that requires generating a Surface object with real world coefficients, which requires running it through the solver on a real model, which has interactions that kinda obscure the pure behavior of the Surface. Ick. :( Andy This is an interesting topic to me as I've seen it many times while tuning YASim configs but it seemed sort of reasonable behaviour to me. If the AoA of a wing decreases from a positive value (below it's stall angle), through zero, into negative it seems to me that you are not creating a situation where turbulent air passing over the wing un-sticks from the aerofoil surface. Instead you still have good flow but the direction of lift changes. If you imagine a situation where there's no gravity and you have a symmetrical aerofoil you will get equal lift from equal amounts of +ve or -ve AoA but in opposite directions, which is how rudders and sails work. When you throw in real wing aerofoils and gravity I would expect to see some discontinuous behaviour at -ve AoAs. Dunno what exactly :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I would look at some polar graphs. Stuff happens at those AOAs, but it is usually continuous. Even the stall regimes are continuous, though they do have a much greater slope. I haven't ever seen graphs of deep stalls though, so I have no idea what happens there. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Snapshot for pleasure
Lee Elliott wrote: On Sunday 30 Oct 2005 18:24, Gerard ROBIN wrote: Don't ask me to do it again Just before http://ghours.club.fr/carrier-landing_1.jpg Just after http://ghours.club.fr/carrier-landing_2.jpg :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Yeah, save that for the FlightGear web page! Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Helicopters in Flight Gear
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le samedi 29 octobre 2005 à 14:43 +0200, Gerard ROBIN a écrit : Le samedi 29 octobre 2005 à 12:41 +0200, Matthias Boerner a écrit : Hi, I am working on an Eurocopter EC 145 (http://www.eurocopter.com/ec145) for FlightGear. But it takes more time than I had expected. So maybe at the end of this year, maybe January next year I have something to show/share. In the moment I try to get more detailed information about this specific helicopter. Greetings Matthias Just to inform, I developed partly a Puma AS330. I did stop the development because unable to get a realistic FDM, Yasim working partly with unreal parameters. In addition to, one may be interested with my wrong yasim FDM (AS330 Puma) available here: http://ghours.club.fr/AS330.xml At some point I want to do a Dauphine, as I have a friend who flies them for the USCG, but right now there are at least 2 other projects that I am obliged to finish first. Hopefully I'll get to it before someone else does, I'm a big helo fan. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Helicopters in Flight Gear
Dan Lyke wrote: On another front: I spent a little time today with the Bell/Textron drawings and Blender, and I'm starting to see a 206 take shape on my screen. Despite my years in graphics (several renderers, both real-time and not, and experience with writing animation systems), I've never done modeling before, and I may be being too conservative on polygons. And I was so happy to get a basic fuselage together that I was getting really optimistic, now I'm down to the nitty gritty of two-sided doors. And aaargh I wish Blender would just let me say match the normal for the vertex on this object to the one for the vertex on that one... You do texture by poly color, and so far I'm just doing a white fuselage. Should I bother to put UV coordinates on things, or is trying to texture these aircraft just too heavyweight for now? If I get a little better at modeling, maybe I'll try to include one of the stock paint schemes in the model, at the expense of polys. Can I just make the doors double-sided for now, or should I model both an interior and exteror? I guess the downside is that the interior of the doors ends up the same color as the exterior, right? Is it reasonable to end up with two blades by just willy nilly deleting from your blade model, or is there a hidden gotcha intere? Aaaand, talk to me about shadows... Thanks! Dan ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I would recommend only using the materials for how reflective or emmisive a surface is. Doing colors and transparency with full texturing is not a big deal, especially if you are thinking about it when you make the meshes. In Blender this means putting in seams where appropriate and having a plan for how you what to cram the UV maps into the texture images. I like to do the UV maps as I go, and worry about making the textures later. As far as poly budgets go, I aim for having no more than 10,000 visible at a time. With LOD and clipping this gives you quite a bit to play with. In the cockpit view, most of the model will be clipped, and externally most of the heavy stuff in the cockpit can be LOD'd out. The B-29 has well over 10,000 polys, but no more than about 8000 (?) ever get rendered. In fact, the interior is much heavier than the exterior, even with all the compound curves on the four nacelles and those 16 prop blades (multiplying polys by 16 eats up the budget real fast). The gear was problematic too, but you won't have that issue. Also, I would not cut the doors or windows out until you are entirely happy with the shape of the fuselage. The same goes for creating the interior, as it is easiest to just extrude it from the outer skin. I learned that the hard way on the 29 and it probably cost me hundreds of hours. I also recommend getting *lots* of reference photos before you lay out the first poly. Some stuff is real easy to fix later, some is nearly impossible. Also, making stuff double sided in Blender currently has no effect when exporting to AC3D. You have to duplicate the surface and flip normals. Another good idea is to do the animations as you build the model. You should take advantage of the group function of AC3D, but it leads to some pretty complicated situations when you load it into the plib scene graph in FG, so it's best to stay on top of it from the start. There's a hidden learning curve there. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] adding new aircraft
David Ginger wrote: On Thursday 15 Sep 2005 19:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I take it winzip with winXP will not unzip these that would explain my problem At univeristy last year, when I tried to un-pack a tgz file with winzip it did not recognise the filetype. As a linux user on a mixed platform mailing list, - no comment I have always found Stuffit to be a fine uncompressor for all formats on wintel machines. Most people forget about it because it's written by Apple, but it's still a great PC program. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] firefox search plugin for flightgear
Here, for all you who want to be able to search the archives directly from Firefox. Just something I was playing around with. I'm afraid I don't know how to create and .xpi, so no self install. Just drop them in your ~/.mozilla/searchplugins directory and restart Firefox. http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/scripts/flightgear.gif http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/scripts/flightgear.src Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] firefox search plugin for flightgear
C Ridley - OnCall Solutions wrote: Hi Josh, Cool - excellent. You might want to take a look at http://books.mozdev.org/html/mozilla-chp-6-sect-3.html or perhaps http://www.mozilla.org/docs/xul/xulnotes/xulnote_packages.html Is this something you would like packaged and placed in MozDev Addons? Sure. The main reason that I haven't is mainly that I didn't have time. If someone else wants to, that would be great. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] ILS/LLZ frequencies
Dene Maxwell wrote: I was trying an ILS landing at Auckland Int'l (NZAA) and couldn't get the LZ/DME signal listed on the New Zealand Aviation Information site as 110.3MHz. I had a quick look through the airports and navaids data but couldn't make out where the relavent information is located. The files all look very relational to me, can someone shed light on how I could find what freq. FG uses for this signal? Regards Dene No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 2/8/05 ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d For starters the freqs are listed as integers, so to get the correct one you will have to divide bt 100. The file you want is Navaids/nav.dat.gz, search for the ICAO code and then look at the fifth field. Or, if you are using unix, use this: http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/scripts/ffq Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] ILS/LLZ frequencies
Dene Maxwell wrote: I was trying an ILS landing at Auckland Int'l (NZAA) and couldn't get the LZ/DME signal listed on the New Zealand Aviation Information site as 110.3MHz. I had a quick look through the airports and navaids data but couldn't make out where the relavent information is located. The files all look very relational to me, can someone shed light on how I could find what freq. FG uses for this signal? Regards Dene No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 2/8/05 ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Oh, just had a look at the nav.dat file. NZAA does not appear to be in it, so fg simply doesn't know to put any ILS or GS transmitters there. That would indicate that the info isn't in the DAFIF file. You may want to contact Robin Peal (robinp at xplane dot org) about getting the info into the sim database. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] licensing question
It doesn't really seem to make sense to release aircraft under the GPL as they aren't really source code. If an aircraft were released under the Creative Commons license, would it be compatible enough to be part of the base package? Or does GPL work fine? Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] slow framerates with Nvidia PIC Express underLinux solved !
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On July 28, 2005 12:36 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: There was a theory going the rounds that it was the PAPI/VASI lights which were/are the cause of the significant drop of frame rate around airports. Vivian Why can't just model them? It is ridiculous to see each light taken only 4 pixels when the camera is only a few meters away. Well, come up with a way where we can adjust the light color/intensity based on relative view angle, and the light is not visible (or barely visible) when viewed from behind. Our current approach is carefully crafted to do this pretty well, but depends on using glPoints for the lights. Smooth points is not implimented in hardware on game cards that I'm aware of. But we are only using a few of them in any scene so we get away with software rendered points just fine. Except nvidia rolls out their next driver version and these software rendered points have gotten excruciatingly slow on some cards ... but that now seems fixed in the latest driver. Curt. Well, I'm using an ATI 8500 and it's hitting me pretty hard, dropping it to about 15%-25% of normal. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Windows 98/me TAR unzipper recommendations
AJ MacLeod wrote: On Friday 29 July 2005 23:12, Dene Maxwell wrote: Can anyone please recommend a good TAR unzipper for windows? If I'm forced to use a Windows machine, I generally use 7-zip (http://www.7-zip.org) which certainly seems to do the job. Can't say with any authority whether it's the best though... AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I always used stuffit expander lite and was quite happy with it. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] slow framerates with Nvidia PIC Express underLinux solved !
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On July 28, 2005 12:36 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: There was a theory going the rounds that it was the PAPI/VASI lights which were/are the cause of the significant drop of frame rate around airports. Vivian Why can't just model them? It is ridiculous to see each light taken only 4 pixels when the camera is only a few meters away. Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I agree. Melchior's anticollison lights don't really hit performance at all. Given a property to tell them what color to be, this should be pretty trivial. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] alternative Cyborg-3D joystick file
Not to say that Melchior's version isn't good, but I just reworked my own version and I thought I would share. You may notice that the #0 button merely writes the word FOO to stdout. I'm working on a neat view trick that I will be tying into that button. Feel free of course to put whatever you want under that button! http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/scripts/Cyborg-Gold-3d-USB.xml Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] view.nas patch for locking view to a heading/elevation
Here is a patch to view.nas to enable locking the view to a certain direction regardless of the orientation of the aircraft. This is especially useful for landing approaches. To use this you will need to have two bindings: one that toggles /sim/view/lockview/active and one that executes view.setLockView(). The first turns the system on and off, and the second tells it what direction to point your eyes. Currently it does not handle roll, so it breaks as soon as you diverge from wings level. If anyone has any suggestions on how to fix that they are welcome. Also, if there is a better way to implement it using a new view, I would have no problem adding an eighth view that doesn't track aircraft movement. This may be a more elegant solution, as it could allow panning while the view is locked. I think this really gives a better feel for how the aircraft is moving. I would like to modify it and add another mode where the pilot's view tracks that of the aircraft orientation, but is run through a low-pass filter first. That would allow you to see the bucking of the airplane but still keep looking in a direction relative to the aircraft in the longer term. Stay tuned. With the addition of a headshake nasal script (in the works) this will add a huge amount of realism to the view in FG. Here's the CVS diff http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/lockview.1.diff Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] view.nas patch for locking view to a heading/elevation
Josh Babcock wrote: Here is a patch to view.nas to enable locking the view to a certain direction regardless of the orientation of the aircraft. This is especially useful for landing approaches. To use this you will need to have two bindings: one that toggles /sim/view/lockview/active and one that executes view.setLockView(). The first turns the system on and off, and the second tells it what direction to point your eyes. Currently it does not handle roll, so it breaks as soon as you diverge from wings level. If anyone has any suggestions on how to fix that they are welcome. Also, if there is a better way to implement it using a new view, I would have no problem adding an eighth view that doesn't track aircraft movement. This may be a more elegant solution, as it could allow panning while the view is locked. I think this really gives a better feel for how the aircraft is moving. I would like to modify it and add another mode where the pilot's view tracks that of the aircraft orientation, but is run through a low-pass filter first. That would allow you to see the bucking of the airplane but still keep looking in a direction relative to the aircraft in the longer term. Stay tuned. With the addition of a headshake nasal script (in the works) this will add a huge amount of realism to the view in FG. Here's the CVS diff http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/lockview.1.diff Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d OK, I'm convinced that using nasal and not a separate view is the way to go. First, when yo switch to another view you loose all sorts of data, like the viewpoint for that particular plane, and any adjustments the user has made to that viewpoint. These could be copied, but it doesn't seem to be elegant to me. More importantly, this is basically just a way of controlling the slew and is functionally no different than using the mouse to do so. You are just letting the computer handle it for you. So, I'm going to keep working on the nasal script. My big problem now is how to convert from global heading/inclination to the local reference system in the cockpit. I have no experience with this, is is normally done with matrices? how would one go about it in nasal? Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] view.nas patch for locking view to aheading/elevation
Jon Berndt wrote: I think this really gives a better feel for how the aircraft is moving. I would like to modify it and add another mode where the pilot's view tracks that of the aircraft orientation, but is run through a low-pass filter first. That would allow you to see the bucking of the airplane but still keep looking in a direction relative to the aircraft in the longer term. Stay tuned. With the addition of a headshake nasal script (in the works) this will add a huge amount of realism to the view in FG. I think this is a really slick idea. I hope it works out. Will be interested to try it out. Jon ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Patch is up there for the view lock. I'm wrestling with the headshaker now. Once that's done, I will put the lagging view filter in place and tehn go back and fix the view lock. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear server field test
Jon Stockill wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: I want to fly in Europe. =P How about LFBO? I live in Toronto, which is GMT -5:00. Since I am on summer break, I am pretty much free to do this at anytime. Where do you live and what time will be best for you? I'm in the uk (GMT+1). Late evenings here are probably best. By the way, If we fly with different planes, will we see each other's plane being different? The multiplayer packets include the model path - so provided you have the model installed I think it should be visible. Maybe it's best to fly something standard to start with. Jon ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I'm interested in this too. Perhaps it would be more interesting if everybody flew something with similar performance? That opens up the possibility of some formation flying. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear server field test
Andy Ross wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Robicd wrote: I keep getting UDP packets regarding other users flying around but I still don't see anyone with FGFS. I am right beside runway 28R in KSFO at the moment. See if you can see me. If only there were a chat channel that people could use to coordinate this kind of activity... Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Ha, true. This has me thinking though. Perhaps if thre were a RF system. Hit a key and type something, everyone in multiplay gets packets with the text and your comm's freq. If they have their radios tuned right then of course they see the text displayed. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear server field test
Robicd wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade ha scritto: On July 14, 2005 04:37 pm, Robicd wrote: I keep getting UDP packets regarding other users flying around but I still don't see anyone with FGFS. I am right beside runway 28R in KSFO at the moment. See if you can see me. I don't see anyone. Ethereal tells me there are Trep and aj2 online but I don't see them :-(aj2 tells me he sees me. Do you too? I am parked right at the KSFO 28R runway (in a taxiway). I'm using fgfs 0.9.8a Win32 binary. Is this the problem? What's your idea? Roberto ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I think Andy was subtly hinting that this conversation should be taking place on #flightgear. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear server field test
Robicd wrote: Andy Ross ha scritto: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Robicd wrote: I keep getting UDP packets regarding other users flying around but I still don't see anyone with FGFS. I am right beside runway 28R in KSFO at the moment. See if you can see me. If only there were a chat channel that people could use to coordinate this kind of activity... Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Good news and bad news. Localnetwork multiplayer works. I've managed with two PC a nice multiplayer. That means Win32 binary supports UDP networking Remote networking is still not working. I don't see anyone near KSFO 28R :-( Sometimes FGFS crashes because of the follwoing error: Fatal error: Failed to open file at g:/Programmi/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pc7/Models/pc7.xml (received from SimGear XML Parser) WARNGING: a disabled/broken routine has been called. This should be fixed! It's because of a network user having a plane in the directory Aircarft/pc7 which is not in my dir tree. That would need some error checking by FGFS client!!! FGFS crashes immediately after receiving a packet with that information inside (Ethereal is my friend :-) Roberto Roberto ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d My bad, I thought this was a standard plane. I'll use something else. In other news, that's a bug! Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Nimitz cables...hard to capture on landing
Bernhard Auzinger wrote: Yup. Seafire's the real test :-). Hint: fly the meatball. What is the meatball? Regards Bernhard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d It's the landing signal light. http://www.google.com/search?q=carrier+landing+meatball Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] AI dust storm anyone?
We have T-storms, how about one of these to chase you around? http://www.dla.mil/images/desert-Wall%20of%20Dust%20with%20Load.jpg Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
Vivian Meazza wrote: Melchior * Dave Culp -- Saturday 25 June 2005 15:50: It would be intuitive for the user to reset the sim and have the carrier scenario reset also. I would also feel better if we could restore its original location, NW of KHAF. The KSFO location with the carrier driving over land was only temporary for people to test, but that's IMHO too ugly. Sure, many people won't find it after that, but that's like in real life (assuming radio failure). :-) diff -u -p -u -0 -r1.4 nimitz_demo.xml --- nimitz_demo.xml 19 Mar 2005 09:56:35 - 1.4 +++ nimitz_demo.xml 25 Jun 2005 14:05:36 - @@ -25,4 +25,4 @@ -latitude37.63/latitude -longitude-122.34/longitude -speed10/speed -heading285/heading +latitude37.688/latitude +longitude-122.683/longitude +speed30.0/speed +heading180/heading m. Give us a break - it's hard enough as it is. On my TODO list is to provide Nimitz with a TACAN beacon. Which is why the Hunter and Seahawk have TACAN receivers. I'm afraid I haven't the slightest idea how right now. Not to mention proper flying courses for launch and recover. Meanwhile, back at the B29. V. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d You're flying the Superfort from a carrier !? :) Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
George Patterson wrote: Agreed. A couple of questions though Are the carrier capable aircraft fitted with sufficent radar for doing this?? If you mean in the real world, They have incredible radar range. Remember that their main radar is located at about FL350. That tends to get you a pretty remote horizon. I'm sure they have other tricks as well. Alternatively, what about the idea of having the carrier following a series of waypoints, returning to the first point after reaching the last? This was discussed before, it would leave the carrier going downwind about half the time or more. In the real world the lack of headwind would prevent operations. That's why carriers have such big engines, it's not to get places fast. It's to make wind. Even though, a sufficient tailwind can reduce the relative wind to the point where air ops are dangerous. Another quick solution would be to have the position of the carrier exposed in the internal properties. Which would make it possible to see the carrier on radar, with the help of a little nasal scripting. Someday it would be nice if all ships and aircraft would register their position, TCAS transponder and cross section for this purpose. I was also thinking about how to do ground returns for radar navigation and clutter, but could not come up with any ideas except having a whole separate set of ground data with radar reflectiveness, but even that would be a horrible and bloated hack. Every engineer I know who deals with radar systems say their behavior is very complex. Just a few possible ideas Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Spitfire guns
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Vivian Meazza -- Saturday 25 June 2005 18:51: Psst. I tell you, but don't tell anyone else: the bo105 doesn't have brakes, so I'm simply polling the brake property and don't have to mess with bindings: m.triggerN = props.globals.getNode(controls/gear/brake-left); m. :-) ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Well how does it stop? :) Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
Dave Culp wrote: I disagree. I think the aircraft should do *more* to set up scenarios that What if the user doesn't want these things? The way fg is set up they are pretty difficult to turn off. You really have to know your way around the property tree or preferences.xml to do this. Have you looked at my proposed changes? The user will see in the aircraft list that there are two T-38s, and that one has a radar demo built in. They have the choice of trying out the feature or just plain flying the plane. Failure to give a user an easy control over a preference setting is one of the great UI sins. Not being able to easily make software do what you want is a real turn-off for new users. Plus this would save us many conversations on this list about how to, for instance, land a T-38 on the Nimitz. A new user should not require tech support to do this. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
Oh, I just had another idea. Planes that contain a built in demo could have a flag set in their -set.xml files. That way --show-aircraft could highlight the demos, sort of like advertising to try new features. Additionally, this would let users filter that stuff out as well when they just want plain and simple flying. I also think that --show-aircraft would show which aircraft have virtual-cockpit set to true and also which have a 2d panel defined. Some people only like to fly the 3D planes (I'll admit I'm a 3D bigot). Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Fedora Core 4 x86-64 and FlightGear
Pete Buelow wrote: hope someone has an answer. BTW, I couldn't find a dev maillist, so Here ya go: http://www.flightgear.org/mail.html Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
Dave Culp wrote: FlightGear is *full* of presets that I don't care for at all, and I went through the learning process that everyone has to go through, wherein you learn how the preferences are read and in what order, and how to configure each run the way you want to. Maybe the folks running FG from the UI get a different concept of what FG is than those who don't? Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d No, I think that the configuration has just plain gotten more complicated than it has to be. Not that there are more options than there should be, just that configurations are getting hidden away in odd places. fg is so powerful that it is easy to abuse. We should probably be asking should I do this a lot more than can I do this. Whenever someone puts something in a file, they should be asking is this the right place to put this, does it make sense, what will it prevent?. Anyway, can someone grab those three files and commit them? They are very simple changes and make two T-38s, one with the radar demo activated and one without: tower:chords$ fgfs --show-aircraft Available aircraft: snip T38 Northrop T-38 T38-radarNorthrop T-38 refueling demo snip Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Josh Babcock wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 20:34, Josh Babcock wrote: Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Ah - an easy question ;) All of them:))) No seriously, I'm pretty bad picking what I want to do. How about this: Canberra (how come it's not in CVS?) or TSR-2. You pick, I do the 3-D cockpit and any stray bells and whistles I can think of. They both have plenty of data out there including manuals available on CD. I'm still gonna do the B-47, I love that plane. Just not now, you guys are right, completing existing planes should be the priority. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d OK, fine. I'll do the Canberra. Three of them live around here, though on is at the Smithsonian and not on display. They don't let people look at those anymore. Unfortunately these are all RB-75 a's and b's which have the greenhouse cockpit. None of the american versions had the I8 cockpit layout but maybe I can get some useful data. At the least I can take some reference shots of the landing gear. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On June 20, 2005 02:05 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On June 19, 2005 07:50 pm, Josh Babcock wrote: Eventually I will probably do the last two no matter what. Along with the B-29 they form the lineage of the Boeing 7X7 line, so I consider all three to be very important aircraft. Perhaps you should do some commercial airliners of the Boeing 7x7 lineage? Ampere After some thought, I think it will be benificial to FlightGear as a whole if you can do some touch ups to the current aircrafts before starting a new project. At the moment, there are way too many aircrafts that are only half finished, which includes my own. To be more specific, these aircrafts are in desperate need of a 3D cockpit. If you can raise the status of some of these aircrafts to early-production level, then they can be burnt onto CD's and sold, thus becoming another source of funding for FlightGear. Just off the topic of my head, the candidates for an update are: 737, 747, AN-225, the fokkers, MD-11, and the TU-154. I haven't checked other airliners, but I highly doubt that they are anywhere closed to being done either. Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Hmm, At various points I have thought about redoing the Harrier model or adding more detail to the Skyhawk. I thought the Harrier FDM was pretty complete, no? I've always been partial to Fokkers too. I'll have to look into those. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 05:26, Andy Ross wrote: Josh Babcock wrote: I'm not sure how well YASim and JSBsim do transonics and supersonics. I think you could do a V-tail in JSBsim though. Not sure though. YASim doesn't currently have good support for high supersonic aircraft; both the engine models and the aerodynamics would need a few hacks. You can do a V tail, though. Give the hstab a big dihedral, and add a split input to model the rudder control hookups. Andy To Josh: have a look at the YF-23 for V-tail stuff. Regarding authentic panels cockpits - I'd be delighted if anyone wants to do real ones for any of the a/c I've done. I guess I'm more interested in the flight characteristics of various aircraft than actually flying them. I'd be very interested to see a B-36 and a B-47 - they're both in the 'very-unlikely-to-ever-happen' section of the list of a/c I'd like to do. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Well, conveniently I love realistic FDMs, but do not consider generating them fun. Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Also, feel absolutely free to develop a B-29 YASim config. The existing one does not even pretend to be realistic. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 20:34, Josh Babcock wrote: Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Ah - an easy question ;) All of them:))) No seriously, I'm pretty bad picking what I want to do. How about this: Canberra (how come it's not in CVS?) or TSR-2. You pick, I do the 3-D cockpit and any stray bells and whistles I can think of. They both have plenty of data out there including manuals available on CD. I'm still gonna do the B-47, I love that plane. Just not now, you guys are right, completing existing planes should be the priority. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: I'll certainly have a look at the B-29 when you release it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Have a look now, it should be in CVS, yes Gerard? There is a file NOTES that has some collected notes about the aircraft. There is plenty of data on the web too. I also have a reprint of the original pilot's manual, but there is not too much data there. If you are interested I can collect all the flight related data out of the manual and put it into NOTES and mail it to you. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] next trick
So, I'm close enough to getting the b-29 done (and by close I mean less than a year) that I think I should start researching my next project. I've pretty much narrowed it down to the following: EC-135 (this would be a model of a local medevac helo, MedStar) B-36 B-47 Eventually I will probably do the last two no matter what. Along with the B-29 they form the lineage of the Boeing 7X7 line, so I consider all three to be very important aircraft. What would everybody out there like to see? Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
bass pumped wrote: What would everybody out there like to see? I was thinking maybe a couple of high performance... say the Eurofighter Typhoon... but I think a V-tail Beech Bonanza would be interesting!!! ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I'm not sure how well YASim and JSBsim do transonics and supersonics. I think you could do a V-tail in JSBsim though. Not sure though. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Jon Berndt wrote: I'm not sure how well YASim and JSBsim do transonics and supersonics. I Again, as long as the flight data is there or you can derive it or estimate it, then it can be modeled in JSBSim. The X-15 is a hypersonic vehicle - we've got plenty of data for that. Jon ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Oh, right. I guess I wasn't thinking there. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Re: Re: the --jpg-httpd option
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, you seem to be experts. I can imagine what effect jetwash has (fast hot air surrounded by stagnant cold air). But what consequence do wing tip vortices have to the aircraft? Does it mean to have more aerodynamic resistance at a specific amount of speed? Regards bernhard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Actually the problem with jetwash is the very low O2 content. When you rely on a combustion engine to keep you in the air, this kind of air is the last thing you want to run you intake or carburetor through. The huge wind shear is no treat either, but the flameout/engine stall is the bigger problem. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] heck of a landing
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=42576sectionId=45 ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the --jpg-httpd option
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:38:46 +0200, Erik wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've another question about flightgear. I'm playing it with my roomate in multiplayer mode and we are currently trying to fly some formation. But with the faster aircrafts (f16, YF-23) we sometimes lose each other and it takes a long time to get together again. So I would like to know if there is a onboard radar on the aircrafts? Not yet for MultiPlayer aircraft. When this code has been ported to use AIModels we will get it for free though. Erik ..to make formation flight realistic, we also need to model downwash and wing tip vortices. Meanwhile, have fun and join in developing it. ;o) Jetwash too. From what I understand, that can really ruin a nice formation. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Radeon 7000 configuration
Ralph Jones wrote: OK, removing the fglrx driver caused the glxgears speed to increase to ~2100 fps. However, X11R6.8.2 still refuses to make. Here's a link to the make log: http://www.nomeking.com/World.log rj At 10:45 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:35:27 -0600, Ralph wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks for the quick reply. I downloaded and tried to install the latest and greatest Xorg, X11R6.8.2...it halted with some error messages during the make install but it appears to have installed the ..uhuh. Reinstall it. drivers, because the config GUI let me select the Radeon 7000 card and glxinfo now reports direct rendering on. However, glxgears still only runs at about 500 fps. ... Here are links to my log and config files: http://www.nomeking.com/boot.log ..this tells me you forgot to lose something I told you to lose. http://www.nomeking.com/xorg.conf ..looks ok. http://www.nomeking.com/Xorg.0.log ..these lines are caused by what? (==) RADEON(0): Write-combining range (0xd000,0x400) drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999) drmOpenDevice: Open failed drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999) drmOpenDevice: Open failed drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci::01:00.0 drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is 6, (OK) drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 6 drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci::01:00.0 rj At 10:47 PM 4/7/2005, you wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:04:06 -0600, Ralph wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... I've downloaded and installed the Livna ati-fglrx driver, to no ..lose this, use X.org's radeon driver, has everything you need, set up X again and post a link to you /var/log/Xwhatever.log if you can't figure it out, these logs usually are pretty clear on what's wrong. effect, and haven't found much help on the Fedora fora. My xorg.conf and the output of glxinfo are below. Suggestions? Thanks... ..'lspci -v'? You may have to pull a few extra tricks if it is a PCI card on an AGP-slotted mobo or a mobo with integrated video. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ 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 I hope you get it working. I just switched over to x.org about an hour ago, and glxgears went from about 1300 to 2100. I thought gaining a few hundred from switching to the OSS radeon driver was neat. I don't know what that syntax error is about. I installed the same version following instructions on http://blogs.vislab.usyd.edu.au/index.php/Steve/2004/09/09/installing_a_non_intrusive_x and it went without a hitch. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Airports runways and Radio
Christian Mayer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Melchior FRANZ schrieb: * darko -- Thursday 07 April 2005 17:51: Thanks very much. I'll try all this stuff this evening. btw, I play on linux, I use win$ only here, at job. so I will surely use your scripts. OK, this script here will show you which frquencies to select for ATIS messages: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/freq But, unfortunately, this works only halfway, because the ATC subsystem doesn't yet use the frequencies from the main data base, but has its own ATIS/TWR/... lists, and these only contain a few entries. (But I know someone who will write us a script to generate these lists from the main database ... :-) Hm, can add an Web-Interface to those scripts and put them on the main FGFS server? Everybody could use them then... CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCVWNClhWtxOxWNFcRAnIFAJ9PFZouG3dclHQ9RVhFG8v76WpzsACeNHeJ Dbs9V73L+v7kWQtF7Wx5iTA= =WDr0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Yeah Melchoir, I *know* you have a whole load of useful stuff that you haven't released because it wasn't written for general consumption, but I think this community can muddle its way through. I've always found your scripts useful, and for one think it would be great if they were all available on a web page somewhere. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Nimitz
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:18:38 +0100, Roy wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tuesday 22 March 2005 05:20, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:05:28 -0500, MCVAY wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks Mathias: I think I'm getting there. Could you just talk me through how to comment out the nimitz_demo scenerio. I found nimitz_demo, tried a few things with it, but it won't let me proceed any further. Thanks for your patience! Doug I think that Mathias meant to _un_ comment out the nimitz_demo scenario. It's already commented out, and you need to remove the comment tags in $FG_ROOT/preferences.xml ..anything behind a # is a comment. To comment it out, do Comments in xml start with a !-- and end with a -- , _not_ #. ..duh! I'm bash'ed! ;o) ..Doug, Roy's right, # is for scripts that start #!/bin/bash or somesuch on the first line, the 3'rd major commenitng character you need to look out for here, is // in the C and C++ source. Or, in the case of e-mail and newsgroup posts, anything after IMHO can be safely ignored :) Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] fgfs messes with blender texture space?
Every time I run fgfs while blender 2.36 is running, it messes up the display of textures in blender which I usually have running in another workspace. Saving and reloading the .blend file fixes the problem. I'm using the radeon driver with 2.6.10 and Afterstep 2.00.03 and my fgfs is about a week old from CVS. Anyone else getting this? Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
Lee Elliott wrote: On Tuesday 01 March 2005 22:33, Josh Babcock wrote: [snip...] I wonder if it's being loaded by the startup scripts or the kernel before X even starts. I guess I will have to turn off X and restart to check. Josh Hmm... I just had another look at your lsmod o/p to check if if the agpgart module was being used and it looks like it is - by via_agp. I'm using an via chipset mobo too but I compile the via chipset support into the kernel as opposed to agpgart support, which I compile as a module. I dunno if this gets you anywhere but it might be worth trying. Do you have POSIX shared memory support enabled? This comes under Virtual memory filesystem support (former shm fs). I believe this is required for the ATI drivers. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Yeah, I have shared memory support. I'll try putting the via drivers in the kernel. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:23:23 -0500, Josh wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tower:jbabcock$ fglrxinfo display: :0.0 screen: 0 OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc. OpenGL renderer string: RADEON 8500 DDR Generic OpenGL version string: 1.3.4893 (X4.3.0-8.10.19) ..tried this card with the open source DRI driver radeon ? Yes, a long time ago. It was fairly disappointing. I'll have to check and see if it is working now. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 28 February 2005 22:23, Josh Babcock wrote: OK, this is making me feel kind of stupid. I never really had any problem with the fglrx driver before, but now I'm a bit stumped. I just completely rebuilt my system to take advantage of LVM and the deb package system as well as to upgrade to 2.6.10. Now, I seem to have fglrx working, but alas, 1 FPS in FG. dmesg reports *lots* of these: [fglrx:firegl_agp_lock_pages] *ERROR* agp_allocate_memory_phys_list failed Has anyone else seen this problem? Oh, to avoid confusion, the kernel and fglrx module did not come from a deb repository, I built them by hand. I just don't find the debian build process sane. I also held the Xfree packages so libGL.so wouldn't get clobbered. Josh Gory details below... [snipped...] Are you using the internal ATI agpgart or the 2.6.10 kernel module? I have the line Option UseInternalAGPGART yes [snip] Nope, I've got it set to yes. If I recall, using the kernel module led to fglrx spewing all sorts of errors in the X log and X falling back to Mesa. I also think I should note that even though I have FB support in my kernel config, using the line: Option UseFBDev true in XF86Config-4 results in X failing to load, with complaints from fglrx about not being able to access the frame buffer. This is really the same X config that I had working before. I think I either did something stupin in my kernel config or there is some change in the code causing a new problem. Thanks, Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
Lee Elliott wrote: On Tuesday 01 March 2005 21:41, Josh Babcock wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 28 February 2005 22:23, Josh Babcock wrote: OK, this is making me feel kind of stupid. I never really had any problem with the fglrx driver before, but now I'm a bit stumped. I just completely rebuilt my system to take advantage of LVM and the deb package system as well as to upgrade to 2.6.10. Now, I seem to have fglrx working, but alas, 1 FPS in FG. dmesg reports *lots* of these: [fglrx:firegl_agp_lock_pages] *ERROR* agp_allocate_memory_phys_list failed Has anyone else seen this problem? Oh, to avoid confusion, the kernel and fglrx module did not come from a deb repository, I built them by hand. I just don't find the debian build process sane. I also held the Xfree packages so libGL.so wouldn't get clobbered. Josh Gory details below... [snipped...] Are you using the internal ATI agpgart or the 2.6.10 kernel module? I have the line Option UseInternalAGPGART yes [snip] Nope, I've got it set to yes. If I recall, using the kernel module led to fglrx spewing all sorts of errors in the X log and X falling back to Mesa. I also think I should note that even though I have FB support in my kernel config, using the line: Option UseFBDev true in XF86Config-4 results in X failing to load, with complaints from fglrx about not being able to access the frame buffer. This is really the same X config that I had working before. I think I either did something stupin in my kernel config or there is some change in the code causing a new problem. Thanks, Josh Hmm... the fact that the agpgart module is loaded on your system seems to imply that the ATI internal agpgart isn't being used. Dunno why though. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I wonder if it's being loaded by the startup scripts or the kernel before X even starts. I guess I will have to turn off X and restart to check. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
OK, this is making me feel kind of stupid. I never really had any problem with the fglrx driver before, but now I'm a bit stumped. I just completely rebuilt my system to take advantage of LVM and the deb package system as well as to upgrade to 2.6.10. Now, I seem to have fglrx working, but alas, 1 FPS in FG. dmesg reports *lots* of these: [fglrx:firegl_agp_lock_pages] *ERROR* agp_allocate_memory_phys_list failed Has anyone else seen this problem? Oh, to avoid confusion, the kernel and fglrx module did not come from a deb repository, I built them by hand. I just don't find the debian build process sane. I also held the Xfree packages so libGL.so wouldn't get clobbered. Josh Gory details below, also see these files for even more gory details: For less gory details, take a look at my vacation pics in the home directory. http://home.comcast.net/~jrbabcock/temp/XF86Config-4 http://home.comcast.net/~jrbabcock/temp/XFree86.0.log http://home.comcast.net/~jrbabcock/temp/config-2.6.10 Driver version is: fglrx_4_3_0-8.10.19-1.i386 tower:jbabcock$ fgl_glxgears 892 frames in 5.0 seconds = 178.400 FPS 1119 frames in 5.0 seconds = 223.800 FPS 1119 frames in 5.0 seconds = 223.800 FPS 1120 frames in 5.0 seconds = 224.000 FPS tower:jbabcock$ glxgears 4752 frames in 5.0 seconds = 950.400 FPS 5456 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1091.200 FPS 5439 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1087.800 FPS 5441 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1088.200 FPS tower:jbabcock$ lsmod Module Size Used by fglrx 237500 7 lp 7912 0 8250_pnp7936 0 parport_pc 22404 1 parport20608 2 lp,parport_pc floppy 53648 0 i2c_viapro 6220 0 8250_pci 16704 0 8250 20996 2 8250_pnp,8250_pci serial_core19136 1 8250 via_agp 7424 1 agpgart28136 2 via_agp joydev 7872 0 evdev 7360 0 usbhid 23232 0 uhci_hcd 30160 0 usbcore 105464 3 usbhid,uhci_hcd 8139too20544 0 mii 3968 1 8139too snd_cmipci 29472 0 snd_pcm_oss48420 0 snd_mixer_oss 17536 1 snd_pcm_oss snd_pcm84232 2 snd_cmipci,snd_pcm_oss snd_page_alloc 7492 1 snd_pcm snd_opl3_lib9152 1 snd_cmipci snd_timer 21188 2 snd_pcm,snd_opl3_lib snd_hwdep 7236 1 snd_opl3_lib gameport3520 1 snd_cmipci snd_mpu401_uart 6144 1 snd_cmipci snd_rawmidi20064 1 snd_mpu401_uart snd_seq_device 6924 2 snd_opl3_lib,snd_rawmidi snd46116 10 snd_cmipci,snd_pcm_oss,snd_mixer_oss,snd_pcm,snd_opl3_lib,snd_timer,snd_hwdep,snd_mpu401_uart,snd_rawmidi,snd_seq_device soundcore 7392 1 snd ext2 57480 1 mbcache 6660 1 ext2 tulip 46944 0 cpuid 2436 0 tower:jbabcock$ fglrxinfo display: :0.0 screen: 0 OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc. OpenGL renderer string: RADEON 8500 DDR Generic OpenGL version string: 1.3.4893 (X4.3.0-8.10.19) tower:jbabcock$ glxinfo name of display: :0.0 display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: Yes server glx vendor string: SGI server glx version string: 1.2 server glx extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context client glx vendor string: ATI client glx version string: 1.3 client glx extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context, GLX_ARB_get_proc_address, GLX_ARB_multisample, GLX_ATI_pixel_format_float, GLX_ATI_render_texture GLX extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc. OpenGL renderer string: RADEON 8500 DDR Generic OpenGL version string: 1.3.4893 (X4.3.0-8.10.19) OpenGL extensions: GL_ARB_multitexture, GL_EXT_texture_env_add, GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array, GL_S3_s3tc, GL_ARB_occlusion_query, GL_ARB_point_parameters, GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp, GL_ARB_texture_compression, GL_ARB_texture_cube_map, GL_ARB_texture_env_add, GL_ARB_texture_env_combine, GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar, GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3, GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat, GL_ARB_transpose_matrix, GL_ARB_vertex_blend, GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object, GL_ARB_vertex_program, GL_ARB_window_pos, GL_ATI_element_array, GL_ATI_envmap_bumpmap, GL_ATI_fragment_shader, GL_ATI_map_object_buffer, GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3, GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once, GL_ATI_vertex_array_object, GL_ATI_vertex_attrib_array_object, GL_ATI_vertex_streams, GL_ATIX_texture_env_combine3, GL_ATIX_texture_env_route, GL_ATIX_vertex_shader_output_point_size, GL_EXT_abgr, GL_EXT_bgra, GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_func_separate, GL_EXT_blend_minmax, GL_EXT_blend_subtract, GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint,
[Flightgear-users] Cool photo
Found a link to this on fark.com. http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=777174size=Lsok=photo_nr=prev_id=next_id= Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Frame Rates and general performance questions
Mark Wells wrote: Well, for lack of a better word, it's too damn *touchy* The thing my dad noticed(he's one of the real pilots) was that he had a much harder time trimming it out than on a real plane. The real thing tends to be more stable I guess. Basicly, from my POV, you have to constantly fight with JSB to keep it on track, whereas a real plane tends to more readily go where you point it. It's like you have to compensate *constantly* to keep it on track. The one time I've been in the copilots seat in a real plane, the pilot didn't have to move the yoke or pedals around to get and keep the plane lined up with the runway anywhere NEAR as much as you have to in jsb. Try doing an approach in yasim and you'll see what I mean. This is also the same basic difference I noticed between JSB and FS2004. It's almost like JSB's been over-engineered. The expression it flies great on paper comes to mind. And no disrespect to the jsb team(flightgear gives me a woody), I'm just offering the best feedback I can. Yasim just seems to fly more like a real plane except on takeoff. As for the weirdness on takeoff, it's simple. After you get a little speed up, and you go to steer the plane to keep it on the runway, it tips over! In a way, it's kind of doing on the ground what jsb is doing in the air, only much much worse. It's almost impossible to keep it on the runway and make a nice takeoff. It could be I'm overcompensating because of my low frame rate. I can steer the plane great on the ground in jsb, but I usually end up taking off from grass in yasim. Once it's in the air it flies great. Just my $.02 - hope it is helpful and constructive as it was intended. Any thoughts on how to get my frame rate up? Mark PS: please pass this along to the JSB team if you think it will help. Thanks! Mark Wells wrote: I now realize that I should have been using yasim rather than jsbsim. The only problem I have with yasim is that the plane does really weird things at takeoff until it's airborne. Once it is, it flys great! I'm a little confused. You're using the YASim c172 model? This one doesn't get much (er, any) attention in the way of tuning. I'm surprised it still solves, honestly. :) But nonetheless I'm happy that it's working for you. If you can provide more detail on the really weird behavior you are seeing on the ground, we can try to work out a fix. Likewise, I'm sure the JSB folks would be interested to hear about what you don't like about the default model. Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither --Ben Franklin ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users I have noticed something like this in yasim as well. It is only a real problem on tail dragger props, but it may be lurking in there more subtly for other planes as well. What happens is this: First, I adjust mixture, lock the tail wheel, set flaps etc. Then I pull back on the stick and run up the engine to full power and release the brakes. The plane immediately drifts left, so I put in some right rudder, usually about half. at about 50-60 kts (less for the j3) I simultaneously ease the stick forward to let the tail wheel up and kick in some more right rudder, and then promptly do a ground loop to the left. This usually happens around 90 kts in the p51 and it's really violent. I'm usually going backwards in about 2 plane lengths. The only way I have found to get around this is to keep the tail wheel on the ground right up (almost) to rotation speed and to ease the power up very slowly. This takes up several hundreds extra feet of runway compared to running up the engine before releasing the brakes. Sometimes I end up lifting off with the main wheels first, which can also be interesting. I have seen this in the j3, the dc-3 and worst of all the p51d. Is my tail dragger technique bad? I always thought that by the time you can get the tail wheel off the ground you should not need full rudder to stay straight. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] new video card
My 8500 has worked great with the fglrx drivers for about the last year. Before that, the drivers weren't that good. The performance is great for an old card and it has lots of configuration options. the only proplem is that the documentation is non-existant, and I haven't figured out how to turn some of the stuff on, like FSAA. Easy to install too, once you do it the first time. Josh Curtis L. Olson wrote: rh wrote: I see everyone slamming ATI but I have had no problem getting my ATI 9100 to work, 3D and all. For an inexpensive card, I am happy so far with it's performance, not just in FGFS, but under Linux in general. That's good to hear. The world is definitely a better place (for end users anyway) when there is a healthy bit of competition. I've had good luck with nvidia all along and I know how to make their cards work, so I've stuck with them. It sounds like some people are having trouble getting their ATI cards to do 3d correctly in linux so maybe they just need a nudge here or there in the right direction by someone who knows how to make them work? Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
[Flightgear-users] looking for ac-in_2-28-B.py ... in vain?
I'm looking for .ac import/export python scripts for Blender. After checking the archives I looked at http://igspot.ig.com.br/*wgermano*/programming/ but got a 404. Anybody know if there are scripts available that work with 2.28? I have the ones for 2.25 but they are broken for 2.28. Thanks, Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
