[Flightgear-devel] msvc6 - new year update
a 'appy new yrrr ta ya all ... I am overjoyed my Yasim c172 took off with ease. I was surprised that so much 'leveling' was required. I have flown 152, 172 and 182, and none seemed so 'skitish' as I remember ... Just an observation - I now jump for Crtl+H to stabalize the heading as I gather feet ... great stuff ... thanks ya :-))) Have not had any success with JSBsim. :-( My engine RPM stays 'stuck' at ZERO, despite multiple Page-Ups, even multiple shift+1, space, or shift+~ space, it stays stuck at none!!! HELP? :-( I also had to add to joystick.xml a js n=1 !-- same mappings as js 0 -- /js to get my joystick to work. Maybe it is 'fiddling' with the c172's alerions giving me this hard time ... I have yet to adjust the 'dead' value to see if that help. Have not had time to try other sim's yet. If any one is interested I did some work with a msvc6 'windows' version of js_demo I call js_demow. It uses the PLIB js.h, with a minor modification to return the actual number of axes rather than 6 all the time. It should show the buttons and axes found, and paint a red dot when you touch a button, or a new value if you move an axes. It reads in a global (js) property tree from joystick.xml, and labels the button and axes assigned therein. I wanted to be able to either 'drag' and 'drop', of combo box assign, or re-assign a button or axes, and write the desired XML file, but it is always a question of time ... Concerning my current environment, I did a plib, simgear, flightgear and fgfsbase cvs update. Actually have been doing it almost each few days ... But in building each of plib, simgear, metakit and flightgear, I ensured Debug-Mutithreaded DLL was selected in Project Setting, Win32 Debug, C/C++ tab, Code Generation. This uses the MSVCRT.DLL for all of the system funtions. Note this is not always the currect default, and in the case of PLIB you must select and change each library individually, but it is not a big item. I remember someone mentioned there was a warning when building plib and a few of us quickly answered that this was a 'good' warning. But now you get an ERROR later in the SG/FG build of a 'missing' js.h. I preferred the 'warning', rather than this hard error, but its ok ... There were still some things to change in the FlightGear.dsw/dsp set, but it seems some of these do filter through ... somehow a js.lib got in there!!! Things like the fact plib uses an _d for debug, and simgear is in ..\simgear\debug have been mentioned before. They need to be changed in the am2dsp script to make them permanent ... Hope to get in more 'flying' time soon ... still to increase the RAM in this machine. At present FG 'jumps' forward after spending up to a few seconds with my HDD light almost constantly on ... Geoff. PS: Over Christmas I got given Fly! II, but it seems 'very sticky' in my system - like it takes 'seconds' to move the cursor ... Must visit their site and see if anything there helps ... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
The idea would be to use the graphichs part of MS files. They have lot of nice airplane outside and panel graphics. That alone would take 1000 years to do. Yes. They have errors! But one should only use what is good and ignore what is not correct. I am only saying that those files are easy to get and there are thousends of people writing new all the time. Just add to them the FGFS physics files. And there it is. Easy and fast! JOJ - Original Message - From: Jon S. Berndt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 6:49 AM Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files? This assumes that MS is doing things correctly and/or the way things should be done. This is an invalid assumption. This is one of the reasons I, personally, wanted to begin writing an FDM. You may some day see MSFS in at least one way following our lead. Jon -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of throttle1000Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:25 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files? That would add about 2000 different aircrafts in one night to the FGFS. There should only be an additional FGFS file which would give those parameters that are not found in MSFS files. And that could be some default file for most new planes until the actual parameter file would be available (if ever?). The support for MSFS aircraft files is so large and there are lot of tools available. That would save about 1000work years in FGFS project. And add about 1000 000 potential users!? JOJ
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
throttle1000 wrote: *The idea would be to use the graphichs part of MS files.* *They have lot of nice airplane outside and panel graphics.* *That alone would take 1000 years to do.* *Yes. They have errors! But one should only use what is* *good and ignore what is not correct. I am only saying that* *those files are easy to get and there are thousends of people* *writing new all the time.* *Just add to them the FGFS physics files. And there it is.* *Easy and fast!* We have been thinking about that in the past, but the main reason for not doing so is the mess in licenses for MSFS based products. It often takes a large amount of time to detect if the author is willing to release the product under the terms of the GNU Public License. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
That's it! Keep them separate. Just add what is missing. The user then downloads these two parts and gets a nice airplane. The source package needs only couble of planes .. as a demo. Rest could be downloaded from several sites that support MSFS files. FGFS would only add the physics file. It is not illegal to support some format! That just would be the same as MS is using (by pure luck!). There are for example Autocad dwg files. They are supported by several CAD programs! But originally owned by autodesk. That would make it much easier to simulator users to make and swap their planes. JOJ Even if we could use .AIR files with FG, we cannot legally include them in the FG project. We could, however, put them on Wolfram's site. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
We should not care about that! Just support the format! It would then be the USER's problem - what he downloads and where from. Same as with Autocad dwg files! Some are free to download and some are not. But a common format helps to transfer IDEA's around the world. And is better than 1000 different formats (which makes lot of unwanted job when transfering data). JOJ We have been thinking about that in the past, but the main reason for not doing so is the mess in licenses for MSFS based products. It often takes a large amount of time to detect if the author is willing to release the product under the terms of the GNU Public License. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
David Megginson wrote: Norman Vine writes: The general rule of thumb for portable applications is to use the lowest common denominator or in the case filenames use the 8.3 rule max 8 letters for a file or directory name max 3 letters for a file extension do not use case to differentiate names do not use spaces in a name FlightGear is supposed to be an 'OS' agnostic application so IMHO we should stick to the above guidelines The question is whether any operating systems that have hardware capable of running FlightGear still fall into the 8.3 restriction. No I don't think so. And if they do files probably get truncated. BUT: FG doesn't care! It can use (or at least should) any files with any extensions (as long the data format is correct). The only reason why we should decide a standard is that you can tell the OS to start FGFS with that file as soon as you double click on it (or do a similar action which is OS dependant) and that the user can imagine what that funny file LA_Airport.flightgear_startup_file is for. We also need a couple of good icons [...] Artists: please read the KDE icon styleguide (od the Windos style guide; there's perhaps also one for MacOS, ect.) It also tells you the required icon sizes (IIRC 16x16, 24x24, 32x32, 48x48 and 64x64, at least a version containing only the 16 system colours and a 16bit version) also use symbols that are the same all over the world (e.g. no letters and try to avoid people). So David's plane should be ok (or made ok w/o much trouble), I just don't know if it scales down easily (probably does) CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague Whoever that is/was; (c) by Douglas Adams would have been better... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Properties problem
Hi, Since a few days I have the following error message, and I can't find why ??!? /home/erik/fgfs/include/simgear/misc/props.hxx, line 837: error(1377): function SGPropertyNode::tie(const SGRawValueint , int) has already been declared bool tie (const SGRawValueint rawValue, bool useDefault = true); ^ /home/erik/fgfs/include/simgear/misc/props.hxx, line 988: error(1377): function SGPropertyNode::tie(const std::string , const SGRawValueint , int) has already been declared bool tie (const string relative_path, const SGRawValueint rawValue, ^ ../../src/Main/fg_props.hxx, line 468: error(1220): function fgTie has already been defined fgTie (const string name, int *pointer, bool useDefault = true) Does anybody have any idea why this happens? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: As far as I know, only dos (and Windows3.1) do have this restriction. OS/2, MacOS, BeOS, all Unices and Win9x+ support more than 3 characters in the extension. I know that VFAT and FAT32 allow extensions greater than three chars, but does the desktop manager allow long extensions to be mapped to applications? As far as I know it does. But I haven't tested it. Otherwise it should be possible to assigne a mime type to it (which is not extension aware). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Norman Vine wrote: This is exactly the reason to stay with 8.3 file names i.e. the paramount rule in practical user interface design THE USER DOES NOT HAVE TO GUESS -- EVER !! Supporting the Point and Click Interface of Win9X is not enough the underlying file system is DOS no matter what MicroSoft marketing tells you, hence you are still basically in 8.3 land. If you don't believe me get a job working a Help Desk for a Win9X application, that sometimes requires CLI interaction and doesn't observe the 8.3 rule !! I'll agree that in a 'perfect world' we wouldn't have to consider such things, but let's leave that discussion to Dr Pangloss Okay, if you're sure about it, then we ought to stick with 8.3 The only reason why i brought this up is because everybody always assumes 8.3 without even concideren something else (rightfully as I see now). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
throttle1000 wrote: Any gauges '.gau' files are normally copied into the 'FS2002/gauges' folder. But always make sure you follow the installation instructions given with your panel. Comments: I just wonder if .gau files cannot be descrambled? Even if it could be done it's probably concidered reverse engineering, which is hard call license friendly. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] msvc6 - new year update
Have not had any success with JSBsim. :-( My engine RPM stays 'stuck' at ZERO, despite multiple Page-Ups, Did you start the engine (click twice on the panel to activate both magnetos and then use the middle mouse button to activate the starter)? Ok, will try that and advise ... may be a few days ... It uses the PLIB js.h, with a minor modification to Great. Could you post the details to the PLIB-devel list? Must find the email to that ... build of a 'missing' js.h. I preferred the 'warning', can end up in a library) which shouln'd change to an error. Sorry I was not clear on this ... In msvc6 PLIB there are two 'parts' to a build of a library. The first part is to compile any cxx stuff into a 'library' of code, and the 2nd part is to COPY that library (if there is one!) AND the appropriate header file, exposing the library, to the PLIB folder. The warning was that Studio could not make js.lib, no cxx as you pointed out, but as instructed it would still copy js.h to the appropriate place. Now there is no 'warning' so no 'copy' of the header is done. That's all in the PLIB build. Then the FG build expects js.h to be in PLIB. By removing the above PLIB warning you now get an ERROR in building FG since it can not find js.h anywhere on known paths. It takes only seconds to flip to PLIB and do a copy src\js\js.h, but as stated I preferred the PLIB 'warning' with copy than the FG 'error' and subsequent manual copy ... the RAM in this machine. At present FG 'jumps' forward after That's a known problem with MSVC FGFS builds. It shuold be much better Absolutely. That is my point about ensuring ALL plib, simgear, metakit and flightgear were compiled using the MultiThreaded DLL. I want to either (a) look again at porting the current unix thread stuff to windows thread/mutexes, or (b) at least pass some things off to a thread(s) created for that purpose alone, or ... Rgds, Geoff. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
David Megginson writes: Erik Hofman writes: As far as I know, only dos (and Windows3.1) do have this restriction. OS/2, MacOS, BeOS, all Unices and Win9x+ support more than 3 characters in the extension. I know that VFAT and FAT32 allow extensions greater than three chars, but does the desktop manager allow long extensions to be mapped to applications? AFAIK the Win32 interface has NO problems with Long Names, Long Extensions, Spaces in Names, ect It is the CLI that has potential problems i.e C:\tmpdir jnk* Volume in drive C is NHV_233 Volume Serial Number is 000F- Directory of C:\tmp JNK~1MEG10 01-05-02 10:53a jnk.megginson JNK~2MEG10 01-05-02 10:57a jnk.megginson2 Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered' in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames. Nothing insurmountable, but do you really want to go there ? Been there, Done that, Learned my lesson, Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Norman Vine writes: It is the CLI that has potential problems i.e C:\tmpdir jnk* Volume in drive C is NHV_233 Volume Serial Number is 000F- Directory of C:\tmp JNK~1MEG10 01-05-02 10:53a jnk.megginson JNK~2MEG10 01-05-02 10:57a jnk.megginson2 Fair enough -- the same problem can show up with ISO 9660 CD-ROMs without Joliet, Rock Ridge, or whatever MacOS uses. We've already violated this rule left and right, though, as has most modern software. I don't think I'd be willing to force the use of 8.3 names in the base package, for example. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (throttle1000) [2002.01.05 07:15]: That's it! Keep them separate. Just add what is missing. The user then downloads these two parts and gets a nice airplane. The source package needs only couble of planes .. as a demo. Rest could be downloaded from several sites that support MSFS files. FGFS would only add the physics file. Okay, I see what you mean. The problem is that someone has to care enough to write the code. So far, you seem to the only candidate. ;-) -- Cameron Moore [ Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? ] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Comments: I just wonder if .gau files cannot be descrambled? JOJ The inside part won't work, because the gauges are compiled binary objects for Windows. Actually, the .GAU files are just DLLs. They call specific functions within the FS2k/SDK (unreleased yet) to perform needle (or other) drawing and to send data to and from the simulator engine. G. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
At 10:49 PM 1/4/2002 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote: This assumes that MS is doing things correctly and/or the way things should be done. This is an invalid assumption. This is one of the reasons I, personally, wanted to begin writing an FDM. A heavy assumption indeed. The MSFS flight model is crude at the logic level, and no amount of knob-twisting in the .air files can make it work right. Uncoordinated flight is a good example. It seems to work like this: heading gets incremented based on a coordinated turn at the existing airspeed and bank angle. Then the rudder position is compared to a correct position, and the nose is yawed off the flight path by an angle proportional to the error. The correct position seems to be a pulse of size determined by the roll rate -- in other words, a canned sequence. Lateral lift component is not modeled -- i.e., no matter how much uncoordinated rudder is applied, the airplane continues along the flight path determined by the bank angle history. It is impossible to make a skidding turn (which includes fine heading adjustments with rudder on an ILS) or to do a slip. Applying rudder without aileron pressure will turn the airplane, but only because another canned sequence applies a bank input; this bank actually controls the turn. Worse yet, as far as I can tell, variation of induced drag with angle of attack isn't modeled. And the seaplane model is beyond belief. An airplane on the water sits in a fixed position and heading regardless of wind and power setting until the throttle setting exceeds a threshold; then it starts to accelerate. Only then can it be turned. In other words, all they did was to take the ground model and add a gentle bobbing motion in the vertical axis. On the plus side, there are some lovely exterior graphics and some pretty good panels. But I don't think any part of the MSFS models could be used to determine flight performance of the aircraft. rj ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Can I see a candidate here? :-) JOJ The .gau files are just .dll's. Up through FS5 they were popularly believed to be scrambled, but actually were simply compressed by an absurd Lempel-Ziv on top of run-length scheme that enlarged more of them than it compressed. In FS2000 they switched to the .dll format and published an SDK which describes exactly how to write a .gau file. Therefore there shouldn't be any problem importing them. I wrote one for a full-bore HSI that had dual rotating CDIs, dual DMEs, DG, RMI, and primary/backup freq switching on all radios, and put it out as shareware. It sold exactly one copy. rj ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
I would not like to start to mess with this project too much. There seem to be lot of peoble writing code already! Too many peoble messing around just makes it worse. JOJ Okay, I see what you mean. The problem is that someone has to care enough to write the code. So far, you seem to the only candidate. ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
throttle1000 wrote: I would not like to start to mess with this project too much. There seem to be lot of peoble writing code already! Too many peoble messing around just makes it worse. FlightGear is very modular. So you can easily have your own little spot that you work on without getting in the way of somebody. Writing a tool that converts data or loads a new format of data is ideal as it's totally new (you can code your own style and you can't brake anything) and affecty only very few other (probably only 1) modules. So don't be shy! CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague Whoever that is/was; (c) by Douglas Adams would have been better... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
I agree! The geometry (contact points) is maybe usefull too? And the names and makes data. As said all what is good could be used. It takes lot of time to draw nice airplanes. And there is lot of none programmers who want to do that. Why not let them to do it .. and consentrate on the physics? JOJ On the plus side, there are some lovely exterior graphics and some pretty good panels. But I don't think any part of the MSFS models could be used to determine flight performance of the aircraft. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
On Saturday 05 January 2002 10:51 am, you wrote: Borrowed text: Panel.cfg This file is a plain text file that can be edited using any text editor. This file gives FS2000 information about the model's panel. In FS2000 if you released a model without including a separate panel, you would have to make the 'panel.cfg' points to a panel that every computer would have. E.g. alias=FSFSConv\panel.Jet.Heavy.2 With FS2002, there do not seem to be any generic panels included, so the same technique is not appropriate. However, FS2002 will now allow an aircraft to be loaded without any panel at all. You can use the panel from another aircraft by copying all of the files in its '/panel' folder into your new aircrafts '/panel' folder. Any gauges '.gau' files are normally copied into the 'FS2002/gauges' folder. But always make sure you follow the installation instructions given with your panel. Comments: I just wonder if .gau files cannot be descrambled? JOJ Where I live reverse engineering is a no no The inside part won't work, because the gauges are compiled binary objects for Windows. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
On Saturday 05 January 2002 01:17 pm, you wrote: I agree! The geometry (contact points) is maybe usefull too? And the names and makes data. As said all what is good could be used. It takes lot of time to draw nice airplanes. And there is lot of none programmers who want to do that. Why not let them to do it .. and consentrate on the physics? JOJ FGFS can use 3d models in a variety of formats. If we're talking about making them from scratch, it's not a problem. If we're talking about taking somebody elses model, running it through a converter, giving it a repaint and packaging it as an original work... well, I certainly can't stop anybody. On the plus side, there are some lovely exterior graphics and some pretty good panels. But I don't think any part of the MSFS models could be used to determine flight performance of the aircraft. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
throttle1000 writes: I am bretty busy with my moving map project at the moment. Got a URL Have you seen http://atlas.sf.net And I have no idea about what is done in the FG project so far. To me it looks a bit messy. I would start by making it more solid. There seems to be lot of coded ideas hanging half done evrywhere. Maybe because I cannot create a nicly working version on my PC/Win98. Here is a link to a Win32 executable of the current CVS files http://www.vso.cape.com/~nhv/files/fgfs/fgfs.exe.gz This needs the current 'base' files And when running some version - it has bugs - and the cockpit looks stupid - and the sounds vanish after 5s. I see lot to be improved but nobody cares? Argh! And I cannot download the latest binaries from the ftp server! Too big project - too few peoble! Try to use ready made as much as possible to speed up! That's why to use MS formats. Hey All I read is a lot of 'gripes' about why we aren't doing this and or why aren't we just borrowing from MSFS interspersed with an insult here and there but you are to busy to help us do any coding, All this from a 'non-named' 'new poster' from a 'hotmail' account Hope the 'tune' changes else this troll is 'throttled' to my kill file ! Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
I say what I think! And I think what I want! Realistic feedback is never too bad. I am just realistic about my ability to produce code. It's not too many lines a day. If I have too many projects - nothing gets never done. Hey All I read is a lot of 'gripes' about why we aren't doing this and or why aren't we just borrowing from MSFS interspersed with an insult here and there but you are to busy to help us do any coding, I rather am anonym. If that is a problem for you ... do what ever! I have been reading this FGFS stuff about a year now! (And programming 25 years) So I think I can say something .. and thats why these forums are here anyway. All this from a 'non-named' 'new poster' from a 'hotmail' account ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Thanks for the link. My project is more to use real scanned maps. Calibrate them and show position etc. information on them. Using GPS and other data. The maps can be aeromaps, roadmaps or any special maps with special information on them. The user scans the maps and uses computer to keep track on where he is on that map. JOJ I am bretty busy with my moving map project at the moment. Got a URL Have you seen http://atlas.sf.net ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
throttle1000 writes: I have been reading this FGFS stuff about a year now! and after lurking for a year decide to make 15 posts or so in the first 24 hours after decloaking, rehashing a very well discussed topic ! (And programming 25 years) You apparently have the skill but not the will sorry: you goto /dev/null here. happy flying ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Thanks for the link. My project is more to use real scanned maps. Calibrate them and show position etc. information on them. Using GPS and other data. The maps can be aeromaps, roadmaps or any special maps with special information on them. The user scans the maps and uses computer to keep track on where he is on that map. FWIW Here is an old project of mine http://web.archive.org/web/19970109080250/www.laserplot.com/bathy_2d.html ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
throttle1000 wrote: I say what I think! And I think what I want! Realistic feedback is never too bad. I am just realistic about my ability to produce code. It's not too many lines a day. If I have too many projects - nothing gets never done. All of us are working as a hobby on teh project. So when you want something: do it yourself, nobody will do it for you. If *you* want to add a new feature or change something significantly use the list but don't expect anybody to do it for you. Discussing about it w/o delivering code might be interesting, but it won't give us anythig. That's bad. So it shouldn't be done. CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague Whoever that is/was; (c) by Douglas Adams would have been better... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
I just try to find a sim that makes the job. Hard to find! And I really want to reuse those planes available in MSFS. FGFS is still a demo. Not yet a usable product! JOJ happy flying your self - alone! and after lurking for a year decide to make 15 posts or so in the first 24 hours after decloaking, rehashing a very well discussed topic ! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] msvc6 - new year update
Geoff, are you sure you have the newest PLIB from CVS? Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
On 2002.01.05 16:46 throttle1000 wrote: Thanks for the link. My project is more to use real scanned maps. Calibrate them and show position etc. information on them. Using GPS and other data. The maps can be aeromaps, roadmaps or any special maps with special information on them. The user scans the maps and uses computer to keep track on where he is on that map. JOJ I am bretty busy with my moving map project at the moment. Got a URL Have you seen http://atlas.sf.net For those who are not subscribed to the Atlas mailing list, we are working on improvement of this program in several ways. Try the last CVS snapshot. We also need suggestions from users. Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Norman wrote: Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered' in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames. I'll stay out of this one except to say that I don't stick with the 8.3 rule in filenames and I have no problems using the Borland C++ compiler in an MS-DOS window building or addressing files that do not follow the 8.3 rule. But I am using Windows 2000 Pro. It seems to be a non-issue in W2KPro. Does anyone who is using Windows NOT use CygWin? If so, do those that do not use CygWin use an MSDOS command window? I can't see this affecting many people if any. I could be wrong, though. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Wolfram Kuss writes: BTW, I didn't get an answer from the C310 guy :-(. I think I will ask the other C310 author, although I don't like his model as much. Yes, please -- and a C172 3-D model (*any* C172 model) is critical. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Jon S. Berndt writes: Norman wrote: Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered' in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames. It seems to be a non-issue in W2KPro. Indeed but ... Win9X is NOT anything like NT or W2K ie NT Win2k == 'New Technology' Win9X == DOS Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Hello? Is anyone listening?
Guys, Flightgear does NOT build cleanly from CVS! (setup: RedHat Linux 7.2, with MesaLib 4.0.1) I have reported this problem several times on this list over the last couple of months, but nobody has responded to confirm/deny/discuss any of these problem reports. I can't believe that these problems haven't stung anyone else, so I'll repeat them one more time. Can someone please give me an opinion on these, even if it's 'shut up Ross, you idiot!'. :) So, starting from a FRESH CVS checkout... $ ./autogen.sh Looks good, no problems there. $ make ... g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/Include -I../.. -I../../src -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -g -O2 -c gui.cxx gui.cxx: In function `void helpCb (puObject *)': gui.cxx:452: `global_fullscreen' undeclared (first use this function) gui.cxx:452: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in.) make[2]: *** [gui.o] Error 1 Doesn't anyone else get this? If not, how the hell is gui.cxx expected to know about global_fullscreen? OK, so I add '#include Main/options.hxx' to src/GUI/gui.cxx, and carry on... $ make ... g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/Include -I../.. -I../../src -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -DPKGLIBDIR=\/usr/local/lib/FlightGear\ -g -O2 -c fg_io.cxx fg_io.cxx: In function `void fgIOProcess ()': fg_io.cxx:285: warning: passing `double' for argument 1 of `FGProtocol::dec_count_down (int)' g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/Include -I../.. -I../../src -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -DPKGLIBDIR=\/usr/local/lib/FlightGear\ -g -O2 -c fg_props.cxx fg_props.cxx: In function `bool getFullScreen ()': fg_props.cxx:1060: `global_fullscreen' undeclared (first use this function) fg_props.cxx:1060: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in.) make[2]: *** [fg_props.o] Error 1 Same again! So I add '#include options.hxx' to src/Main/fg_props.cxx, and carry on... $ make ... Now it works. It's not exactly rocket science, now, is it? But why is it not in CVS? How come it seems to work for other people, but not for me? Comments welcome!!! -- Ross ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hello? Is anyone listening?
Sorry if the tone of my last e-mail sounded off. I know people are busy with their own problems. -- Ross ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hello? Is anyone listening?
Well, from _my_ point of view (aka PLIB and SimGear from CVS on Debian) it builds fine ... and has done for months. Can someone please give me an opinion on these, even if it's 'shut up Ross, you idiot!'. :) Well, I won't say that ... but my standard response is not much more helpful: I have a policy of not providing assistance to people running RedHat because it's an inefficient use of my spare time. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Not true! All windows should be equal after 95. They all use the same WIN32 core. And they even run the same exe files! For a programmer there should only be one system: WIN32 (95, 98, 2000, NT etc) Additional to NT etc. in 95/98/etc there is a dos window and the dos is simulated by the WIN32 core. JOJ Indeed but ... Win9X is NOT anything like NT or W2K ie NT Win2k == 'New Technology' Win9X == DOS ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Sigh ... I just try to find a sim that makes the job. Hard to find! Different people have different goals for use of a simulator. If you can't find the simulator you want, then you have to write it, or pay someone to write the code you want to have available. There's a dozen projects out there that you can choose among, and several companies that will happily write code to your spec. And I really want to reuse those planes available in MSFS. I personally have absolutely _no_ use for importing any MSFS files. Why on earth would I assist you in creating a feature I don't want! FGFS is still a demo. The word demo is short for demonstration. Yes, the packaged version demonstrates the capabilities of the codebase. I think you'll find that most developers are carrying local modifications to convert the generic code into something that meets their specific needs. Not yet a usable product! I have no interest in it ever being a retail product. happy flying your self - alone! As a reference to the multiuser capabilities: thank you - yes. and after lurking for a year decide to make 15 posts or so in the first 24 hours after decloaking, rehashing a very well discussed topic ! Yes; that's why we have mailing list archives, to avoid repetition. Please stop discussing this, there's other stuff we can talk about that is more likely to be interesting and/or relevant to me. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
throttle1000 wrote: Not true! All windows should be equal after 95. They all use the same WIN32 core. And they even run the same exe files! For a programmer there should only be one system: WIN32 (95, 98, 2000, NT etc) Additional to NT etc. in 95/98/etc there is a dos window and the dos is simulated by the WIN32 core. NO! W9x (ie. 95, 98, ME) is based on DOS. WinNT, 2000 and XP are based on a *totaly* new and independant system. There's also a big difference what filesystem you are using (FAT16, FAT32, NTFS). CU, Christian PS: Wine is also running exactly the same EXE files - and it's definitely not the same. PPS: The only thing that've common is that they are more or less Win32 compatible -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague Whoever that is/was; (c) by Douglas Adams would have been better... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Not true! I dispute that. All windows should be equal after 95. Yes, they should. No, they aren't. They all use the same WIN32 core. No, they don't. And they even run the same exe files! Yes, they do, but I don't see what that has to do with the filesystem. For a programmer there should only be one system: WIN32 (95, 98, 2000, NT etc) Yes, there should. No, there isn't. Additional to NT etc. in 95/98/etc there is a dos window and the dos is simulated by the WIN32 core. Whether the DOS that is seen within the Window environment box is a the simulation, or otherwise, has nothing to do with the methods for accessing the filesystem. There are two ways of accessing files from an application. The old way gives an 8.3 interface and the new way is a more general naming interface. Any program that uses the old interface gets the 8.3 naming. In addition, any computer running VFAT is using the 8.3 naming on disk irrespective of what it looks like to a new application. In addition, any file stored on a CDROM uses 8.3 naming (approx) irrespective of what the filesystem type on the hard drive is. SO, ANY PROGRAM THAT NEEDS TO BE PORTABLE TO ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS (that are capable of 3D support) NEEDS TO ALLOW FOR THE FACT THAT IMPORTANT FILES MAY APPEAR TO HAVE 8.3 NAME LIMITATIONS. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
The DOS is dead after 95. I know because I had lot of problems since the WIN32 dos in WIN95 was not any more a real dos. It was a WIN32 emulating dos. The file name header was no more kept as it was in the real DOS. I kept some secret bytes in the file header space on the real DOS .. and it worked! After WIN95 that was lost. The system was no more the same. W9x (ie. 95, 98, ME) is based on DOS. That is what the marketing peoble tell you! I don't belive MS bothers to do anything too much. They just copy the same core around and put another name on it. Just to have more sales and to attract all the I am so so so so profi peoble :-) WinNT, 2000 and XP are based on a *totaly* new and independant system. JOJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
throttle1000 wrote: The DOS is dead after 95. I know because I had lot of problems since the WIN32 dos in WIN95 was not any more a real dos. It was a WIN32 emulating dos. The file name header was no more kept as it was in the real DOS. I kept some secret bytes in the file header space on the real DOS .. and it worked! After WIN95 that was lost. The system was no more the same. W9x (ie. 95, 98, ME) is based on DOS. That is what the marketing peoble tell you! I don't belive MS bothers to do anything too much. They just copy the same core around and put another name on it. Just to have more sales and to attract all the I am so so so so profi peoble :-) WinNT, 2000 and XP are based on a *totaly* new and independant system. [x] you don't know what you are talking about. 25 years of programming experience might be pocket calculator programming experience, but definitely no DOS and Windows programming experience. Please, don't waste my time any more. CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague Whoever that is/was; (c) by Douglas Adams would have been better... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE
Alex Perry writes: SO, ANY PROGRAM THAT NEEDS TO BE PORTABLE TO ALL VERSIONS OF WINDOWS (that are capable of 3D support) NEEDS TO ALLOW FOR THE FACT THAT IMPORTANT FILES MAY APPEAR TO HAVE 8.3 NAME LIMITATIONS. for those REALLY interested a definitive document http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win32/lfn_4 je5.asp Note that Alex appropriately says 'MAY APPEAR' and why I said JNK~1MEG10 01-05-02 10:53a jnk.megginson JNK~2MEG10 01-05-02 10:57a jnk.megginson2 Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered' in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames. Nothing insurmountable, but do you really want to go there ? Now can we put this issue to rest or at least continue it on am appropriate Win32 programming list ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:24, you wrote: That would add about 2000 different aircrafts in one night to the FGFS. There should only be an additional FGFS file which would give those parameters that are not found in MSFS files. And that could be some default file for most new planes until the actual parameter file would be available (if ever?). The support for MSFS aircraft files is so large and there are lot of tools available. That would save about 1000 work years in FGFS project. And add about 1000 000 potential users!? Because MSFS has lowsy aircraft modelling, lowsy physics. Our physics models use a lot more data and are more realistic for training. We can load the visual models from MSFS though. David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
Not to disagree with what you said lowsy physics. I think the word is lousy meaning infested with lice. Appropriate ? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hello? Is anyone listening?
On Sat, 2002-01-05 at 14:29, Ross Golder wrote: Guys, Flightgear does NOT build cleanly from CVS! (setup: RedHat Linux 7.2, with MesaLib 4.0.1) ... $ make ... g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/Include -I../.. -I../../src -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -g -O2 -c gui.cxx gui.cxx: In function `void helpCb (puObject *)': gui.cxx:452: `global_fullscreen' undeclared (first use this function) gui.cxx:452: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in.) make[2]: *** [gui.o] Error 1 Doesn't anyone else get this? Yes, I got it with the latest update, although it's the first time I've seen it. There's a comment int he CVS log (cvs log gui.cxx) about removing the include of option.cxx; I put it back in and gui.cxx builds. OK, so I add '#include Main/options.hxx' to src/GUI/gui.cxx, and carry on... Yup. $ make ... g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/Include -I../.. -I../../src -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -DPKGLIBDIR=\/usr/local/lib/FlightGear\ -g -O2 -c fg_io.cxx fg_io.cxx: In function `void fgIOProcess ()': fg_io.cxx:285: warning: passing `double' for argument 1 of `FGProtocol::dec_count_down (int)' g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src/Include -I../.. -I../../src -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -DPKGLIBDIR=\/usr/local/lib/FlightGear\ -g -O2 -c fg_props.cxx fg_props.cxx: In function `bool getFullScreen ()': fg_props.cxx:1060: `global_fullscreen' undeclared (first use this function) fg_props.cxx:1060: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in.) make[2]: *** [fg_props.o] Error 1 Same again! So I add '#include options.hxx' to src/Main/fg_props.cxx, and carry on... Yup. I'm running Red Hat 7.1, Mesa 4. I've got simgear from CVS and plib 1.4.2. I'm building with gcc 2.95.3 on a P4. FWIW, the edits are small an once made CVS does not remove them with updates. There was a patch about 3 weeks ago that concerned global_fullscreen, but I forget the details. Is there any reason not to commit these changes to Gui/gui.cxx and Main/fg_props.cxx? James -- __ James Gallagher The Distributed Oceanographic Data System [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://unidata.ucar.edu/packages/dods Voice: 775.337.8612 Fax: 775.337.2105 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 12:42, you wrote: Not to disagree with what you said lowsy physics. I think the word is lousy meaning infested with lice. Appropriate ? Yep that too. :-) well maybe no lice, but it;s not great. David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
