Martin Spott wrote:
I can't withstand the impression that changing the _camera_ position
didn't lead to the intended success. Take a simple stick and rotate it
around one of its ends. For an observer the phenomenon is still the
same even when he changes his viewpoint.
If you want to rotate the
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Martin wrote:
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/pa28-161
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv12589
Modified Files:
pa28-161-yasim-set.xml
Log Message:
Change camera position
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Martin Spott wrote:
I can't withstand the impression that changing the _camera_ position
didn't lead to the intended success. Take a simple stick and rotate it
around one of its ends. For an observer the phenomenon is still the
same even when he
Martin Spott wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
If the camera is tracking the nose, then it moves up and down as
well with the nose. This creates the _illusion_ that the rest of
the aircraft (and of the scene for that matter) is moving, and the
nose is remaining stationary when in fact it is
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
If the camera is tracking the nose, then it moves up and down as
well with the nose. This creates the _illusion_ that the rest of
the aircraft (and of the scene for that matter) is moving, and the
nose is remaining
Andy wrote
Martin Spott wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
If the camera is tracking the nose, then it moves up and down as
well with the nose. This creates the _illusion_ that the rest of
the aircraft (and of the scene for that matter) is
moving, and the
nose is remaining
Jim Wilson wrote
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Martin wrote:
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/pa28-161
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv12589
Modified Files:
pa28-161-yasim-set.xml
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you put the model back to the nose and use the method that the p51d and the
pa28-161 use (the target offset) you'll look better on the ground.
BTW, it appears to me that the P-51 suffers from the same visual mishap
as the PA-28 does (does this have to do
Martin Spott asked
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs]
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you put the model back to the nose and use the method
that the p51d
and the pa28-161 use (the target offset) you'll look better on the
ground.
BTW, it appears
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You _might_ be right, but in the case we are talking abouth things are
different. For example use the Tower view and zoom enough to get the
details. Take off and stay 100 ft above the ground. Now push the
elevator violently aband you'll notice that the
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I was only using the CofG (and approximately at that) as a better visual
reference than the nose. I was only concerned to make things look right. I'm
sure that the FDMs are quite correct, or the models wouldn't fly very well,
if at all. I take it the CofG
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:50:48 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You actually want to be very exact about matching the model to the
FDM origin.
...
Jim (or someone ... *anyone*):
Could you summarize the argument taking place here? I seem to only be
getting parts of it - I guess I didn't
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trust me, I've been all over every line of the viewer code. You aren't really
seeing what you think you are. It just looks that way.
Jim, do you want to tell me I'm blind ? I must admit that I probably
never looked at the code but I can assure you that I'm
Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there now a difference in the way that JSBSim and YASim match up
the 3D model with the FDM?
No, the discussion is only about placement of the 3D model vs. some FDM
reference point, I think (but I'm not absolutely shure if there _might_
be a hidden
This has all got me thinking a bit. This subject seems to come up quite
a bit, and frankly I have found it a dificult problem too. In addition,
there are some related things that can get hard as well like placing the
wheels right on the ground, and getting the landing gear elements for
Jim Wilson added
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Tried that. Looks just the same to me. As I said some time ago: yer
pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. Neither is right on the
ground for differential braking: with one brake full on the
aircraft
more or less rotates
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I enter the loop in a shallow dive, 2nd stage boost on, 350 kts, pull baaack
the stick and the model rolls violently and does not enter the loop ...
Works fine in other models so it's not the obvious - the joystick. But I
expect I'm doing something wrong.
Yup.
Jim Wilson asked
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I moved the origin, then applied an equal and opposite offset. When
one differential brake is applied and the model is viewed in or
helicopter view tower view it appears to be turning around its axis
rather than around the
Josh Babcock
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I enter the loop in a shallow dive, 2nd stage boost on, 350
kts, pull
baaack the stick and the model rolls violently and does not
enter the
loop ... Works fine in other models so it's not the obvious - the
joystick. But I expect I'm doing
Jim Wilson wrote:
Actually, it isn't that. It is just the location that the camera points to.
You don't want it pointing at the nose. So add the entry below to the
external views in your xml wrapper that track the plane. The value is the
distance in meters from the FDM reference point (the
David Megginson wrote:
Thanks -- that did the trick. The plane is actually flying well, and
I'm starting to feel tempted to go back and do more work to make it a
fully-usable alternative to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@#na 172 -- after all, it would be
nice for users to be able to fly a light single
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I wonder if we can model the broken air vent door on the pilot's side that
blows -35 degC air on my feet when I'm flying in the winter.
It's already there (parameter: --frostbite=mins where mins is number of
minutes before you lose your toes). With
Jim Wilson wrote:
I wonder if we can model the broken air vent door on the pilot's side that
blows -35 degC air on my feet when I'm flying in the winter.
It's already there (parameter: --frostbite=mins where mins is number of
minutes before you lose your toes). With that all you need is an old
sim
pilot
feet-temp-c type=double-0.7/feet-temp-c
/pilot
/sim
That should do the trick :)
David Megginson wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Actually, it isn't that. It is just the location that the camera
points to.
You don't want it pointing at the nose. So add the entry below to the
external
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv27479
Modified Files:
pa28-161.ac
Added Files:
pa28-161-01.rgb panel-tex01.rgb panel-tex02.rgb
panel-tex03.rgb panel.rgb
Log
Martin Spott wrote:
Hello David, I like your PA-28 very much, but I can't resist to note
that there is one 'feature' that is really annoying (I must admit that
this word is a bit too strong in this context !):
At least in the outside views the aircraft rotate around its nose.
It's difficult to
Hello David, I like your PA-28 very much, but I can't resist to note
that there is one 'feature' that is really annoying (I must admit that
this word is a bit too strong in this context !):
At least in the outside views the aircraft rotate around its nose.
It's difficult to tell if the
Hello,
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/Hunter/Models
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv1093
Added Files:
pilots-notes.txt
Log Message:
Missed one important file.
The following additional keyboard controls have been
Martin Spott wrote:
Anyway: Thanks for this very nice addition to the FlightGear hangar,
I'm already investigating for a larger home airport. KSFO isn't going to
take it anymore.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am Montag, 2. Februar 2004 23:38 schrieb Melchior FRANZ:
Who? The Empress? She was actually called Sisi ...
http://dict.leo.org/?search=sissylang=de
That a solution for non-US-keyboards is necessary was never argued about,
and actually discussed a few times already. It's just that nobody
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Docs/keyboard
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv21524/keyboard
Added Files:
VERSION map.pdf map.tex
Log Message:
Add a per aircraft keyboard refference
I appreciate your effort - on the other hand I feel
* Martin Spott -- Monday 02 February 2004 11:25:
I appreciate your effort - on the other hand I feel required to note,
that there are still unsolved issues because some of the key controls
work different on different national keyboards.
I know. But having documentation about the current state
Am Montag, 2. Februar 2004 11:51 schrieb Melchior FRANZ:
Don't know. I'm Austrian.
No, seriously: I can't stand German keyboards. Their layout is brain-dead,
so I'm using an US-American one. I'd say that it's up to those who suffer
the most to fix the unfortunate situation. (I use the compose
* Ronny Standtke -- Monday 02 February 2004 18:46:
What exactly do you despise about the layout of German kezboards :-)
The places where they put unimportant things like @, [, ], {, }, \,
etc. Face it: German keyboards may be suitable for secretaries or poets,
but they are a royal pain for
The places where they put unimportant things like @, [, ], {, }, \,
etc. Face it: German keyboards may be suitable for secretaries or poets,
but they are a royal pain for technical stuff like programming.
If you look back in history (damn, I'm not that old) keyboards _have_ been
designed
* Ronny Standtke -- Monday 02 February 2004 23:01:
But dont be a sissy,
Who? The Empress? She was actually called Sisi ...
I am a developer myself [...] and the German keyboard never troubled me
while programming.
But not a TeX programmer, right? :-}
But thats quite OT, because
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/f16/Models
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv20447
Modified Files:
f16.ac f16.xml
Log Message:
Add gear animation
Woohooo !
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Martin Spott wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/f16/Models
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv20447
Modified Files:
f16.ac f16.xml
Log Message:
Add gear animation
Woohooo !
I take this as a compliment.
Thanks!
Erik
___
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/f16/Models
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv20447
Modified Files:
f16.ac f16.xml
Log Message:
Add gear animation
Woohooo !
I take this as a compliment.
Absolutely - with the
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Woohooo !
I take this as a compliment.
Absolutely - with the gear retracted the F16 looks really 'smart'. I
have been waiting all the time for a retractable gear but didn't dare
to ask
It never hurts to ask. It's just that it
Hello Erik,
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ link rel=stylesheet type=text/css
href=http://www.flightgear.org/default.css;
[...]
+ a href=http://www.flightgear.org/;img id=titlebar
src=http://www.flightgear.org/images/fglogosm.jpg; alt=/a
You probably might want to use
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently. Previously you could type Shift-1
Shift-2 Shift-3 ... etc. to select an engine. Then '{' and '}'
would select the magnetos. Finally, space bar would kick in the
starter motor for as
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently.
This one is mine. The recent Nasal stuff contains a rework of the
engine handling to allow for arbitrary numbers of engines, and avoid
the why are there 10
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:49:30 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently. Previously you could type Shift-1
Shift-2 Shift-3 ... etc. to select an engine. Then '{' and '}'
would
Andy Ross writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently.
This one is mine. The recent Nasal stuff contains a rework of the
engine handling to allow for arbitrary numbers of engines, and
Jon S Berndt writes:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:49:30 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently. Previously you could type Shift-1
Shift-2 Shift-3 ... etc. to select an
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Previously you could type Shift-1 Shift-2 Shift-3 ... etc. to
select an engine. Then '{' and '}' would select the magnetos.
Finally, space bar would kick in the starter motor for as long as it
was depressed.
Let me take a look. I
Andy Ross writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently.
This one is mine. The recent Nasal stuff contains a rework of the
engine handling to allow for arbitrary numbers of engines, and
Andy Ross writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David, (Andy?)
It appears that in the latest cvs, we have lost the ability to control
the engines independently.
This one is mine. The recent Nasal stuff contains a rework of the
engine handling to allow for arbitrary numbers of engines, and
Curt wrote:
select = sel.getChild(engine, i);
Could there be a bug in this form of getChild()?
Heh, bingo. That was exactly it. See the other post for notes.
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It appears (to me) to be a property setting problem. Andy, does
nasal have the ability to dump console output for temporary
debugging?
Sure, there's a print() function which uses SG_LOG; for exactly this
purpose. There's even a fancy dump() method on a property node
Andy Ross writes:
Sure, there's a print() function which uses SG_LOG; for exactly this
purpose. There's even a fancy dump() method on a property node that
you can use to dump a property tree to the console.
Ok, thanks, I eventually found it. Quite useful, thanks. :-)
It turns out to be a
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Geometry
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv27779
Added Files:
frighter.ac
Shouöld this ship frighten us ? ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Geometry
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv27779
Added Files:
frighter.ac
Shou?ld this ship frighten us ? ;-)
Only if it's directly above you ...
Erik
David,
There's a sprintf in Rotor.cpp and compilation is failing with the stdio.h
include removed.
Best,
Jim
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Index: Rotor.cpp
===
RCS file:
David,
As for the STL headers, use these instead:
#include STL_IOSTREAM
#include STL_IOMANIP
There are actually many files that are not using these variables from
simgear/compiler.h. It looks like the ATC code and JSBSim are handling
this on their own instead of letting Simgear do it
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Scenery
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv18274/src/Scenery
Modified Files:
hitlist.cxx hitlist.hxx tilemgr.cxx tilemgr.hxx
Log Message:
With this patch, you can fly under bridges, then turn around
Hi Jim
Sorry mate the last time I worked on choppers was 30 years ago.
But what I could suggest is to download a MSFS panel you like and convert it
for FG use.
I have found that you can use the artwork of panels made for FS98 and then
add the instruments from FG.
While for a complete panel for
On Saturday 18 October 2003 13:03, Innis Cunningham wrote:
Hi Jim
Sorry mate the last time I worked on choppers was 30 years ago.
But what I could suggest is to download a MSFS panel you like and
convert it
for FG use.
I have found that you can use the artwork of panels made for FS98 and
Hi Maik
Maik Justus writes
Hi Innis,
The tail rotor could be tied to the rudder but it should give equal
rotation around its axis regardless of the forward speed or lack of it of
the helo.
Hm. I hink this is only correct for acrobatic (3D) model-helos with a (so
called) heading lock gyro,
Lee Elliott writes
Hi Lee
You are absolutely right. But I was just making people aware that some parts
of the MSFS panels can be used in FG with little effort.
What problem would there be if the readme for a panel xml file said that it
would work with a certain MSFS background.As long as the
My understanding of the tail rotor is to counteract the torque of the main
rotor and to rotate the helo around its Z axis in either a CW or CCW
direction depending on the lift supplied by the tail rotor.
Loss of a tail rotor more than likely will result in loss of the helo unless
the pilot
You are absolutely right. But I was just making people aware that some parts
of the MSFS panels can be used in FG with little effort.
What problem would there be if the readme for a panel xml file said that it
would work with a certain MSFS background.As long as the person uses it
themself
Hello Innis,
Where people have given permission there is no problem at all but if a FG
document says you have to get this artwork for yourself because we
aren't allowed to include it then we're admiting that we don't have
permission to use it but that there's a loop-hole that allows
Hi Mally
You are probably right.Just wonder if they would feel the same way if they
found something in here they could use.
Cheers
Innis
The Mad Aussi
Mally
You are absolutely right. But I was just making people aware that some
parts
of the MSFS panels can be used in FG with little effort.
Hi Lee
I just hate reinventing the wheel over and over.And as we have a bit of a
shortage of panels in FG I thought it might be a way to get some more.
Anyway there are a couple of people in MSFS who have given there permission
so if I am going to persue this I will restrict myself to those
Maik Justus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bo really can loop and act quite different to many other helos.
Zimmerman flew a slightly modified (lubrication of the main gear box)
BO-105 which was able to fly top-down,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its
Just to clarify a couple of things re helicopters:
Once the engine stops there is no torque and the helicopter can be
autorotated to a safe landing using the same principle as a gyrocopter.
This manouvre is part of training to get a licence and is practised
many times.
The danger with an
Hi Jim
While mapping the collective to the throttle would work. It is a bit like
mapping a variable pitch prop to a throttle.In most helo's I worked on the
throttle was opened wide and then the collective was pulled on.
It is very interesting to see the look on the passengers faces when the
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Jim
While mapping the collective to the throttle would work. It is a bit like
mapping a variable pitch prop to a throttle.In most helo's I worked on the
throttle was opened wide and then the collective was pulled on.
It is very interesting to see
Innis Cunningham writes:
While mapping the collective to the throttle would work. It is a
bit like mapping a variable pitch prop to a throttle.
It's just a terminology problem, not a flight-modelling problem -- it
sucks using /controls/engines/engine[0]/throttle (or whatever) to
manipulate
Hi
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It also loops quite easily ... not saying that was the first thing I
tried. How do you run the collective? How about yaw control? The
rudder seemed to act more like an aerodynamic rudder ... not that I
know anything about how a helo is supposed to fly ...
Curt.
The
Hi,
Oh, _that_ one is really nice. Although the heli is really very well
thanks
behaved (even with mouse any keyboard control I find it pretty easy to
fly _and_land_)...
The bo is a little bit different to most other helicopters. I don't say
that this simulation is totally realistic, but it
Hi Innis,
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Hi Jim
While mapping the collective to the throttle would work. It is a bit
like mapping a variable pitch prop to a throttle.In most helo's I
worked on the throttle was opened wide and then the collective was
pulled on.
On most modern helos the engine is
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/FDM/YASim
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv7544
Added Files:
Rotor.cpp Rotor.hpp Rotorblade.cpp Rotorblade.hpp
Rotorpart.cpp Rotorpart.hpp
Log Message:
Initial revision.
Maik Justus:
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/FDM/YASim
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv7544
Added Files:
Rotor.cpp Rotor.hpp Rotorblade.cpp Rotorblade.hpp
Rotorpart.cpp Rotorpart.hpp
Log
On Thursday 16 October 2003 18:10, Jim Wilson wrote:
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/FDM/YASim
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv7544
Added Files:
Rotor.cpp Rotor.hpp Rotorblade.cpp
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oh, _that_ one is really nice. Although the heli is really very well
behaved (even with mouse any keyboard control I find it pretty easy to
fly _and_land_) I'm shure that crash detection should definitely be the
next
David Megginson writes:
Martin Spott writes:
O.k., I'll try tomorrow. I'm curious why it didn't get triggered today.
BTW, for those who never flew a heli: If you chose to stand outside
then take a position on the left behind the helicopter. This makes the
first steps lots easier,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:15:02 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are still some problems we need to work out. For example, if
you set the wind to 0 and turn off the engine, the helicopter still
slides backwards and turns -- we'll have to figure out why there are
forces acting on
Curtis L. Olson writes:
It also loops quite easily ... not saying that was the first thing I
tried. How do you run the collective? How about yaw control? The
rudder seemed to act more like an aerodynamic rudder ... not that I
know anything about how a helo is supposed to fly ...
Try
Jon S Berndt writes:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:15:02 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are still some problems we need to work out. For example, if
you set the wind to 0 and turn off the engine, the helicopter still
slides backwards and turns -- we'll have to figure
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Martin Spott writes:
O.k., I'll try tomorrow. I'm curious why it didn't get triggered today.
BTW, for those who never flew a heli: If you chose to stand outside
then take a position on the left behind the helicopter. This makes the
first
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It also loops quite easily ... not saying that was the first thing I
tried. How do you run the collective? How about yaw control? The
rudder seemed to act more like an aerodynamic rudder ... not that I
know anything about how a helo is supposed to
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are still some problems we need to work out. For example, if
you set the wind to 0 and turn off the engine, the helicopter still
slides backwards and turns -- we'll have to figure out why there are
forces acting on it. To test:
fgfs
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/www/Docs/InstallGuide
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv29188/Docs/InstallGuide
Modified Files:
getstart.css getstart.html getstartap1.html getstartap2.html
getstartap3.html getstartch1.html
Martin Spott writes:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/www/Docs/InstallGuide
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv29188/Docs/InstallGuide
Modified Files:
getstart.css getstart.html getstartap1.html getstartap2.html
getstartap3.html
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/www/Docs/InstallGuide
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv19466/Docs/InstallGuide
Modified Files:
getstart.html getstartap1.html getstartap2.html
getstartap3.html getstartch1.html getstartch2.html
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:47:35 -0500
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/FlightGear/src/Instrumentation
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv9276
Modified Files:
adf.cxx
Log Message:
Work around a MipsPro 7.2 STL problem
Index: adf.cxx
Curtis L. Olson writes (in a CVS log entry):
VASI/PAPI lights are generally always on.
I remember reading somewhere that they are typically turned off in
very low visibility when a precision approach is in use, unless
explicitly requested by the pilot -- unfortunately, I cannot locate
the
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/T38
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv23354
Modified Files:
T38.xml
I'd vote for a modification of the 3D model. The cones behind the
engines don't look _that_ realistic when sitting idle on the runway:
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/T38
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv23354
Modified Files:
T38.xml
I'd vote for a modification of the 3D model. The cones behind the
engines don't look _that_ realistic when sitting idle on
Frederic BOUVIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/T38
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv23354
Modified Files:
T38.xml
I'd vote for a modification of the 3D model. The cones behind the
engines don't
Martin Spott wrote:
and _if_ they appear the probably should be sort of yellow/orange,
not white,
Not really, the T-38 doesn't have an afterburner.
It's meant to be the heath buildup that disturbs the airflow and hence
influences the visibility in the specific area.
Erik
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/FlightGear/src/Cockpit
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv26208
Modified Files:
panel.cxx
Although this improves the altimeter display in the default aircraft,
the c310u3a-3d looks a bit strange now at my end:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's meant to be the heath buildup that disturbs the airflow and hence
influences the visibility in the specific area.
Personally I consider the cones a bit dominant for this purpose,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who
Jim Wilson wrote:
Erik Hofman said:
Martin Spott wrote:
Although this improves the altimeter display in the default aircraft,
the c310u3a-3d looks a bit strange now at my end:
http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Panel_04.png
I don't get it. Is this OpenGL implementation dependent or
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Although this improves the altimeter display in the default aircraft,
the c310u3a-3d looks a bit strange now at my end:
http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Panel_04.png
What depth buffer do you have? I tested it with my
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/FlightGear/src/Cockpit
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv3773
Modified Files:
panel.cxx
Log Message:
Try to prevent z-buffer problems for video cards with a 16-bit depth buffer
_Slight_ improvement on a 24 bpp
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/FlightGear/src/Cockpit
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv3773
Modified Files:
panel.cxx
Log Message:
Try to prevent z-buffer problems for video cards with a 16-bit depth buffer
_Slight_ improvement on a
401 - 500 of 698 matches
Mail list logo
