On Wednesday, 15 December 2004 01:02, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Yes. User friendliness is a major issue that has to be deal with. Many
people, even a classmate of mine, point out that the user interface is
crappy.
rant
I hope we either drop PUI (plib's UI) or at least do a major upgrade to
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 December 2004 06:56, Dave Martin wrote:
On December 14, 2004 08:05 am, Ironhell3 . wrote:
I believe that flightgear is a great game
I don't know about anyone else but FlightGear doesn't really sit with me as
a 'game' at all.
It is a Simulation and there is
Hi,
..as I'd like to try cvs FG remotely across my lan, I fired up an old
2xPIII-550 on Quantian-0.6.9.2 (clusterKnoppix derivative) off a ro
dvd-image. /usr/local was copied and mounted --bind onto a disk,
and the cvs dance thru cvs co ;autoconf ; ./configure ;make ;make
install
had plib,
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:53:39 +0100
Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..this ofcourse means I don't have glut set up properly on this old
server box running This means I need Glut off cvs or tarballs or
somesuch, but from where???
Google is your friend. I typed glut into google and the
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 11:53, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Hi,
..as I'd like to try cvs FG remotely across my lan, I fired up an old
2xPIII-550 on Quantian-0.6.9.2 (clusterKnoppix derivative) off a ro
dvd-image. /usr/local was copied and mounted --bind onto a disk,
and the cvs dance thru cvs
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:33:45 +0100, Roy wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 11:53, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Hi,
..as I'd like to try cvs FG remotely across my lan, I fired up an
old 2xPIII-550 on Quantian-0.6.9.2 (clusterKnoppix derivative) off a
ro dvd-image.
What compilers do we support?
I hope any compliant C++ compiler!
I don't have MSVC++ so I was thinking of using MinGW or Cygwin to compile
with
and forgetting about stuff like #if defined(_MSC_VER) because I cannot test
Good luck and let us know about your results! I had success in
Do 3D models use a normalized range to model aerosurface rotation, or actual
degree
magnitude? I've been looking at the JSBSim flight control code and the addition
of the
code that normalizes aerosurface (elevator, aileron, etc.) rotation positions
confuses
the code, and appears to only be
* Jon Berndt -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 14:08:
Do 3D models use a normalized range to model aerosurface rotation, or
actual degree
magnitude?
the bo105 helicopter (YASim) does only use object angles (blade flap angle,
incidence, position) in degree, as reported by YASim's rotor FDM parts.
And the Simgear 3D animation code is all about taking those normalized values
and translating them to a representation of degrees movement. On the surface,
this doesn't make sense to me either.
Changing this on the FlightGear end and making the other FDMs compatible is
quite a task though.
A Piper owner trying to have is PA-28-201 (Arrow) repaired managed to
get this concrete information from Piper:
--
From: airframe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:50 AM
To: 'Stanley Zamkow'
Subject: RE: Contact Us Request Form
Dear Sir:
There is not an
Hi. data/Aircraft/737/737-set.xml was changed from v1.5 to v1.6 in
an effort to get a first shot at contrails working. However, it also
changed the starting fuel in the fuel tanks from:
consumables
fuel
tank n=0
! level-gal_us archive=y1540/level-gal_us
/tank
tank
On Wednesday 15 Dec 2004 06:36, Paul Surgeon wrote:
It sits with me like water off a duck's back.
One gets used to gamers calling a flight simulator a game.
Even the MSFS and X-Plane guys get upset when a noob arrives and calls it a
game so just do what I do - ignore it.
Paul
I was more
Jim Wilson writes:
Jon Berndt said:
Do 3D models use a normalized range to model aerosurface rotation, or
actual degree
magnitude? I've been looking at the JSBSim flight control code and the
addition of the
code that normalizes aerosurface (elevator, aileron, etc.) rotation
positions
On Wednesday 15 Dec 2004 13:48, Oliver C. wrote:
What could we use instead of PUI?
What gui library uses OpenGL?
Best Regards,
Oliver C.
Did a little searching and the best I could come up with is GG
http://gigi.sourceforge.net
It's an OpenGL based GUI library but it apparently uses SDL
I would like to consider doing our next FlightGear release before the
end of the year. Do we think that is doable? As I can find some spare
time here and there, I will start to do some of the pre-release work. I
can move forward on that without setting a specific release date, but
right now
I've noticed a bug in the cloud rendering at night which appears to occur when
climbing / descending through layers. (Current CVS)
A cloud layer above or below suddenly appears bright-white which can be rather
disconcerting; I've only managed to get one screenshot of it and repeating
the bug
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Are there any major outstanding bugs or issues we need to resolve before
the next release?
I don't think so, no major issues. Although I'd like to mention two
things:
1.) Do you have any plans if/when to deal with Michael's already
well-known ;-) 'crease' stuff -
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:01:23 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is realy quite simple
you either have
1) an abstract class with 'Normalized units'
class Control
or
2) a bunch of specalized classes
class Angle_Controller
class Toggle_Controller
class Percentage_Controller
etc
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:01:49 -0600, Jon wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:10:03 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A Piper owner trying to have is PA-28-201 (Arrow) repaired managed
to get this concrete information from Piper:
Dear Sir:
There
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:30:25 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
I think we are limiting the discussion here to only flying control
surface positions, i.e.
As you point out those are only a small subset of the
Control class abstaction.
So specialize these if
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:18:04 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any major outstanding bugs or issues we need to resolve before
the next release? I realize there are perpetual things (such as our gui
interface is crude) that we won't be able to address immediately,
Jon S Berndt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flightgear-devel-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Sent: 15 December 2004 17:34
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] control surface normalization
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:21:13
But when it comes to flaps, slats, and speed brakes it's not nearly so
simple. There, normalized values make a lot of sense. But then to
follow along with the logic, do we want to output our control surface
positions in one consistent way, or do we want to mix and match units,
and if we
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 18:22, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:flightgear-devel- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Sent: 15 December 2004 17:34
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:16:32 -0800
John Wojnaroski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And then there are slats that deploy as a function of airspeed/AOA;
e.g; Sabreliners
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim. In this case, the
slats would be automatically deployed as directed by the flight
- Original Message -
From: Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] control surface normalization
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:16:32 -0800
John Wojnaroski [EMAIL
Chris Metzler wrote:
Flying a 737, saving the state, quitting, restarting, and loading
the saved state crashes fgfs.
C172 and C310 typically are JSBSim-based, you could try the YASim-C172
for a cross-check,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Jon S Berndt writes:
Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads
to part of the concern I have. FlightGear should not require the FDM
to massage values that it should be massaging itself.
Just need a translation layer
IIRC 'Normalized Control Units' have been in
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Not quite, these slats are air-loaded; i.e, there is no mechanical,
hydraulic, or electrical actuation of the slats. There is no command or
logic in the FCS, air data computer, or crew activation to extend the slats.
Part of the walk-around is to physically push the slats up
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim.
That is an excellent observation
FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-)
Norman
Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads
to part
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim.
That is an excellent observation
FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-)
Norman
Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads
to part
Curt wrote:
But Jon, this statement seems to run counter to your overall
argument. Slats at least on many of the aircraft I've seen deploy
linearly. In other words they are on some sort of rail mechanism
and slide out away from the leading edge of the wing in a linear
motion. They aren't
Jon's mail server setup is ok
..aaand...
I am not sure yet what's going on with my email server[s]. I got an indication
from
SourceForge that they are aware of a problem and tell me I'll have a fix
shortly. That's
why I am using this list insteda of the JSBSim list - plus it needs to involve
On 12/5/04 at 9:21 PM Martin Spott wrote:
David Luff wrote:
Completely off topic, your screenshots look like you're getting dark
lines
at runway texture boundaries similar to what I see on an ATI machine,
but
not on a NVidia machine. Are you also on an ATI card, and am I correct
in
Vivian Meazza writes:
Perhaps some of our longer standing developers can shed some light on the
background to this important decision.
This was the easiest way to implement the system at the time insuring that
only 'sane' values were ever passed. ie 'clamped'
An alternative method would be
Curtis L. Olson wrote :
... but right now I would tentatively be targeting somewhere between
Christmas and New Years.
I will not be able to make win32 binaries until 2005.
-Fred
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On December 14, 2004 10:39 pm, Oliver C. wrote:
What would you think about the following options:
- Learn to Fly
- Quick Flight
- Scenario Flight
- Configuration or Settings
- Quit
Best Regards,
Oliver C.
I think the Learn to Fly option is an excellent idea. As you have pointed
out,
Hi,
Since flightgears animation engine can now use interpolation tables where you
can map any range linearly to any other range I think that normalization is
not that important anymore.
Anyway, my F-18 uses degrees for every *internally* used surface deflection.
The values used for
I don't know much about programming under linux, but you can find a howto to
install glut there : http://mindfuck.de-brauwer.be/articles/glut/
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Arnt
Karlsen
Envoyé : mercredi 15 décembre 2004 11:54
À :
Jon Berndt said:
Do 3D models use a normalized range to model aerosurface rotation, or
actual degree
magnitude? I've been looking at the JSBSim flight control code and the
addition of the
code that normalizes aerosurface (elevator, aileron, etc.) rotation
positions confuses
the code, and
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 07:35, Paul Surgeon wrote:
I hope we either drop PUI (plib's UI) or at least do a major upgrade to it.
We use PUI in the menus at the moment and in my opinion the widgets look
absolutely GHASTLY.
What could we use instead of PUI?
What gui library uses OpenGL?
This is kind of a neat site:
http://www.billabongclipper.com
These guys have restored an Albatros and are using it to hunt for the
ultimate surfing waves, and to create instant beach parties.
They just had their maiden flight:
http://www.billabongclipper.com/bbclipper_12_13_04/index.htm
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:10:03 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A Piper owner trying to have is PA-28-201 (Arrow) repaired managed
to get this concrete information from Piper:
Dear Sir:
There is not an off-set of the vertical fin or the stabilator on the
PA28R-201. The fin is should
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:41:27 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
And the Simgear 3D animation code is all about taking those
normalized values
and translating them to a representation of degrees movement. On
the surface,
this doesn't make sense to me either.
I can
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Your example is irrelevant. Fluid pressure cannot be seen. Amps cannot
be seen. Neither Amps nor fluid pressure are reported on a zero to one
scale. Aerosurfaces can be drawn and seen, and that's not done on a
zero to one basis either. Like I said, there are some things that
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Your example is irrelevant. Fluid pressure cannot be seen. Amps cannot
be seen. Neither Amps nor fluid pressure are reported on a zero to one
scale. Aerosurfaces can be drawn and seen, and that's not done on a
zero to one basis either.
Norman Vine wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Your example is irrelevant. Fluid pressure cannot be seen. Amps cannot
be seen. Neither Amps nor fluid pressure are reported on a zero to one
scale. Aerosurfaces can be drawn and seen, and that's not done on a
zero to one
Jon Berndt
Do 3D models use a normalized range to model aerosurface rotation, or
actual degree
magnitude? I've been looking at the JSBSim flight control code and the
addition of the
code that normalizes aerosurface (elevator, aileron, etc.) rotation
positions confuses
the code, and appears
Curtis L. Olson writes:
I think we are limiting the discussion here to only flying control
surface positions, i.e.
As you point out those are only a small subset of the
Control class abstaction.
So specialize these if esired but
IMO the 'slippery slope principal' is in play here
BTW
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 18:09:
1.) Do you have any plans if/when to deal with Michael's already
well-known ;-) 'crease' stuff -
s/Michael/Mathias/
2.) It would be nice to have the airport description in the base
package updated to what the recent scenery was
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:21:13 -
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quick search revealed that most, if not all, the 3d models in the
current inventory use normalized values for animating the control
surfaces.
See, this further raises a red flag for me. How does the 3D model know
how
On Wednesday, 15 December 2004 18:18, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Are there any major outstanding bugs or issues we need to resolve before
the next release?
The select airport option in FG does not work in my CVS build on Saturday.
In fact I've never seen it work.
I'm not sure how hard it would be
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:15:34 -0500
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the inner marker sound immediately upon startup, while sitting on
the runway, that can only be stopped by starting your takeoff roll and
getting far enough along into it.
AMENDMENT: as noted when this got brought up
Melchior FRANZ wrote
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 18:09:
1.) Do you have any plans if/when to deal with Michael's already
well-known ;-) 'crease' stuff -
s/Michael/Mathias/
We shouldn't forget that Mathias' so-called 'crease patch' also brings with
it significant
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 18:09:
1.) Do you have any plans if/when to deal with Michael's already
well-known ;-) 'crease' stuff -
s/Michael/Mathias/
Sorry, Mathias, I should have known better,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly -
* Chris Metzler -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 19:15:
- the inner marker sound immediately upon startup, while sitting on the
runway, that can only be stopped by starting your takeoff roll and getting
far enough along into it.
fgfs rightfully beeps. It found that it's in the range of an inner
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:22:30 -
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several points here.
1. The fact is that most 3d (I think all, but I haven't checked)
rightly or wrongly already use normalized values. It would be a
significant task to change.
Agreed. This is a consideration.
--- Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, at least it points out to the user that the
user interface isn't
necessarily a high priority. For now FlightGear has
been used and
improved by research projects and certified
simulator developers.
So far we have been able to satisfy every
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim.
That is an excellent observation
FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-)
Cheers
Norman
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:15:34 -0500
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- attempting to load a saved state from the menu crashes the program.
ADDENDUM: This appears to be a/c dependent.
Flying a c172, saving the state, quitting, restarting, and loading
the saved state works.
Flying a c310,
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:16:32 -0800
John Wojnaroski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And then there are slats that deploy as a function of airspeed/AOA;
e.g; Sabreliners
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim. In this case, the
slats would be automatically deployed as
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim.
That is an excellent observation
FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-)
Norman
Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads
to part
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim.
That is an excellent observation
FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-)
Norman
Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads
to part
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim.
That is an excellent observation
FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-)
Norman
Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads
to part
* Chris Metzler -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 19:15:
- attempting to load a saved state from the menu crashes the program.
fgfs doesn't like *.sav files with property alias (see below). It doesn't
really crash, but abort.
z-offset-m alias=/sim[0]/chase-distance-m[0]/
m.
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:22:30 -
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several points here.
1. The fact is that most 3d (I think all, but I haven't checked)
rightly or wrongly already use normalized values. It would be a
significant task to change.
Vivian Meazza
3. For consistency, and remember that some 3d models are used with
both YASim and other FDMs, we need normalized values.
This is just plain wrong. If an aircraft can deflect the elevator +/-
30 degrees that's the way it is. Regardless of FDM. We are talking
about
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:22:56 -0600, Jon wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
..aaand...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:23:17 -0600, Jon wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt writes:
This is irrelevant, also -
69 matches
Mail list logo
