Hi Stuart
How do i determine the tile? And is the scenery designer part of FG ?
Regards
Shelton.
> Hi Stuart
>
> Thanks for the guide (quite a bit to take in) - I have got Blender up and
> running and it looks very polished in-deed. So its going to take a while
> for me to get going - I will
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:55:57 -0500, Josh wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> >>From: "Mike Kopack"
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Is there a way to get buildings to appear (like the wash monument,
> > > white house, pentagon, capital, etc.?) Did I load the scenery in
> > > wron
Jim Wilson wrote:
>>From: "Mike Kopack"
>>
>
>
>
>>Is there a way to get buildings to appear (like the wash monument, white
>>house, pentagon, capital, etc.?) Did I load the scenery in wrong? Or is
>>this just a glaring big black hole with the FG scenery (no building
>>data.) I'd prefer to demon
On Thursday 03 November 2005 01:14 pm, Mike Kopack wrote:
> Or is this just a glaring big black hole with the FG scenery ...
What is this? Crap on FlightGear week?
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.f
> From: "Mike Kopack"
>
>
> Is there a way to get buildings to appear (like the wash monument, white
> house, pentagon, capital, etc.?) Did I load the scenery in wrong? Or is
> this just a glaring big black hole with the FG scenery (no building
> data.) I'd prefer to demonstrate somewhere other
--- Shelton D'Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Stuart
>
> Thanks for the guide (quite a bit to take in) - I have got Blender up
> and
> running and it looks very polished in-deed. So its going to take a
> while for
> me to get going - I will keep your notes in a safe place - what I am
Hi Stuart
Thanks for the guide (quite a bit to take in) - I have got Blender up and
running and it looks very polished in-deed. So its going to take a while for
me to get going - I will keep your notes in a safe place - what I am
wondering is whether I can use the existing buildings and objec
> Well if thats the case I don't mind doing something
> for the Seattle region
> because that will be a good flight from SAN FRAN -
> off course if that is not
> already modelled - and I will need help on how to do
> it.
Hi Shelton,
I went through this learning curve a couple of months
ago - it
Well if thats the case I don't mind doing something for the Seattle region
because that will be a good flight from SAN FRAN - off course if that is not
already modelled - and I will need help on how to do it.
Regards
Shelton.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>
> > I'm using FG for some simulatio
> I'm using FG for some simulation of UAV flight and I need to present a
> demo soon to the customer. I was looking to use an urban area to fly
> around and demonstrate in, preferably either NY City or Washington DC.
> Unfortunately when I loaded up the scenery data for each of those, no
> buildi
Hey gang,
I'm using FG for some simulation of UAV flight and I need to present a
demo soon to the customer. I was looking to use an urban area to fly
around and demonstrate in, preferably either NY City or Washington DC.
Unfortunately when I loaded up the scenery data for each of those, no
buildin
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Shading is done per object (normals generated on the fly). If you
> need a square edge, split the adjacent sides into individual objects.
> For example on the P-51D and AFAIK Lee's models, the blunt edges of
> the control surfaces (e.g. flaps, ailerons) are separate objects.
T
Frederic Bouvier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Their is another gotcha in the plib ac loader that can not recognize sharp
> edge and interpolate normal that makes square look spherical.
>
Shading is done per object (normals generated on the fly). If you need a
square edge, split the adjacent side
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 02:00, Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
> WillyB wrote:
> ...
>
> > > and
> > >
> > > > error time!
> > >
> > > I only use the UV editor and it is very practical.
> >
> > Is that in Blender, or a seperate program?
>
> In blender.
> First, split the main window ( right click on the
I wrote:
> In blender.
> First, split the main window ( right click on the window separator )
> then in on window, choose the face icon,
> load your .rgb file.
The face icon is in the bar that show up when you click on the leftmost icon.
-Fred
___
Fli
WillyB wrote:
...
> > and
> >
> > > error time!
> >
> > I only use the UV editor and it is very practical.
>
> Is that in Blender, or a seperate program?
In blender.
First, split the main window ( right click on the window separator )
then in on window, choose the face icon,
load your .rgb file.
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 23:28, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> WillyB wrote:
> > I'm trying to make some buildings for my local airport using Blender-2.25
>
> then
>
> > converting them to .ac format via a python sript.
>
> I am still using blender 2.23 with the old python script (on windows).
> No probl
WillyB wrote:
> I'm trying to make some buildings for my local airport using Blender-2.25
then
> converting them to .ac format via a python sript.
I am still using blender 2.23 with the old python script (on windows).
No problem here.
> The models export ok, but when I try to put texture on them
I'm trying to make some buildings for my local airport using Blender-2.25 then
converting them to .ac format via a python sript.
The models export ok, but when I try to put texture on them the textures do
not look anything like what they are supposed to look.
I'm hoping some of the experienced
I agree!
Of course a good model is very nice, but fly in a desert scenary where must
be NY is not nice...
- Original Message -
From: "Jon S. Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-deve
I agree!
Of course a good model is very nice, but fly in a desert scenary where must
be NY is not nice...
- Original Message -
From: "Jon S. Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-deve
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:38:48AM -, D Luff wrote:
> I must say I agree with you here. I've never quite understood the
> desire for amazingly detailed aircraft models with moving parts and
> zillions of repaints. However, a reasonable external model is quite
> useful IMHO so one can repl
Alex Perry writes:
> > You're thinking of the US. In most of Canada (outside of the big
> > urban areas), they're the only big buildings around, and, once you get
> > out of the southern agricultural areas, the only large clearing in the
> > woods.
>
> Really ?! I've been wanting to spen
Alex Perry writes:
> Yes, compressing the view into a flat perspective on the monitor makes the
> whole estimation thing a lot easier on the simulator than in real life,
> where some people can spend hours of training learning to 'see' perspective.
> It's a shame we have to disable antialias for r
> You're thinking of the US. In most of Canada (outside of the big
> urban areas), they're the only big buildings around, and, once you get
> out of the southern agricultural areas, the only large clearing in the
> woods.
Really ?! I've been wanting to spend a few days with a plane up there ...
Alex Perry writes:
> > > > 1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
>
> Yeah, but unless we put buildings everywhere, the airports will be
> too easy to find. It is already easier to spot airports on the
> simulator than they are in real life; let's not make it too
>
I'll try both places some time. In the M$ simulators you could land at
Catalina fairly easily as it does have land around the edges. It was
possible in some cases to run off the end or land to land to one side of
the tarmac and still be fine. I want to see the sheer drop off each side
and a runway
> > > 1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
Yeah, but unless we put buildings everywhere, the airports will be too
easy to find. It is already easier to spot airports on the simulator
than they are in real life; let's not make it too trivial.
> > > 2. they give the user
> David wrote:
>
> > Aside from eye candy, we need buildings at airports for two practical
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
> >
> > 2. they give the user a visual cue for distance and altitude during an
> >approach.
>
> Hm, You know I
Curtis wrote:
> 2. Don't forget this is a 'real time' sim. We are on a polygon
> budget, and hey, it would be great to see your 15,000 polygon
> beautifully detailed model in all it's full glory, but something like
> that will ***kill*** frame rates ... especially if you want to
> duplicate bui
David wrote:
> Aside from eye candy, we need buildings at airports for two practical
> reasons:
>
> 1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
>
> 2. they give the user a visual cue for distance and altitude during an
>approach.
Hm, You know I was kinda thinking pl
I could put that on my web page, no problem.
Jeff
> I also have built some 3ds models. It
> would be nice if the web page had a 3D model repository with a little
> screenshoot for each.
>
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "C. Hotchkiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How about creating a small airport and jack it up 30 meters from the
> > surrounding terrain? You'll get the same effect without getting
> > seasick.. :-)
>
> Try flying into Catalina Island (southern California) or, if
> > So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
> > or planes?
> > I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice
> > I think I
> > could come up with something.
I'm for buildings. Wolfram has lots of planes on his web page that we
can use already.
CU,
Chr
"C. Hotchkiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about creating a small airport and jack it up 30 meters from the
> surrounding terrain? You'll get the same effect without getting
> seasick.. :-)
Try flying into Catalina Island (southern California) or, if I
remember correctly, Sadona, Arizona.
Hi Dave
> I'm certainly not disparaging what other people might want from a
> flight simulator. As you say, everyone has their own ideas of what's
> important and whats not, I was just indicating that for me, amazingly
> detailed external models aren't really my cup of tea (along with
> taxying
Jon S. Berndt writes:
> > So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
> > or planes?
> > I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice
> > I think I
> > could come up with something.
>
> Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say "Planes"
Jeff writes:
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
> or planes?
Well, our dream is a 3D cockpit interior, if you want to aim high.
Otherwise, planes and buildings are both important, so do something
that interests you personally.
All the best,
David
--
Davi
Mally writes:
> Dave Luff wrote:
> > Jon S Berndt writes:
> >
> > > Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say "Planes" (I could be
> > > wrong, though ;-) I like to be PIC when I fly a simulator. I don't want to
> > > sit outside my plane and watch me fly it. The cockpit panels we have
> Collision detection (with bullets) is relatively easy. And anyway,
> I thought someone was implementing secondary aero bodies 8-)
Bombs and missiles - not bullets! (yet). But I need to get JSBSim working
again, first.
___
Flightgear-devel mail
> That said, I'm sure other people have much more practical priorities.
> I'd guess that buildings and other ground stuff would probably top the
> list. In particular, bridges and radio towers are important landmarks
> (obstacles) for VFR (IFR) navigation. Having the Golden Gate, Bay
> Bridge an
Dave Luff wrote:
> Jon S Berndt writes:
>
> > Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say "Planes" (I could be
> > wrong, though ;-) I like to be PIC when I fly a simulator. I don't want to
> > sit outside my plane and watch me fly it. The cockpit panels we have now are
> > fine. The grou
Jon S Berndt writes:
> Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say "Planes" (I could be
> wrong, though ;-) I like to be PIC when I fly a simulator. I don't want to
> sit outside my plane and watch me fly it. The cockpit panels we have now are
> fine. The ground looks so barren. Add
Hi Norman,
I never noticed !!. I remember having sent them long back to Curt. Anyway I
am sending one carrier.zip file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would be grateful if you
could put it up someplace so that anyone else who is interested could also
download, or Curt could or John could include it into
VS Renganathan writes:
>>
>You can see the carrier in FlightGear by giving the lat,lon,alt in
>~scenery.objects.txt.
>Or use the 3dexplorer (windows only) shareware viewer. If you
>are interested
>I could send you the wavefront .obj file format specs. The
>carrier model is
>a simple low polygon
Hi everyone,
I have been following this thread.
>> Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
> Yes, this would be cool.Definitely.
> Jon
Jon, as pointed out by John, we already have an aircraft carrier. It is one
with a ski-jump and 3 arrestor wires. We use it in our design work.
> When did we get bullets, or collision detection? First things first.
Collision detection (with bullets) is relatively easy. And anyway,
I thought someone was implementing secondary aero bodies 8-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTEC
> Yeah, but think of it this way ... do you really think many people want
> to dogfight with C172s ? I mean, it's one thing to do a highres dogfight
> model of a fighter, or an aerobatic biplane ...
When did we get bullets, or collision detection? First things first.
___
> > You see aircraft three ways ...
> Yes, of course. You are kind of biased, though
Yeah, but think of it this way ... do you really think many people want
to dogfight with C172s ? I mean, it's one thing to do a highres dogfight
model of a fighter, or an aerobatic biplane ...
Martin Olveyra writes:
> It
>would be nice if the web page had a 3D model repository with a little
>screenshoot for each.
see
http://home.t-online.de/home/Wolfram.Kuss/
Cheers
Norman
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.fli
> > Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
> > far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any aircraft.
>
> You see aircraft three ways ...
Yes, of course. You are kind of biased, though - given what you want to do
with the sim. The scene - no matter which
> > Both of them. It is ugly too see an empty airport. An airport filled not
> > only with buildings but also with planes on ground would bring an airport
> > to life.
> Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
> far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any
On 2001.12.07 02:11 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > Both of them. It is ugly too see an empty airport. An airport filled
> not
> > only with buildings but also with planes on ground would bring an
> airport
> > to life.
>
> Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
> far?
> Both of them. It is ugly too see an empty airport. An airport filled not
> only with buildings but also with planes on ground would bring an airport
> to life.
Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any aircraft
On 2001.12.07 01:32 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
> > or planes?
> > I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice
> > I think I
> > could come up with something.
>
> Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could s
Jeff writes:
> Well, I am finally ready to start to make some 3D models for FlightGear. Went
> all out and purchased AC3D, I like it and it's a good fit for me!
>
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or planes?
> I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D
A man after my own heart. How about creating a small airport and jack it up
30 meters from the surrounding terrain? You'll get the same effect without
getting seasick.. :-)
Charlie H.
Andy Ross wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
> > p
> Aircraft carrier!
Yes, this would be cool. Definitely.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
> or planes?
> I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice
> I think I
> could come up with something.
Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say "Planes" (I could be
wrong, though ;-) I like to be
John Check writes:
>> If plib supports it, then is Pretty Poly the best editor to use? Does
>> ssg support API-side inspection of the geometry once it's loaded?
>> (dumb question, I could just look it up...)
>>
>> Andy
>
>You got me. I haven't heard much on the Pretty Poly front
>lately, but I'
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:56, you wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 December 2001 10:46 pm, you wrote:
> > Well, I am finally ready to start to make some 3D models for FlightGear.
> > Went all out and purchased AC3D, I like it and it's a good fit for me!
> >
> > So my question is: What is more important to Fli
On Thursday 06 December 2001 9:16 pm, you wrote:
> John Check wrote:
> > Andy Ross wrote:
> > > For me? Neither:
> > > Aircraft carrier!
> >
> > Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
>
> You're kidding, really? OK, I feel dumb.
>
Heh.. I thought it was a Piper too.
http:
John Check wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > For me? Neither:
> > Aircraft carrier!
>
> Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
You're kidding, really? OK, I feel dumb.
I've never touched the geometry side of fgfs, so any pointers would be
appreciated. What can I use to look a
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:58, you wrote:
> > That said, I'm sure other people have much more practical priorities.
> > I'd guess that buildings and other ground stuff would probably top the
> > list. In particular, bridges and radio towers are important landmarks
> > (obstacles) for VFR (IFR) navigat
On Thursday 06 December 2001 8:47 pm, you wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
> > planes?
>
> For me? Neither:
>
> Aircraft carrier!
>
Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
> Adding a tail hook and catapult mechanism
On Wednesday 05 December 2001 10:46 pm, you wrote:
> Well, I am finally ready to start to make some 3D models for FlightGear.
> Went all out and purchased AC3D, I like it and it's a good fit for me!
>
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
> planes? I never made a 3
Jeff wrote:
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
> planes?
For me? Neither:
Aircraft carrier!
Adding a tail hook and catapult mechanism would be really, really
simple, and a meatball (and VASI/PAPI) renderer wouldn't be too hard.
A cockpit AoA indexer would
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.12.06 19:32]:
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or planes?
Planes!
OT: not that your hostname is localhost.localdomain. Might want look
into that. ;-)
--
Cameron Moore
[ Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? ]
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:46, you wrote:
> Well, I am finally ready to start to make some 3D models for FlightGear.
> Went all out and purchased AC3D, I like it and it's a good fit for me!
>
> So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
> planes? I never made a 3D model of a p
Well, I am finally ready to start to make some 3D models for FlightGear. Went
all out and purchased AC3D, I like it and it's a good fit for me!
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or planes?
I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice I think I
70 matches
Mail list logo
