On Dienstag 19 Oktober 2004 21:23, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Hmm,
I am not satisfied with anything which is only working on a per frame
basis.
Just because, if so, we will have different bevour of our physical models
dependent of the frammerate.
I think I put this bit badly. The geodetic
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
Sent: 20 October 2004 07:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
On Dienstag 19 Oktober 2004 21:23, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Hmm,
I am not satisfied with anything which is only working on a per frame
I would like to have those positions of the arrester wires not in lat/lon/alt
but rather than in earth centered coordinates (cartesian coordinates: x
towards lat/lon=0, z towards northpole). Just because we already have all
scenery values stored in this format. We have a scenery reference
On 10/19/04 at 8:41 PM Paul Surgeon wrote:
I suggest that changes made override the official data until someone has
a
chance to review the problem airport. We can't have people spending hours
building nice taxiways and then having the runways dancing around the
place
every time there is an
On 10/19/04 at 11:57 AM Chris Metzler wrote:
Finally, I'm wondering how you're going to handle conflicts between future
X-Plane data releases, and changes that people have sent to you. For
example, suppose an FG user sends some changes to an airport to you; and
suppose some X-Plane user sends
Hi everyone,
I've downloaded the CVS patches to update my version of FlightGear.
They compile but I've a lot of problems from the linker. They are:
kr_87.obj : error LNK2005: public: __thiscall FGKR_87::FGKR_87(class SGPropertyNode
*) (??0FGKR_87@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@@Z) already defined in
Roy Vegard Ovesen
Sent: 20 October 2004 00:32
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Submodels
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 19:42, Vivian Meazza wrote:
It's not obviously a path problem. My preferences.xml file was updated
at
15:22 yesterday, and has the
On 10/19/04 at 11:57 AM Chris Metzler wrote:
I'm wondering whether we know what the X-Plane format really *is*.
Since the beginning of September, Robin Peel has been saying that a
new set of files are coming out next weekend, September 18. But he
also says that these files won't work at all
I've solved the linker error in the kr_87 object. It's an error in the file
instrument_mgr.cxx into the
include list, caused by the include of a the file kr_87.cxx instead of kr_87.hxx.
The other problems still remain.
Bye, Luce
Selon Luca Masera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've solved the linker error in the kr_87 object. It's an error in the file
instrument_mgr.cxx into the
include list, caused by the include of a the file kr_87.cxx instead of
kr_87.hxx.
The other problems still remain.
It's already fixed in CVS.
-Fred
When I run fgfs to replay a data file which I saved, I got the following error:
Running Main Loop
===
Updating time
Current Unix calendar time = 1098302223 warp = 28320
Current GMT = 10/20/2004 19:57:3
Current Unix calendar time = 1098302223 warp = 28320
Current GMT =
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I run fgfs to replay a data file which I saved, I got the following error:
Could you provide all the command line options used to save the flight
and which where used to replay the flight.
Also, did you make sure --fdm=null was specified?
Erik
Running Main
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 12:03, Vivian Meazza wrote:
I have checked the path - I'm was the downloaded cvs data from 1522 Monday.
I have re-downloaded cvs data and source this morning and recompiled.
I've changed the hunter to use the generic files - it already has custom
electrics and
Roy Vegard Ovesen:
Sent: 20 October 2004 13:31
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Submodels
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 12:03, Vivian Meazza wrote:
I have checked the path - I'm was the downloaded cvs data from 1522
Monday.
I have re-downloaded cvs
* Roy Vegard Ovesen -- Wednesday 20 October 2004 14:31:
I also updated from CVS this morning and all instruments still work, here. I
guess that if all instruments and all systems in every aircraft were broken
then a whole lot of other people would have noticed too.
Indeed! I'm running the
[cvs, sticky attributes]
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 20 October 2004 15:21:
You can bring all files back to HEAD with the -A option. If you use the -C
option as well, then even your locally changed filea are saved away
(.#foo.cxx.1.123) and overwritten by the HEAD files.
$ cvs up -A
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 15:09, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Try to run Flightgear with --log-level=info and look for these lines:
Reading instruments from
data/Aircraft/Generic/generic-instrumentation.xml Adding subsystem
instrumentation
Reading systems from
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sent: 20 October 2004 14:39
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Submodels
[cvs, sticky attributes]
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 20 October 2004 15:21:
You can bring all files back to HEAD with the -A option. If you use the
-C
option as well,
Norman Vine wrote:
Sent: 20 October 2004 09:32
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
I would like to have those positions of the arrester wires not in
lat/lon/alt
but rather than in earth centered coordinates (cartesian
Vivian Meazza writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
soapbox
FWIW using LLZ for anything except using user input / output is a step
back to the 'dark ages' of the pre satelite era and the advances in
Geodysey of the post Sputnik world.
/soapbox
Unless that is, someone can tell me
Norman Vine wrote:
Sent: 20 October 2004 16:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
Vivian Meazza writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
soapbox
FWIW using LLZ for anything except using user input / output is a step
back
Vivian Meazza writes:
It would be easy to convert to X,Y,Z coordinates, if I knew the equations
see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
/**
* Convert a geodetic lat/lon/altitude to a cartesian point.
*
* @param lat (in) Latitude, in radians
* @param lon (in) Longitude, in radians
*
I am working on a autopilot project and we need a flight simulator to prove
our control method before use it on a real aircraft. Is there any interface to
get the attitude of aircraft from and send control data to flightgear. I mean get
the altitude, rate, accelerate and so on from it and send
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on a autopilot project and we need a flight simulator to prove
our control method before use it on a real aircraft. Is there any interface to
get the attitude of aircraft from and send control data to flightgear. I mean get
the altitude, rate, accelerate and
In the network area
(http://cvs.flightgear.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/viewcvs.cgi/source/src/Network/?cvsroot=FlightGear-0.9)
there is a data structure defined in net_ctrls.hxx that contains the data you want,
but I don't think that it is being filled in by any of the FDMs.
Jonathan Polley
On
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:26:54 +0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on a autopilot project and we need a flight simulator
to prove
our control method before use it on a real aircraft. Is there any
interface to
get the attitude of aircraft from and send control data to
flightgear. I
I have had little luck finding aviation weblogs (they're all about
rants about politics, hype about technology, or complaints about
teenagers' social lives), so a couple of weeks ago, I decided to start
my own. So far, it's heavy on content on light on good looks, so it's
probably a fair
* Melchior FRANZ -- Tuesday 19 October 2004 21:51:
* Curtis L. Olson -- Tuesday 19 October 2004 20:00:
- It has a full animated 3d cockpit.
Unfortunately, the ac3d/crease patch does only leave black holes where the
instruments should be. Looks very nice without that patch, though. ;-)
Ohh, and don't start it from 28R!
$ fgfs --aircraft=dhc2F --lon=-122.43695 --lat=37.60588 --heading=155
m. :-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Norman Vine
Sent: 20 October 2004 18:08
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
Vivian Meazza writes:
It would be easy to convert to X,Y,Z coordinates, if I knew the
equations
see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
/**
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flightgear-devel-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Norman Vine
Sent: 20 October 2004 09:32
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
I would like to have those positions of
Vivian Meazza writes:
Norman Vine
see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
void sgGeodToCart(double lat, double lon, double alt, double* xyz);
Not brilliant though. In the
property tree Lat/Lon is in degrees, and altitude in ft, so that's a 2 step
conversion.
Well the Property
Just downloaded a fresh CVS FlightGear and found that the AI code is causing
segfaults now. I'll recompile and run it through gdb. In the mean time
beware that some aircraft that set up AI scenarios by default, like the T-38
or the hunter-2tanks, are crashing the sim.
Dave
--
Norman Vine wrote:
Sent: 20 October 2004 21:36
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
Vivian Meazza writes:
Norman Vine
see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
void sgGeodToCart(double lat, double lon, double alt,
David Megginson wrote:
I have had little luck finding aviation weblogs (they're all about
rants about politics,
...how would you then call the following:
http://www.megginson.com/blogs/lahso/medicals.html ?
;-)
(just kidding)
BTW: talking of healthy presidents: Pres. Bush Senior did even
If we have to go through that much trouble to improve so little, we may as
well as look into something more powerful... like OpenRT.
Just my two cents.
Ampere
On October 19, 2004 03:51 pm, Roman Grigoriev wrote:
Frederic! If we have own scenegraph fully optimized to use VBO I think that
it
Birger Brunswiek said:
I'm trying to create a new view which is supposed to be a camera
fixed under the Cesna at the body. So far it looks like this:
view
nameCamera View/camera
internal type=boolfalse/internal
config
from-model type=booltrue/from-model
from-model-idx
On October 20, 2004 06:12 am, David Luff wrote:
I'm wondering whether we know what the X-Plane format really *is*.
Since the beginning of September, Robin Peel has been saying that a
new set of files are coming out next weekend, September 18. But he
also says that these files won't work at
I'm afraid, you cannot expect people to purchase new hardware for an
open source game to work ;-)
Is new hardware really necessary?
The reason I brought the OpenRT topic up again is that (as far as I
understand) it can run on most people's desktop.
Checking the 777's page:
David Luff wrote:
On 10/19/04 at 11:57 AM Chris Metzler wrote:
I think that your idea to put a taxiway designator in the 'xxx' (bet this
message gets flagged as spam now!) part of the record is an excellent one.
The downside of course is that it would require X-Plane itself to
understand it
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I'm afraid, you cannot expect people to purchase new hardware for an
open source game to work ;-)
Is new hardware really necessary?
nope, it wasn't required - after all it is supposed to be
software-raytracing and not hardware, but I *assume* without
a corresponding
First of all, I'm not saying let's switch to OpenRT now. I am saying that
if FlightGear's scenegraph ever requires a large restructure, it will be a
good time to look at the feasibility of using OpenRT.
On October 20, 2004 11:50 pm, Boris Koenig wrote:
nope, it wasn't required - after all it
But, hell - yes, it does look damn amazing:
http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/Dynamic/Images/chess.jpg
http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/Dynamic/Images/dance.jpg
http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/Dynamic/Images/kitchen.jpg
taking into account that all this was created without
conventional 3D hardware - the
43 matches
Mail list logo
