David Megginson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c172, c172-le, c172p, c172r, c172x - I don't have the energy to sort out
the dependencies so throw it all in.
We should try to sort them out and include just the C172p by default
-- in any case,
Martin Spott wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I have finalized the v0.9.8 release and rolled up the source and base
packages, updated the web site, and made the new files available on the
ftp site. Everyone should be clear to start building binary versions
for their favorite platforms.
Great !
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:02:20 +0100, Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that we have an aircraft download page I think that should be all
that gets included.
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
All the best,
David
--
http://www.megginson.com/
David Megginson wrote:
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
Good point.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
David Megginson wrote:
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
Quoting Curt:
bo105 - I could say a lot of nice things, but why bother, it's our
only helicopter so it has to be included anyway.
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I have finalized the v0.9.8 release and rolled up the source and base
packages, updated the web site, and made the new files available on the
ftp site. Everyone should be clear to start building binary versions
for their favorite platforms.
FlightGear binaries can be
Curtis L. Olson said:
I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up,
but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must
be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download
page, there's no need to include every aircraft in
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:07:22 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I think I would have considered cutting the c310, even though it
is the only light twin. The u3a cockpit was my very first 3D project and it
really isn't too spiffy. It would be very nice to have a civilian c310
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 19 January 2005 15:07:
Oh yeah, and the ufo, even though it is small, is more fun on the website
than in the base package. If someone needs it for debugging they are probably
going to download it.
I disagree. The ufo is the scenery exploration tool. The model
Erik Hofman said:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I have finalized the v0.9.8 release and rolled up the source and base
packages, updated the web site, and made the new files available on the
ftp site. Everyone should be clear to start building binary versions
for their favorite platforms.
Curtis L. Olson said:
Christian Mayer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the web page is comming along nicely!
There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
normal sized picture should open.
It also would be great if there'd be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for all the replies.
They brought me on the right track.
The solution I've got now is also known as the Barton and Nackman Trick.
It's a bit pervert - but totaly legal C++ code:
templatetypename leaftype
class A
{
leaftype asLeaf()
{
Jim Wilson wrote:
[...] It would be very nice to have a civilian c310 (maybe
we should just repaint the u3a and call it a c310b?).
To my knowledge there _is_ a civilian C310, at least there used to be
one - no idea if it's still present,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just
Am Mittwoch 19 Januar 2005 15:40 schrieb Jim Wilson:
Erik Hofman said:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I have finalized the v0.9.8 release and rolled up the source and base
packages, updated the web site, and made the new files available on the
ftp site. Everyone should be clear to start
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Durk Talsma writes
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 00:58, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On January 17, 2005 01:51 pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
When do we have a flyable A380?
It can't be that Airbus was faster than we are:
The Slackware binary package for 0.9.8 can now be found at the usual
place: http://flightgear.stockill.org.uk/
Curt, you may want to check the permissions in the Models tree of the
base package - radio-medium.ac is only owner readable, and several files
have the execute bit set.
--
Jon
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence
Is anyone doing a gentoo ebuild? - I can submit one but it'll have to
wait until the weekend. If someone else can get one in quicker then
please do.
All the best,
Matthew
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25:
if someone can send me current links and if those pages are
currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft
download page.
These are the links that I gathered over time:
http://home.t-online.de/home/Wolfram.Kuss/
The graphical interface and the FTP interface links for scenery download are
still pointing to Scenery-0.9.5
This is in page http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/scenery.html
Regards,
-Fred
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Now that we have pictures of it on our web page, and a way to distribute
individual aircraft, we definitely need Ampere to upload/email it to me. :-)
Probably he'd prefer to do some fine-tuning until the original has its
maiden flight in april :-)
Martin.
--
Unix
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
The graphical interface and the FTP interface links for scenery download are
still pointing to Scenery-0.9.5
This is in page http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/scenery.html
Yes, thanks ... I'm planning to roll up the win32 binary release today
(thanks for building the
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
737 - large commercial jet. Reasonably well done. Flies pretty well.
Nice 2d panel with some simple glass elements.
I like the 737 -- I've probably spent as much time with it as I have
with the c172. I'm sure it's giving me bad
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 02:24, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Yasim has a magic solver that is sometimes sensitive to specific
inputs. In the back of my head I imagine a little robot trying to climb
to the highest point on the map by always going up ... but then coming
to the top of a smaller hill
Dave Martin wrote:
Something I noticed early on is that the mass needed distributing for things
like Engine+Gearbox sets and Maingear etc as Yasim just evenly places the dry
mass otherwise.
Yeah. Evenly placing the mass is a great way to get the overall mass
distribution (the inertia tensor,
In theory, this is a nice idea, but I'm not sure about IPC on Windows.
Forking might be OK, but I'm quite sure that sending a signal is not so
simple, so we would have to come up with something else.
What about doing it the other way around when the user is using fgrun to
launch fgfs ? What I
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100, Oliver wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts
and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website.
..amen!
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 16:43, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25:
if someone can send me current links and if those pages are
currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the
aircraft download page.
These are the links that I
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:21, Oliver C. wrote:
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out
there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss.
Would it be an idea to add a link to these
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
free beer) but also want to make
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 19:41, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that
Chris Metzler wrote:
p51d - A classic WWII fighter ... also well done. Full 3d cockpit.
Just out of curiosity, what remains to be done with the Spitfire? If
it's in production, are there any reasons to favor it over the P-51,
or vice versa?
Nothing major remains to be done, although,
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
free beer) but also want to
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else for their own
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100
Oliver C. wrote:
Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for
FlightGear that are not free.
Here's the reason why:
Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear
website could lead to a common behaviour
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing
pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very
newbie and shareware-ish.
Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
stomped out
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free
contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them
onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.
This has happened several
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote:
If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
then?
Paul
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
then?
The authors would have no recourse then.
Note that he said
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the user community will stomp out that kind of
thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks
very newbie and shareware-ish.
Heh!
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote:
The redistributors either have
to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
I have renamed the 0.9.7 scenery tree on the ftp server to 0.9.8. There
is no change other than the new version number so if you have already
downloaded 0.9.7 scenery, there is no need to redownload the new
scenery. I am currently working on fully populating the rsync scenery
server with all
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed
Just for clarification, you
Thomas Förster said:
Am Mittwoch 19 Januar 2005 15:40 schrieb Jim Wilson:
Erik Hofman said:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I have finalized the v0.9.8 release and rolled up the source and base
packages, updated the web site, and made the new files available on the
ftp site. Everyone
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of
the sounds: that violates the GPL.
Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright
notice. No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanying
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
use of their models / work providing
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
do...
I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a
strawman to argue
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:18 +
Dave Martin wrote:
I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is
often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating
Author's name.
one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
Copyright (C)
David Megginson said:
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).
That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone
The Mac OS X package is now available from
http://macflightgear.sourceforge.net/
I wrote a small wxPython app which is included. For now it allows you
to choose the aircraft and airport. (Because I plain can't get fgrun
ported to OS X)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:22:23 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL
Arthur Wiebe wrote:
The Mac OS X package is now available from
http://macflightgear.sourceforge.net/
I wrote a small wxPython app which is included. For now it allows you
to choose the aircraft and airport. (Because I plain can't get fgrun
ported to OS X)
Ok, thanks, I'll update the web page.
David Megginson said:
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).
Thats it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if Ralph
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone
Jim Wilson said:
David Megginson said:
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).
That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear
Jon Stockill wrote:
The Slackware binary package for 0.9.8 can now be found at the usual
place: http://flightgear.stockill.org.uk/
Curt, you may want to check the permissions in the Models tree of the
base package - radio-medium.ac is only owner readable, and several
files have the execute
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
There is still place for non-GPL
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
There is
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
continue to do so. :-)
Curt.
I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume
their offspring.
Dave Martin
I have not yet had a chance to build 0.9.8, so I am curious if it built just
fine right out of the box? And do my Mac build instructions hold up OK
for this version?
Thanks for building and posting the Mac bin.
-- Adam
From: Arthur Wiebe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: FlightGear developers
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:20:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you
charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as
GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat.
Hey Adam,
I had to make one small change.
Hopefully the attached patch answers your question.
But other than that it all built ok.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:37:36 -0800, Adam Dershowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not yet had a chance to build 0.9.8, so I am curious if it built just
fine
Damn, so I missed one of those fixes.
Actually, I just checked, and that file was not present when I was building
and patching for GL location, so it has been added since, and was done the
old way instead.
Can one of you guys with CVS access fix that one?
Thanks,
-- Adam
From: Arthur
Yes, it was added after 0.9.8-pre2
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:20:43 -0800, Adam Dershowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damn, so I missed one of those fixes.
Actually, I just checked, and that file was not present when I was building
and patching for GL location, so it has been added since, and was
Can we ensure that the glider model that fgfs falls back to in the
absence of another 3d model makes it in? I don't relish a set of
complaints about missing glider.ac.
Giles Robertson
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up,
but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must
be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download
page, there's no need to include every aircraft in the
I've been working up the FDM for the b1900d and I have it flying quite nicely
now.
The numbers are no longer 'book' but rather ones that allow the aircraft to
perform within the parameters of the FDM.
Changes of note:
The ailerons are more effective; with the 'infinite human strength' effect,
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 06:53, Christian Mayer wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
They brought me on the right track.
The solution I've got now is also known as the Barton and Nackman Trick.
It's a bit pervert - but totaly legal C++ code:
templatetypename leaftype
class A
{
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:53:33 -0500, Josh Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to see a golden age or WWII multi engine, but I guess the DC3 isn't
ready for prime time yet. I'm also *cough* working on a B29, but I haven't
touched it in months. I was in the middle of getting a Yasim
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 01:57, David Megginson wrote:
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings,
etc., we could have it looking quite
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:57:13 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings,
etc., we could have it looking
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:16:07 +
Dave Martin wrote:
Let me know what you think :-)
FDM: http://www.cyfinity.com/fgfs/b1900d.xml - copy to your
Aircraft/b1900d/ directory after backing up the original.
Hi Dave. It appears to be a lot more stable (and as a note to
Syd -- the model itself
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:16:07 +
Dave Martin wrote:
Let me know what you think :-)
FDM: http://www.cyfinity.com/fgfs/b1900d.xml - copy to your
Aircraft/b1900d/ directory after backing up the original.
Hi Dave. It appears to be a lot more stable (and as a note to
Syd
David Megginson wrote:
You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to
like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package.
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:34:24 -0600
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The model was updated to work with FlightGear-0.9.8 and plib-1.8.4.
Sigh . . .I should really subscribe to the CVS log mailing list. I
thought I was current; but I wasn't 11 hours current. Thanks for
the tip.
-c
--
Chris Metzler
On January 19, 2005 12:02 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
Probably he'd prefer to do some fine-tuning until the original has its
maiden flight in april :-)
Martin.
You read my mind. =)
As far as development goes, all Innis and I have right now is the FDM Model
and the exterior 3D Model.
What we
On January 19, 2005 06:00 pm, Enrique Vaamonde wrote:
It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c
download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc.
It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho.
May be we should just use
I just discovered that FG is suggesting me to upgrade my sound driver
after alGenSources failed :-(
This is the first time and all the other aircraft I tried never did the
same. I even remember flying successfully with it not far ago.
A quick glance with the debugger showed me that alGenSources
Hi guys!
I try to model rain and snow in flightgear but have some difficutlies
because I haven't seen it in real flight from cabin of aircraft. Maybe
someone can explain me some features when you have take-off or landing in
rain and snow. Is it similar to car? Or maybe someone have videos or
Hello,
I just downloaded the Win32 package and took it for a test-ride. There
are three things I'd like to mention:
1.) The Isle of Alcatraz doesn't look as I'm used to it from
FlightGear. To my knowledge Frederic adapted the terrain to
include the heliport, this is now missing.
2.) On
81 matches
Mail list logo