Alex Perry writes:
Comments? Objections? Cheers of encouragement?
Fine by me. Where you want to put elevator trim ?
Where would it be convenient? We have to consider two cases: desktop
computers with numeric keypads, and notebooks without.
All the best,
David
--
David
In fact, it you're going to fuss about a change in CG or drag when the
gear
cycles ( about 4-10 secs) then you should really do something about
realistic engine performance for a two or three hour cruise. Might I
suggest
some sort of random number generator, throw the dice for each engine,
David Megginson writes:
I'd like to propose changing some of the default keybindings.
Most PC keyboards have a 3x2 cluster of keys at
the top, with Insert/Delete on the left, Home/End in the middle, and
Page Up/Page down on the right. I'd like to rebind those as follows:
Are you sure that
Norman Vine writes:
Are you sure that GLUT maps these keys differently then the ones
on the numpad ??
Unfortunately, not -- that's why I wanted to check.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel
I proposed that as an example, but you need to design in the ability for
expansion now or you might wind up ripping out a lot of code later. IMHO
you
need to start worrying about weight and balance now, before some of the
other items on the table. I don't see anything to account for # of pax
I suppose we ought to create a list of priorities and basic capabilities
we are lacking and go for those before we go on to the finer details
like
realism and random failures. You think?
I proposed that as an example, but you need to design in the ability for
expansion now or you might
David Megginson writes:
Are you sure that GLUT maps these keys differently then the ones
on the numpad ??
Unfortunately, not -- that's why I wanted to check.
AFAIK It does NOT !
see $glut_src / test / glut / keyup_test.c
I propose we investigate runtime assignment to the keyboard
esp
Oh, I forgot to add this: modeling realism and malfunction code isn't
really too bad. This feature specifically won't require much in the way of
rework or anything even if we wait. I've had this in mind for some time (I
have modeled malf.s for shuttle training simulators, USAF, NASA, etc. so
Yes, yes, my comment was not intended as a slam.
No offense taken, and I didn't see it as a slam. I just wanted to communicate
that we have thought of many of those things.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Wojnaroski writes:
Some want to work spins, prop contact points, etc. But a LOT of accidents
occur because the PIC failed to do a proper weight and balance, overloaded
the A/C, and/or exceeded the CG limits. Something to consider - how about a
weight and balance sheet to fill out
Dave Luff wrote:
John Wojnaroski writes:
Some want to work spins, prop contact points, etc. But a LOT of
accidents occur because the PIC failed to do a proper weight and
balance, overloaded the A/C, and/or exceeded the CG
limits. Something to consider - how about a weight and
11 matches
Mail list logo
