On Freitag, 30. April 2004 18:57, Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You
can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other
aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this.
Ground handling right now only uses
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Thanks, Eric, that link was already a primary source. It's all coming
together nicely. Just finishing texturing, a little more animation to do,
and about half the 3d instruments.
You'll be glad to know that the model is under 5000 vertices so far.
I have bodged the engine,
Jim Wilson wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade said:
Does FlightGear support 3DS format?
Nice looking model! It does, because plib includes support for the 3DS
format. I'm not sure what limitations there are as far as configuring
animation is concerned. If there are issues there you can always use
http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Blender_2_33.66.0.html
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:15:09 +0200, you wrote:
I think we have three possible solutions from the FDM - Flightgear interface
point of view.
1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a
terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair.
2. On every update
Also being able to fly through buildings isn't really such
a problem,
BTW, I remember at LinuxTag, when we taxied the Cessna and by chance
sometimes came under the wing of the 747 of the scenery, then the
Cessna would try to jump up and the program would crash.
m.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
On Saturday 01 May 2004 06:09, Jim Wilson wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade said:
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply. I've just finished my exams earlier this week.
Here is what I have so far:
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050100.jpg
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050101.jpg
On Samstag, 1. Mai 2004 13:54, Wolfram Kuss wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:15:09 +0200, you wrote:
I think we have three possible solutions from the FDM - Flightgear
interface point of view.
1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a
terrain level and a surface
I used to have texture space problems with my old Matrox G-550 video card but
since fitting a card with more ram, that's not an issue anymore. However,
now I think I can see differences due to vertex counts.
I don't think there's a clear answer to texture space/vertex count issues, as
far as
...
However, I have been having problems with joysticks under Mac OS X.2
and X.3
Which version of plib do you use ? (not so old versions of plib
report that the keyboard is the first joystick (!) with OS X.3 and in
such a case, FlightGear can not see your joystick.)
Even as it is, the
Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you are doing this. Lower pitch angle, fast
spinning prop. That doesn't makes sense?
Best,
Jim
Andy Ross said:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/FDM/YASim
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv7517
Modified Files:
Propeller.cpp
Log Message:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you are doing this. Lower pitch
angle, fast spinning prop. That doesn't makes sense?
Not pitch angle: A lower value of _j0 indicates a low advance ratio,
which increases windmilling speed. This was just a sign bug to the
previous checkin,
Andy Ross said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you are doing this. Lower pitch
angle, fast spinning prop. That doesn't makes sense?
Not pitch angle: A lower value of _j0 indicates a low advance ratio,
which increases windmilling speed. This was just a sign bug to the
Jim Wilson wrote:
Is any of this addressing the low rpm propeller issue discussed last
week? (In other words, should I bother trying to correctly adjust
the p51d prop config yet?)
In theory, yes. I haven't had a whole lot of time to test it yet, but
the slow/windmilling propeller regime
At a minimum, the simulator should freeze with a message denoting a
destructive contact or out of bounds attitude. For instance, the
MD-83 sim at Alaska Airlines is configured to freeze if the bank angle
exceeds 45 degrees - they don't want their pilots doing that unless
it's absolutely
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..dude. This is another common wisdom? I can understand 'not
allowing it with paying passengers'. But I won't ever put my ass in
a spam can driven by some clueless burger flippers who has never
been _allowed_to_learn_ how to get out of trouble.
..the IMHO
Nah, how about:
+---+
| We regret to inform you that your son was |
| killed because he was stupid. |
| |
| +--+ |
| | OK | |
|
I've compiled FGFS under MSYS, and have written instructions on how to do it.
It seems that there's a problem with the pthread.h library - you have to comment out
line 167, because no config.h file exists in the folder where you install it.
You also have to rename Andy's Pthread.dll binary to
Wolfram Kuss writes:
Also being able to fly through buildings isn't really such
a problem,
BTW, I remember at LinuxTag, when we taxied the Cessna and by chance
sometimes came under the wing of the 747 of the scenery, then the
Cessna would try to jump up and the program would crash.
This
Mathias Fröhlich writes:
What this method 3 was meant to do is to minimize the callback traffic by
having a FDM local tile cache and handling the actual queries to the
elevation data and normals based on this cache.
So, can somone help me out with a short descripion how flightgears surface
Andy Ross writes:
Again, this is an artifact of the primitive collision handling.
Ideally, every contact point would test against all scenery polygons
without a notion of ground plane. That's simple to imagine, but for
performance reasons a little hard to implement.
Yes, the FDMs assume a
21 matches
Mail list logo
