David Culp asked:
My submodel config file is not getting read at startup (I'm getting file
not
found). Is anyone using CVS FlightGear and Linux having this problem
also?
Thought I'd check before I go over the config file for the fiftieth time
looking for an error.
I'm getting the
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 04:08, David Culp wrote:
My submodel config file is not getting read at startup (I'm getting file
not found).
Are you getting file not found or No systems model specified for this
model!?
Is anyone using CVS FlightGear and Linux having this problem
also?
Curtis Olson wrote:
People were impressed with the smoothness of the panel and the modeling
of the different systems and built in sensor errors.
People were also impressed with the time of day modeling and
day/night/dusk effects.
We did a lot of demoing in the SFO area and people really liked
Is anyone using CVS FlightGear and Linux having this problem
also? Thought I'd check before I go over the config file for the fiftieth
time looking for an error.
Are you using the generic config or a custom made? If you are using a
custom config, you must remember to override the generic
David Culp wrote:
Unable to read submodels file:
/home/dave/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/FW190/submodels.xml
Did you already load the file in your browser to see if it's XML compliant?
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Culp wrote:
... snip ...
The submodel system has been moved away from the Systems code. It's now
an
independent subsystem of FG.
I think the spitfire submodels are working because I get a crash due to a
crease token, which implies the smoke submodel is being created.
I'm
Curtis Olson wrote:
Dale E. Edmons wrote:
Yes, I'm trying to use Terragear to bring some life back into an old
SPX-200 system.
(ie flat runways) Other than polygon count this is the biggest
problem I have. Oh, well.
You should be able to hack terragear to limit the max runway grade to
0%
* Vivian Meazza -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 15:31:
BTW, how do I resurrect the USS Saratoga? Mathias and I are beginning work
on arrester wires.
FWIW: we could have better than the Saratoga. We've got permission to
redistribute the cvn-68(?; Truman?) with fgfs under GPL conditions. It's
just
Melchior FRANZ
BTW, how do I resurrect the USS Saratoga? Mathias and I are beginning
work
on arrester wires.
FWIW: we could have better than the Saratoga. We've got permission to
redistribute the cvn-68(?; Truman?) with fgfs under GPL conditions. It's
just that nobody got around to
Melchior FRANZ wrote
redistribute the cvn-68(?; Truman?) with fgfs under GPL conditions
USS Nimitz
Regards
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Never mind. I somehow got some DOS line endings in my file. Must have been a
cut/paste from a DOS document.
Dave
--
David Culp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
I've already smartened up the Saratoga model: taken away the ski-jump etc.
It'll do for trials. But if anyone has anything better ...
What is the Saratoga doing, or not doing, that needs to be fixed?
Dave
--
David Culp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 15:09, David Culp wrote:
The submodel system has been moved away from the Systems code. It's now an
independent subsystem of FG.
Silly me! I must have confused submodels with systems. I thought you where
talking about systems.
--
Roy Vegard Ovesen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flightgear-devel-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Culp
Sent: 27 October 2004 15:34
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [SPEWS] Re: submodels - config file
I've already smartened up
Not displaying. I've put this:
ai
scenarioship_demo/scenario
/ai
in my ../*-set.xml file, and replaced the sailboat by Saratoga, and, quick
as a flash, nothing.
Make sure you're using Models/Geometry/saratoga.ac. The file saratoga.xml
seems to have disappeared. A new file will have
David Culp wrote
Sent: 27 October 2004 18:05
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [SPEWS] Re: submodels - config file
Not displaying. I've put this:
ai
scenarioship_demo/scenario
/ai
in my ../*-set.xml file, and replaced the sailboat by
Make sure you're using Models/Geometry/saratoga.ac. The file
saratoga.xml
seems to have disappeared. A new file will have to be made in order for
the
ship to face the right way.
I'd noticed that, so I used sailboat.xml instead, and changed the model to
saratoga.ac.
Everyhting
David Culp wrote:
Sent: 27 October 2004 18:34
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [SPEWS] Re: submodels - config file
Make sure you're using Models/Geometry/saratoga.ac. The file
saratoga.xml
seems to have disappeared. A new file will have
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 02:46, David Megginson wrote:
Great report, Curt -- I'm glad to hear that FlightGear held up
its end so well. One of the most impressive things about
FlightGear is its ability to model marginal visibility fairly
realistically -- watching the runway come into view
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Vivian Meazza -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 15:31:
BTW, how do I resurrect the USS Saratoga? Mathias and I are beginning work
on arrester wires.
FWIW: we could have better than the Saratoga. We've got permission to
redistribute the cvn-68(?; Truman?) with fgfs under
I'm sorry for the spurious occurrence of the [SPEWS] tag in subject
lines. Sometimes I forget to remove them. (They are automatically added
by one of my spam checkers to denote messages from spews[1] listed
sources.)
m.
[1] http://www.spews.org/
___
* Russell Suter -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 21:06:
BTW, the above picture is of the Truman (CVN-75). CVN-68 is the
Nimitz.
OK. (The model contains numbers for several carriers of the Nimitz class, to
select via fgfs property. ;-)
I'd be
delighted to try to reexport the .fsc files if I
On Wednesday, 27 October 2004 02:26, Curtis Olson wrote:
People were also impressed with the time of day modeling and
day/night/dusk effects.
You just reminded me of something I wanted to ask.
Is the enhanced lighting in FG still under construction?
It looks terrible and slows my system to a
Some notes on making an AI carrier.
First, I think it would be best to derive a new AICarrier class from AIShip,
since I expect the carrier to get pretty hairy.
The current AI objects are not solid, so landing on the carrier is impossible
until we solidify the deck. One way to do this will be
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Russell Suter -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 21:06:
BTW, the above picture is of the Truman (CVN-75). CVN-68 is the
Nimitz.
OK. (The model contains numbers for several carriers of the Nimitz class, to
select via fgfs property. ;-)
Very nice! So, this has been
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:18:46 -0500
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some notes on making an AI carrier.
The FDM will have to be changed to allow the aircraft to sit on a
deck without
the deck sailing away from under it. The difference between the
aircraft's
and carrier's velocity vectors
Yep. I guess this means that the ground position and velocity
vectors will need to be passed in to the FDMs. I'd also recommend
against passing in orientation and rotational velocity vectors at the
moment - first do the steady level case.
Yes, I'm a believer in getting something simple
* Russell Suter -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:31:
So, this has been converted before, I assume.
Yes, it has been converted to *.dxf and from there to *.ac. Already the
first step killed the texture coords. But the *.fsc should be the original
format.
Where do the converted files go?
Umm
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sent: 27 October 2004 21:59
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [SPEWS] Re: submodels - config file
* Russell Suter -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:31:
So, this has been converted before, I assume.
Yes, it has been converted to
On October 27, 2004 04:18 pm, David Culp wrote:
One way to do this will be to define the deck(s)
as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but maybe more.
user aircraft gets close to the deck (using radar range and altitude) the
AICarrier will start checking to see if the aircraft is
I am thinking of something more generic than Carrier.
Ampere
On October 27, 2004 07:13 pm, David Culp wrote:
I don't think we're on the same page here. The deck is owned by the
carrier. Unless the carrier exists the decks won't exist either. Unless
you want to put decks elsewhere? Like
David Culp writes:
I don't see the point of having the FDM's know anything about carriers. The
FDM already knows where the ground is. All we have to do is let the carrier
override this value. The airplane thinks it's on the ground.
Don't forget apparent wind speed and direction
Don't forget apparent wind speed and direction discontinuites
between on deck and in air !
Actually I *do* plan on forgetting that, for now ;) That's the kind of thing
that can be added in later phases. Here's what I think would be a good
project schedule:
1) Derive a new AICarrier class
Making the entire carrier solid?
Regarding the CAT-aircraft attachment: I am hoping that the attachment point
on the aircraft will also allow tugs to tow aircrafts around.
Ampere
On October 27, 2004 07:56 pm, David Culp wrote:
9) ?
___
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:56:52 -0500, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
7) Add pitching and rolling deck capability
..heave too.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of
35 matches
Mail list logo
