Is there someone who can tell me how to compile FlightGear 0.9.3 and the
other libraries (plib, simgear..) under MS Visual C++ 7?
Thanks,
Marco
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there someone who can tell me how to compile FlightGear 0.9.3 and the
other libraries (plib, simgear..) under MS Visual C++ 7?
Thas was posted a while ago:
Hi,
I am receiving an increasing number of request for working
project files for MSVC. While I can't reply
The latest version of TaxiDraw is now up at:
www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/TaxiDraw-0p0p8-preAlpha-w32bin.zip
- Windows Binary (statically linked) [323K]
www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/TaxiDraw-0p0p8-preAlpha-src.tar.gz
- source and makefile for Linux [56K], requires wxGTK-dev.
Summary of
David Luff wrote:
The latest version of TaxiDraw is now up at:
www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/TaxiDraw-0p0p8-preAlpha-w32bin.zip
- Windows Binary (statically linked) [323K]
www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/TaxiDraw-0p0p8-preAlpha-src.tar.gz
- source and makefile for Linux [56K], requires wxGTK-dev.
On 22:13 Tue 02 Dec , David Culp wrote:
I brought my son to work for a day, and he had a wonderful time.
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/kidsday.jpg
At least he didn't have to hold on for much longer :)
All the best,
Matt
___
Jon Berndt writes:
Reminds me of the time I was 4 years old and flying in a Catalina and
Are you serious? I'm jealous. One of my favorites.
Yup, wish I had been older so I could have remembered more about it.
went looking for the bathroom, because of course, all airplanes have
Innis Cunningham writes:
Yes you are right.What I was trying to get at is as you fly past a VOR
station
the needle should move from pointing some degree forward to some degree
backward.
As I understand it, the VOR needle swings right and left. If you beyond
(10?) degrees of the selected
Disclaimer:
It's not my picture and not my kid :)
The airplane is a 737-200, I think. It's definitely Boeing, no glass, two
engines. The airport markings look non-US, and judging by the high altitude
and low visibility, heading about 050, parallel runways, I'd say this is
Mexico City.
David Culp wrote:
Disclaimer:
It's not my picture and not my kid :)
The airplane is a 737-200, I think. It's definitely Boeing, no glass, two
engines. The airport markings look non-US, and judging by the high altitude
and low visibility, heading about 050, parallel runways, I'd say this is
Hi Curt
After haveing some help from David Culp I have now
got this sorted.It appears my lack of understanding in
using the XML code was to blame.
Hopefully this will be forgiven when I get the panel
finished.
Thanks for your help
Cheers
Innis
The Mad Aussi
Hi Curt
Curtis L. Olson
Innis Cunningham writes:
Yes you are right.What I was trying to get at is as you fly past a VOR
station
the needle should move from pointing some degree forward to some degree
backward.
As I understand it, the VOR needle swings right and left. If you beyond
(10?)
Jonathan Polley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oh, now that is just PURE EVIL. Funny, but evil just the same ;)
Nah it's good for him. Builds character. :-D
Yes...funny pic.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Disclaimer:
It's not my picture and not my kid :)
The airplane is a 737-200, I think. It's definitely Boeing, no glass, two
engines. The airport markings look non-US, and judging by the high altitude
and low visibility, heading about 050, parallel
Jim Wilson writes:
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Disclaimer:
It's not my picture and not my kid :)
The airplane is a 737-200, I think. It's definitely Boeing, no glass, two
engines. The airport markings look non-US, and judging by the high altitude
and low visibility,
I also noticed some covering missing on the center wind screen divider
with exposed wiring, made me wonder if this is a sim cockpit.
That's the way Mr. Boeing makes them. No frills there :)
Also, if you look carefully at the runway number, it is quite clearly
a two digit number. I would say
On Wednesday, 3 December 2003 20:42, David Culp wrote:
That's the way Mr. Boeing makes them. No frills there :)
That's the way Boeing USED to make them.
Compare that cockpit to a new 737-800 ...
The new cockpits must make pilot's lives pretty boring.
Paul
David Megginson writes:
Right, but the system will also need input from a directional gyro (possibly
slaved) to know which way to make the needle point. My point was that it's
not like the ADF which (more or less) points towards the transmitter; it's
more a guess at where the transmitter
Innis Cunningham wrote:
There is no way to get directional information to a VOR; instruments
like an RMI have to fake it by comparing the current radial (which can
already be very different from the magnetic [or in the north, true]
bearing from the station).
Without looking up my notes I would
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
As I understand it, the VOR needle swings right and left. If you beyond
(10?) degrees of the selected radial, the needle will always stay pegged
to one side. The needle will move if you are within (10?) degrees of
the selected and it will show you which side you are on and
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Nope, it turns out that bathrooms are typically only on things like
737's and DC-9's and stuff.
Smaller planes have them as well -- on small business jets and turboprops,
one of the seats cushions often lifts up to reveal a small toilet, with a
curtain that you can pull
Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the way Boeing USED to make them.
Compare that cockpit to a new 737-800 ...
The new cockpits must make pilot's lives pretty boring.
Paul
http://tinyurl.com/xkxh
Yep.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I also noticed some covering missing on the center wind screen divider
with exposed wiring, made me wonder if this is a sim cockpit.
That's the way Mr. Boeing makes them. No frills there :)
Also, if you look carefully at the runway number, it is quite
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:42:06 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should settle the issue:
!GASP!
He fell OFF!
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
That's the way Boeing USED to make them.
Compare that cockpit to a new 737-800 ...
The new cockpits must make pilot's lives pretty boring.
Paul
Take a peek at the 727 and 737 here. Real analog stuff. :)
http://deltasoft.fife.wa.us/BehindTheScenes/
g.
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is another challenge. Put it on the deck of a moving sailboat:
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/sailboat.jpg
I must admit that I didn't manage to spot the sailboat. From the
perspective it looks like the boat is cruising in
On Wednesday 03 December 2003 18:02, Jim Wilson wrote:
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Disclaimer:
It's not my picture and not my kid :)
The airplane is a 737-200, I think. It's definitely Boeing, no glass,
two
engines. The airport markings look non-US, and judging by the
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd imagine the taxiing/u/c characteristics are a lot different too,
especially as the hull comes up into the planing position. I'm not
a sea-plane scientist, so these are really idle speculations, but we
might want to start thinking about them.
Wow,
On Wednesday 03 December 2003 23:06, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd imagine the taxiing/u/c characteristics are a lot different too,
especially as the hull comes up into the planing position. I'm not
a sea-plane scientist, so these are really idle
Lee Elliott wrote:
A couple of things about modelling sea-planes in FG though - a) unless
you start in the air, you have to start on a runway, and b) with
YASim, at least, you can't define the fuselage properly because part
of it has to start below the surface and you get a collision at
On Wednesday 03 December 2003 23:31, Andy Ross wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
A couple of things about modelling sea-planes in FG though - a) unless
you start in the air, you have to start on a runway, and b) with
YASim, at least, you can't define the fuselage properly because part
of it has
Hi,
Is there a way to run flightgear without outputting to the display? I
would like to run flightgear from a remote computer and I dont want the
display to show up on the local or calling computer. I would still like
to be able to take screen shots so I would still require that the buffer
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On a semi serious note, if anyone sees any pictures from the same point of
view but at night and showing the landing lights, please post a link. It
Would be handy in trying to work something out.
Ta,
LeeE
Try this.
F-16 cockpit:
http://www.aimsworth.com/
Jon
--
Project Coordinator
JSBSim Flight Dynamics Model
http://www.jsbsim.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Hi,
Very nice piece of kit - but a little costly. I've been toying with the idea
of building my own generic single seat cockpit unit. I do MIDI, LCD, Serial
and Keyboard interface controllers. Recently I've got hold of some USB chips
and have been planning to make some control panels for
34 matches
Mail list logo
