Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: CVS simgear : error during compilation
Hi Dene, Hi guys, I can't get FGv099 working despite all the help that Georg has provided out-of-forum. Once again, if you want the developers to help you, your best bet is to tell the developers: post where they're most likely to see it, which is in flightgear-devel, rather than flightgear-users. Developers do come here, but not in as great numbers, and they're less likely to read everything (particularly something buried deep in an existing thread like this one). When you post there, provide useful information. This: I suspect it might be a video card problem as I'm only using a 32Mbyte GF2 MX card and I suspect the new features demand more video memory than is available. I am trying to get a 0.5-1.0Ghz PIII, 512Mbyte, Nvidia 512Mbyte, 7200rpm HDD, Win 98SE/(*nix) dual boot PC sorted with Santa :-) is all useful information, but this I can't get FGv099 working isn't. You need to tell people exactly what the problem is, in detail. How does it fail? What do you try to do, and what happens? Otherwise, the developers won't be able to reproduce the problem; and without being able to reproduce it, it's nearly impossible to fix, since it could be anything. If you can, *please* take a look at: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html It is an absolutely fabulous (and not *too* long) essay on how to report bugs -- how to give the developers what they need to solve the problem. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Pulling to the Right
Ron Waite: My joystick is perfectly aligned. How did you check this when people asked? For instance, did you try pulling the joystick entirely and taking off by keyboard, and then experienced exactly the same problem with all the same aircraft? The reason people are gravitating towards this reply to you is because the kind of problem you're reporting has infrequently been reported in the past, and it's always been because of joystick issues. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Complaints about v0.9.9
Eric Brasseur writes: He got mad. He was wrong to do so, we all agree on this. I think the response that was sent to him; look, you didn't pay for it, so don't complain Full stop. No, I don't agree -- that's not the response he got. The response he got was more along the lines of this is the one zillionth time you've yelled at us about this in the last several months, and it's getting really frustrating. Your email advises patience, and I agree wholeheartedly; but not without limit. Requiring patience-without-limit of developers is unrealistic and unfair, and is the path to burned-out developers who quit. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Custom sceneries and new a/c, are there any? Comments...
Hi. Chris Wilkinson writes: If flightgear lacks something some other sims don't it is a wide selection of newly developed a/c models/liveries and custom-made sceneries. My attempts to compile fgsd, taxidraw, and ppe have been disastrous, with dependencies between all these somehow not gelling together to give me working software. 1. Forget ppe. It's a dead project as far as I can tell, and (almost?) everything you'd do with it you can do with Blender or AC3D instead. In addition, I know Blender has lots of helpful documentation and online tutorials available. 2. taxidraw . . .I never had any problems compiling it. If you are, speak up, preferably over in flightgear-devel where the folks who work on it (particularly David Luff) are most likely to see your post. People can't help you if they don't know you need help. 3. fgsd has its own mailing list, fgsd-devel, where compile time issues sometimes get discussed. See http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/ Be aware that fgsd is currently in a state of serious change -- Fred's working away like crazy on it -- and that consequently a lot of the build requirements have changed recently. So here I am putting a question to the fgfs community and devs... fgfs, in my view, has developed into a great framework, with highly accurate flight dynamics (for the most part), and a large feature set. I am now of the opinion that adding new features and turning it into the most accurate flightsim on the planet is not going to attract more users unless they can download their fave a/c and fly it at a recognisable fave airport with their fave livery. I have wanted to land an Emirates 777-300ER at NZCH on runway 20 with the view of the Port Hills to my left, and then on take-off turn a sharp left and see Hagley park below and other noted landmarks that make my birth city recognisable from above. I've got satellite imagery to create that reality but the tools I require cannot compile on my SuSE 10 system so I cannot add them to fgfs. It's important to be careful about terminology. FG uses scenery to refer to not only ground structures and other such objects, but also terrain detail. FG scenery (in the sense of terrain) is built by a sister project, TerraGear, that uses publicly available datasets to set the surface elevation and the land cover (urban/forest/river/whatever) at various points. These datasets have a disadvantage in that their spatial resolution is not so great (well, the elevation data isn't too bad -- 30.5 lateral resolution or less, IIRC -- but the landcover data isn't so good, which is why you see roads and rivers passing through airports and stuff like that). There are better datasets out there (using VMAP1 instead of VMAP0 data), but we don't have access to global coverage and so there'd be issues on the boundaries between regions where one dataset vs. the other is used; plus the way in which this data is placed into the terrain would actually mean more polygons for better resolution data, which could possibly cause problems for folks with slower machines/video cards. In order to improve the actual terrain, you'd need to be able to build TerraGear and edit its input data. That's very non-trivial. The hope is that we'll soon have a database available where people can submit terrain tweaks; TerraGear will then draw from that database in the process of building official scenery (terrain). But in the meantime, changing the terrain is hard. Changing airports . . .you need TaxiDraw, and either TerraGear or patience. TaxiDraw doesn't change the airport, but rather changes a written description of the airport layout, which TerraGear then uses to create the airport and embed it into the scenery. The written description can be submitted (to David Luff directly now? or still to Robin Peel?) and in principle it'll show up in the next TerraGear official scenery build -- hence the patience part. If you need help getting TerraGear and TaxiDraw compiled, there *are* people who will help you -- TerraGear on its own mailing list, TaxiDraw on flightgear-devel. For adding buildings/landmark objects to the scenery, since you're on Linux, you really only need Blender and the Gimp. You shouldn't have any issues with compiling either of those, because you shouldn't need to compile them, since they both come with SuSE for free. For making aircraft liveries, the Gimp should be all that's needed. Again, there should be no issue whatsoever with having this working on your machine. Of course getting a 777-300ER model working would be tricky, even taking an existing fs2k2 or 2k4 model would be highly awkward. I *can* make a reasonable job of a new livery... I'm not aware that it's possible to import FS2k4 models. It seems like with every release, MS obfuscates their file formats still further, requiring big feats of reverse engineering to figure it all out. It was possible with older models, I understand, but I don't know that it is with
Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 has bug in view synchronization?
Hi Dai. I'm not able to help you directly with your problem, but I want to say that you'll be much more likely to have developers see your problem if you post where the developers are. So you might want to try the flightgear-devel mailing list instead. There are developers who read flightgear-users, but there are more of them reading more of the stuff over there. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
I downloaded 0.9.9 source code and compiled on this AMD64 3000+ computer, with Ubunut for Amd64 version. The compilation is fine. But the application quit after loading scenary objects. The error is: *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (!prev): 0x09f8ce70 *** I have the latest CVS backpackage, FG and SG. Hi. If you're confident you built things OK and are still getting this error, then I suggest you post it to the developers' list, where the developers are more likely to see it and respond to it. I'm about to switch to an AMD64-based machine, and FG is supposed to run on AMD64 just fine; so I'm curious to see if you can get this fixed. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
Hi. If you're confident you built things OK and are still getting this error, then I suggest you post it to the developers' list, where the developers are more likely to see it and respond to it. Why developers don't read user-mail! You just teach something new. Well, I wouldn't say developers don't read flightgear-users. I would say that a post is *more likely* to be read and acted upon by developers in -devel than in -users. The fraction of the developers that read -devel is higher than the fraction of the developers that read -users; and the fraction of the developers that read -devel thoroughly is higher than the fraction of the developers that read -users thoroughly. That's true in in most open source projects I've had anything to do with. For example, there are some (very few, but some) Debian developers that poke around in the debian-user mailing list from time to time, but almost none that try hard to read it thoroughly (these days, I'm not aware of any at all, in fact). Cheers, -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Some FG videos...
Hi all, Cooked up some FG videos for everyone's pleasure... http://pigeond.net/photos/flightgear/videos/ Perhaps in the future we could make some short video clips for little parts of various FG flying tutorials too. Fantastic stuff. What hardware (processor/mobo/video card) are you using to make the videos? I notice that your videos have framerates in the corner and I just wanted to add to the vague sense of relative FG performance I keep in my head for hardware purchase reasons, hehe. -c P.S. I looked at your my machines section of your webpage. Is that current? Are you getting those framerates with a P3-600 while doing multiplayer? What video card? ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Scene graph
3. Code optimization is the hardest, Talking completely out of my butt here . . .but I remember Matthias Froelich's plib changes that bought us a lot of performance in this regard; that certainly suggests that there may still be ground to be gained that way. But I also remember some discussion in -devel that a better route may be to switch to OpenSceneGraph from plib's SSG. I don't doubt that that's a very non-trivial route to go. I guess I'm just wondering what the people who actually know something about OpenGL coding see as our possible courses in this regard for the future . . . -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Graphics Cards for FG
dedicated boxes seem to be the preferred way to go so I've been looking at graphics cards as a place to start. A couple of questions; What's the significance of AGP? Has anyone had any experience with the GF MX4000 cards? Dene _ Become a fitness fanatic @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/health ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Graphics Cards for FG
I've seen alot of discussion on graphics cards and their suitability for FG. dedicated boxes seem to be the preferred way to go so I've been looking at graphics cards as a place to start. Dunno what you mean by a dedicated box -- I've run FG on a couple of different machines on which I also do plenty of other things (some development, some audio work, etc.). But it's certainly true that if you give some thought in advance to a configuration that won't give you trouble with FG, you'll be happier with its performance. What's the significance of AGP? In x86-based PC systems (as opposed to Macintoshes, for instance), your video card could be plugged into one of three different interfaces. You could, for instance, have a PCI video card; such a video card would go into one of the standard PCI expansion slots, where other cards (like ethernet cards, sound cards, TV cards, etc.) often go. Or, it could be an AGP video card, where it would go into the AGP slot, assuming the motherboard has one. AGP cards and slots in turn come in several types based on speed -- 1x/2x/4x/8x, the number being a multiple of the base speed. You really only see 4x or 8x these days. The physical connection is the same, but the maximum speed of communication between video card and rest-of-system is limited by the speed of the AGP link. Or, you could have a PCI-Express (PCI-E, for short) video card, which would go into a PCI-E slot on your motherboard. These are new -- the newest motherboards and video cards are made for PCI-E. It has advantages over AGP -- the maximum throughput you can get is faster, and it doesn't share the bus with anything else so heavy traffic elsewhere on the bus doesn't slow down the video connection (in contrast to AGP, which is really just a souped-up part of the PCI bus, and so if you're using the ethernet connection heavily, your video performance can be effected). PCI-E connections and cards come in a range of physical sizes -- larger connectors equate to more data lines and thus higher throughput. The fastest are x16 connections, and right now those are being exclusively used for the latest sexiest video cards. This is a great way to go, but will cost you some serious cash. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has done any systematic look into whether FG benefits from PCI-E x16 over AGP 8x -- that is, whether its demands on the video card are so heavy that you can really benefit (in frames-per-second, for instance). It's not an easy question to answer anyway, since PCI-E comes on the latest motherboards, and thus is typically being used with the latest processors and faster memory; so there are multiple factors involved. All of this is explained well, and in detail, at Wikipedia and other sites, btw. Google Is Your Friend. -c P.S. Has anyone had any experience with the GF MX4000 cards? I have not. I used an nVidia Ti4600 at AGP4x for quite a while, and liked it a lot. Those aren't made anymore, but you can pick them up used on eBay for fairly cheap nowadays (that's what I did). ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Graphics Cards for FG
Hello, Only an information I do have A 6600GT AGP with 128K mem GPU 500 MHZ MEM 900MHZ Running FG 1400X1050 and Atlas I get from 30 to 100 fps. I cannot use full anti aliasing only x2 (more the FPS decrease) To be comfortable with others applications mem 256K would have been better. Are you sure you don't mean 128 MB and 256 MB, rather than kB? I don't know of a video card with under 1 MB in video RAM released in the last seven or eight years. The nVidia Ti4200's from 2001/2002 came with 64MB or 128MB. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Concorde Over Nimitz
Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 à 15:37 +0100, MPCEE French Bureau a écrit : Hello All: The first over pass! When it is possible to have the instant replay, keeping Nimitz within the replay, I will take some more shots of a virtual landing for the FG Album. http://www.mpcee.com/concordeovernimitz.htm Enjoy! Martin Oh sorry, i get nothing, but a blank page That's what I got too. So I looked at the page source, and it looks like it's an HTML file that was generated by MS Word, and MS Word is inserting a non-standards-compliant stylesheet into the page. I expect IE handles it just fine, but a non-Microsoft browser is likely to choke on it (which is MS's intent). If you view the page source and look towards the bottom, you'll see a path to the image itself; you can then point your browser at that image to see it. Cheers, -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Windows FGv9.9 and FGTools - CVS - WIN32 Compiling
I'm quite familiar with the concept of compling having a history of writing programs and compiling in Fortran (Portran), Turbo Pascal and most recently Visual Basic 6. In particular, I like Visual Studios IDE (Integrated Development Environment) having used it for VB6. The missing link seems to be from CVS to C++ source code. CVS is not a programming language; you don't convert CVS anything to C++ source code. CVS is a software application, used in a client-server fashion (i.e. there's a CVS server, and users interact with the CVS server by running their own CVS client programs . . .sorta like how you use a web browser (the client) to interact with webservers). What CVS is used for is to archive/store source code, and in particular keep track of all the changes that have been made to that source code. Developers use CVS to manage all the source code for a particular project: people can check out a copy of the source code, build executables from it, run it, make changes, build it, run it, make changes, etc., and when they're done, submit their changes back to the server. CVS makes managing the code and its versions/changes easy (well, easier, anyway); it also helps handle situations such as when two people are working on the same chunk of code at the same time, and want to submit changes to a file that don't necessarily mesh well. When people talk about building FlightGear from CVS, what that means is using a CVS client (for example, if you're on Windows, you can use WinCVS) to check out a copy of the FlightGear project from the FlightGear CVS server. Once you've done that, you have a source tree for FlightGear -- a bunch of directories/folders, subdirectories, etc., all full of the C++ source code files that FlightGear is built from. You can then proceed to build the FlightGear executable from that CVS version of the source code using whatever C++ compiler you have; the actual details of building FGFS depends upon OS/setup, and I'm not a Windows person so I'd have to stop here. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: carriers
MPCEE French Bureau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like with TACAN, it does NOT work for me and certainly does NOT give me the direction towards the Nimitz. As an ex naval aircrew having many years experience of finding carriers day and night, I think I know when something is working or not. Sigh. If what you've been trying to do is report something that you believe is a bug, you're not doing it in an effective or helpful way. Plus, the tone of this post seems purely intended to antagonize people. The purpose of a bug report is *not* to tell someone that something is broken. The simple fact is that the vast majority of bug reports are attributable to user error, misconfiguration at the user's end, etc. It doesn't work isn't useful information; if it didn't work at all, someone would have noticed, including people who have tried it and who think it worked for them; and so there's likely to be something different about your situation or what you're expecting to see, and that information needs to be provided. So telling someone that something isn't working for you isn't enough. The purpose of the bug report is to tell the developers everything they need to know to be able to see whatever's wrong happen for them just like it's happening for you. Without this, they cannot reproduce the problem; and without reproducing the problem, it's incredibly difficult to solve it. I heartily encourage you to take a look at How to Report Bugs Effectively, at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html It's a brief, well-written piece that will help you not just here, but with any software or hardware issue with any provider, open source or commercial. Cheers, -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Windows FGv9.9 and FGTools - Help Me to HelpYou
Jon Stockill wrote: Melchior FRANZ wrote: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/nimitz.jpg [22 kB] How did you generate that pic? Looks like a virtual aerial photo/sat photo - something I could find rather useful :-) I figured he just took the UFO up very high on a cloudless day and did a screenshot; then wrote the text in with the Gimp or something like that. You're hoping for something less labor-intensive for generating the shot itself, I'm betting! -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] pre-release 0.9.9 on Win32
-Original Message- From: Eric Brasseur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:20 PM To: 'FlightGear user discussions' Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] pre-release 0.9.9 on Win32 Kevin Jones wrote: Hi all, There seems to be some debate about whether FG pre-release 0.9.9 is (or was) available for Windows. I'm going to proverbially pop my head over the parapet in support of the FG developers. 0.9.9 *is* available for Win32 in the same way that it's available for other platforms...as source code (I've just checked the source code download page). It's not hard to build the source code on Win32. I used to think it was hard because all of the information to build for Win32 was fragmented around the message forums. To try and relieve that pain I spent many hours learning how to build FG source for Win32 then wrote a PDF document to help others. That doc has been reviewed and is now hosted on the FG Downloads - Tutorials section (thanks AJ, Curt and others). The tools to compile FG are, like FG itself, FREE. I'd like to politely ask the readers of this forum that they remember FG is free and, for those that are using the sim rather than contributing to the project, take a moment to consider how many hours the developers have committed. This is their own time purely for the love of the hobby (I assume?!?). Please, please, please stop badgering the developers. Try downloading the document, downloading the build tools (Cygwin), downloading the source and having a go at verifying the source. As Curt recently said...the more people that verify the pre-release source the less chance there is of releasing problems. My final comment - if you truly believe there is a problem then try making a positive contribution. Reliable documentation, for example, is just as valuable as the code itself. My personal thanks to all of the FG developers...may you all continue to give up your time for this *excellent* FREE product. I hope I mentioned FREE enough times in that message :) Kevin. Hello Kevin, I think that you spoke the truth but that the truth is not always what matters. I think we shouldn't care about who has merits and who is responsible. The Open Source strategy is brilliant. To me FlightGear just has some problems of tactics. End users are a little dumb when it comes to compiling things, even with a neat procedure listed. Whatever precise and reliable the procedure, they simply don't understand the words. Even if they understand the words, they're afraid. They already have so many problems with their system... I once installed Cygwin and used it. It wasn't simple at all. It took me gigabytes of DSL bandwidth. The developers must adapt to the end users, not the opposite. It's quite possible that I'm not getting what you're saying. I read you as saying that for the most part, the FG-on-Windows user community isn't going to get it when it comes to making the kind of contributions to testing that developers need, and so the developers have to do whatever is necessary to make things easy for the Windows users to try the software out and report problems -- becasue if the developers don't do this, the Windows users just aren't going to provide that input/info. Do I have you correctly? Assuming that I do . . .first of all, it's important to understand that the project doesn't have a huge number of developers contributing; and of those that are, very very few of them (one or two?) are working on the Windows platform; and of those that do, they are limited in time available to contribute (like all of us). For example, I can't do anything to make it easier for Windows users because I don't own a Windows machine, I don't use Windows, and I don't have access to a Windows machine on which I could work on FG-related stuff. So what you're essentially doing is telling the very small number of Windows contributors -- people who probably got involved, and sustain their interest in the project, because of things they were excited about working on -- what they should be doing with their very limited time *instead* of working on what they find interesting and what keeps them enthusiastic about committing their limited time to the project. Can you see how that might rub some people the wrong way? And so developers tend to respond to stuff like this with the thing that first came to my mind when reading your post: It sounds like this is important to you; so it seems to me that this would be a fabulous way for you to get started contributing to the project. I've seen this paraphrased earlier in this thread as fix it yourself, which may make it seem like the poster is being blown-off; but I assure you that that's not the case. That is the path by which more or less *every* contributor to *every* open source project got started working on that project -- they saw something that they thought would be worth doing, and
Re: [Flightgear-users] Windows FGv9.9 and FGTools
It was a really hard decision for me to change from the FLY! world to FlightGear at the middle of this year. I was only watching the mailing lists for a long time and was aware of the rough and often very unfriendly tone you find here. Sometimes you have the impression of stay away, you are disturbing or grow up until you can play with us or it is our toy, we don't want you. I understand how it's possible to get that impression; I've gotten that impression in other venues, when I was attempting to interact with people who 1) knew a lot more about the topic at hand than I did, or 2) knew each other much better than any of them knew me, etc. At the same time, though, I have to say that I myself never got that impression here. The only times that I've ever had the impression that a user was being reacted to somewhat coldly or harshly was when developers were being told what to do. Nobody likes being told what to do, least of all people who have donated a ton and a half of their limited free time to give something to others. Please, there are also a *lot* of very nice and helpful people and I am *very* thankful for all the *personal* help I got in the last months but if we freely invite people to post their problems on the lists (in the AVSIM forum there are several posts which suggest to mail the problems to th *developer* ((not user)) list) then we will get here what we have - very helpless, naive and often very *young* users with very *difficult* problems related to the wide spread of PC hardware and software. You're right -- as the user base of FG increases, there's going to be a lot more people running into a lot more problems, and reporting those problems in sketchy ways that are on the surface uninformative (I tried FlightGear and it doesn't work. Please help.). And I agree that as things stand, those users and their problems aren't addressed *optimally*. Heck, I don't think bug reports even from clued users are handled optimally (I do believe that a project this size could benefit in a number of ways -- both development and PR-related -- from a BTS, for example). But the main reason this is so is the limited number of developers and the limited amount of time they have. And as long as that's the case, finding fault with the developer community for not handling naive users more gingerly and effectively risks coming across as you need to do things the way I say, rather than the way you want. There are people who have stepped up to address parts of these issues. I've noticed recently a lot of attention being given to documentation by some comparatively new contributors, which I think is fabulous. In the end, that's the solution to issues like this -- people with free time and interest contributing both. And, we always should be aware that only a *very* !!! small group of user who have difficulties with FlightGear are motivated to ask for help. Many, many (and I know that from own experiences with friends and colleages) throw it away after a quick test when there are problems, they won't mail, post or show up as an important group. I agree with this 100% -- I've seen it. But at the same time, it's also important to be aware that we have a *very* !!! small group of developers, and making their involvement unpleasant for them is the fast lane to their losing interest and thinking why am I subjecting myself to this when I could be at the pub drinking a beer and watching my favorite soccer team lose again? I've seen *that* happen a lot of times too. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Scrolling views crashes plane
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 07:18, Dene Maxwell wrote: After about an hour of flying, scrolling through the views and restoring from the tower view to the chase view causes the aircraft(on auto-pilot) to loose control and crash.. Under Win 98Me with all other precesses except systray and explorer shut down Pentium 4, 1.8GHz, 256kbyte Ram, 32 NeVidia Graphics Card No error messages in the fgfs window. any ideas? This sounds to me much more like a problem of your own hardware and/or software than a FlightGear problem. Why don't you try a slightly more robust operating system than that crappy Windows ME ? (XP, Linux) It may also be your videodriver (is it a recent one ?) and/or a problem of the videocard. Just out of curiosity, can you elaborate on this? How did you decide that it looked like a hardware problem or an OS/video driver problem? -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear IRC on GAIM 1.2
So I have GAIM 1.2, which seems to support IRC, but under account setup, what do I put for user ID and password? And where do I put the channel name? Your question basically boils down to how do I use GAIM to access an IRC server/channel? Just a thought, but unless someone here specifically uses GAIM to access IRC (which is pretty uncommon, even among Linux users -- xchat is far and away the most commonly used Linux IRC client), you might be better off asking how do I use GAIM to access an IRC server/channel? in a forum about GAIM. IOW, you don't want a FlightGear user so much as you want a GAIM user that uses GAIM to access IRC; http://gaim.sourceforge.net/ will probably be a lot more helpful. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
