Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Speaking of which, when I hit 's' to switch panel, it looks like we're
reading the XML file each time. It funny that loading scenery doesn't
cause any hiccups in performance but switching panels does.
Yep, I just used the panel-load that was/is bound to
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Wilson) [2001.12.22 08:27]:
Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Speaking of which, when I hit 's' to switch panel, it looks like we're
reading the XML file each time. It funny that loading scenery doesn't
cause any hiccups in performance but switching panels
John Check writes:
While I'm at it... is there a chance we might see being able to
include fully defined layers in instruments at some point? The best
I can do now is
layer include=whatever.xml
transformations
/layer
You should be able to include a complete layer with
On Friday 21 December 2001 04:34 pm, you wrote:
John Check writes:
While I'm at it... is there a chance we might see being able to
include fully defined layers in instruments at some point? The best
I can do now is
layer include=whatever.xml
transformations
/layer
John Check writes:
Eventually, I guess you could have a separate subdirectory for each
instrument, with a README, etc. Think of yourself as a fine
craftsman, like a watchmaker.
err.. uhh... umm.. whatever.
I'd like to stay away from excessive directories. Maybe if the
Norman Vine wrote:
John Check writes:
Eventually, I guess you could have a separate subdirectory for each
instrument, with a README, etc. Think of yourself as a fine
craftsman, like a watchmaker.
err.. uhh... umm.. whatever.
I'd like to stay away from excessive
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman Vine) [2001.12.21 19:25]:
Bernie Bright writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
We could even walk both the compressed and the uncompressed
tree and use the 'newest' file for easy experimentation.
Easy and slow. I remember someone once saying on this very list that
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:38, you wrote:
John Check writes:
Yes. FWIW I did find some pix with a fair to middlin' amount of
detail http://www.philyoder.com/
That's a 310R, with a longer nose, more powerful engines and (I
suspect) turbosupercharging, so there may be some minor differences on
On Sunday 09 December 2001 3:46 am, you wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:38, you wrote:
John Check writes:
Yes. FWIW I did find some pix with a fair to middlin' amount of
detail http://www.philyoder.com/
That's a 310R, with a longer nose, more powerful engines and (I
suspect)
On Sunday 09 December 2001 5:26 pm, you wrote:
David Findlay writes:
Maybe it would be a good idea to state exactly which models of
which aircraft we are going to have? This way we are all looking at
the same thing.
On the flightmodel list, I mentioned that I'm tentatively using a
John Wojnaroski wrote:
This is about as ugly as it gets. This will go on your permanent
record. :-) :-) :-)
Argggh, banished to the netherworld... I should have realized that! :-0
There's nothing wrong with the netherw.. oh, you did'nt say Netherlands.
Pfew. :-)
Erik
I found the following magazine review, which I used to fix the
performance of the YASim model. It's the turbo variant.
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/specs/79cessnaturbo.html
Also, this site, which is a buyer's guide for the 310 family, has lots
of good trivia about equipment
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Hmmm, we might want to actually double check this someplace. The
other night, one of my pilot friends insisted that the c310's props
spun the same direction and were *not* counter rotating.
Well, that's the most authoritative statement we have so far -- I
haven't
John Wojnaroski writes:
BTW. attached is an alternate throttle quad arrangement - more like a center
pedestal, but needs some refining apologize for the attach but quickest way
to get it out
Ok, let's see ...
1. You sent an attacment to the list ... wrong.
2. The attacment you sent was a
This is about as ugly as it gets. This will go on your permanent
record. :-) :-) :-)
Argggh, banished to the netherworld... I should have realized that! :-0
JW
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross writes:
the C310 has counter-rotating engines (therefore no p-factor)
It does? Oops. I gotta get that fixed. The YASim model has
identical engines; I thought that most of the simple twins had
co-rotating engines, because
I have never noticed a C310 as having counter-rotating props. I think
I would have noticed..
Don't know how authoritative that is either... :).
Don
David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Hmmm, we might want to actually double check this someplace. The
other night, one of my
On Friday 07 December 2001 3:06 pm, you wrote:
Hmmm, we might want to actually double check this someplace. The
other night, one of my pilot friends insisted that the c310's props
spun the same direction and were *not* counter rotating.
Which really compounds the single engine
Anyone working on an airspeed dial? If not I'll make one, probably tomorrow.
Also have made a tiny bit of progress on a 3D panel model...but it's at the
point where it could be either a c310 or c172 with a little stretching here
and there (given my 'experience' with AC3D there's a good chance
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:59, you wrote:
Anyone working on an airspeed dial? If not I'll make one, probably
tomorrow.
Also have made a tiny bit of progress on a 3D panel model...but it's at the
point where it could be either a c310 or c172 with a little stretching here
and there (given my
20 matches
Mail list logo
