On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:46:08 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted
> > > to Robin - there's some
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:59:26 -0400, Josh wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> >>From: Dave Culp
> >>
> >>
> > > >Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin
> > > > > Towers, "axe'em down on 9/11/2001."
> > >
> > > >Hmmm, I
On Wed, 11 May 2005 14:09:20 -0500, Dave wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > >..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
> > >"axe'em down on 9/11/2001."
>
> > Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
..apologies, my point was w
Jim Wilson wrote:
>>From: Dave Culp
>>
>>
>>>Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>>>
..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
"axe'em down on 9/11/2001."
>>
>>>Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
>>
>>
>>Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've alwa
> From: Dave Culp
>
> > Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > >..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
> > >"axe'em down on 9/11/2001."
>
> > Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
>
>
> Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected
> anywa
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers,
> >"axe'em down on 9/11/2001."
> Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional
Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected
anyway, and isn't his fault.
Dave
__
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote:
"disused" airfields,
OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer
exists? I would think some people would have a problem
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote:
>
> > > "disused" airfields,
> >
> > OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer
> > exists? I would think some people would have a problem with ha
On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote:
>> "disused" airfields,
>
>OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists?
>I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to
>the
>scenery.
>
Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitt
> "disused" airfields,
OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists?
I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to the
scenery.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear
Martin Spott wrote:
> I already did. I think there are numerous British defunct airports on
> the list as well, ^^^
"disused" airfields,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
-
Dave Culp wrote:
>> Therefore we already
>> have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite
>> airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw.
> Can we put defunct airports into the database?
I already did. I think there are numerous British defunct airports on
the list as well,
Am Mittwoch 11 Mai 2005 09:18 schrieb Martin Spott:
> Dave Culp wrote:
> I don't believe that cutting holes into the scenery at runtime meets
> the performance expectations of FlightGear users. Therefore we already
> have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite
> airport defi
Actually, Karsten wrote this:
> Dave Culp wrote:
> >> After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making
> >> external changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance
> >> to get custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
And I wrote this:
> Karsten Kris
Dave Culp wrote:
>> After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external
>> changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get
>> custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
Karsten Krispin wrote:
[...]
> But there would be a better way:
>
>
> After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external
> changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get
> custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
I'm glad you looked into it, because I was hoping to add Sembach Airbase,
EDAS, to my loc
Karsten Krispin wrote:
> After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external
> changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get custom
> Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
>
> Well. it is probably possible through changing the source-dat
After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external
changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get custom
Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run.
Well. it is probably possible through changing the source-data of terragear -
extend this wit
18 matches
Mail list logo
