Sorry, I meant it isn't the texture...
I was thinking about something else when I was typing the E-mail.
Regards,
Ampere
On June 7, 2004 09:48 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
It isn't the model. I used a texture from another aircraft and that
texture showed up too bright as well.
I have
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Sorry, I meant it isn't the texture...
I was thinking about something else when I was typing the E-mail.
Regards,
Ampere
On June 7, 2004 09:48 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
It isn't the model. I used a texture from another aircraft and that
texture showed up too
however I modified the FGAIBase::init() like that,
globals-get_scenery()-get_terrain_branch()-addKid(aip.getSceneGraph());
...
But the function fgCurrentElev() do not visit this AImodel, so I can not
land on a ship,
for example a aircraft carrier.
Help me. Thank you.
Thank you for replying.
I have tried number two by typing in --disable-specular-highlight, and the
model shows up perfectly. How should I proceed from this point on?
Thanks,
Ampere
On June 8, 2004 05:36 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Sorry, I meant it isn't the
Roy Vegard Ovesen said:
Frederic's solution to change the order using select animation in the xml file
worked great. I also think that that was by far the most attractive solution
too. Thanks Fred. I suspect that moving the fuel panel all the way to the
bottom of the of the AC model file
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Thank you for replying.
I have tried number two by typing in --disable-specular-highlight, and the
model shows up perfectly. How should I proceed from this point on?
You should be able to set the reflective (specular) color component of
these objects to something
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Thank you for replying.
I have tried number two by typing in --disable-specular-highlight, and the
model shows up perfectly. How should I proceed from this point on?
Oh, I almost forgot.
There is a special color setting often called shininess which also
influences
The new windsocks are great. Here are a couple of suggestions for the next
revision:
1. Cut down on the number of them. Shorter runways (=4,000ft in Canada,
probably similar elsewhere) have only one windsock in the middle of the
runway, not one on each end. In fact, smaller airports often
Sometimes I run into issues with FlightGear -- fgfs, data, scenery,
whatever -- that I'm reluctant to report because I'm concerned that
the developers already know about them; I figure it's exasperating
to keep getting reports about the same issue. I also wonder whether
there are bugs in
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:44:33 -0400
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the project was hosted at SF, there was a bug tracking system
there. Was it used? Would having a working BTS be a good thing,
I think a bug/feature request facility such as the one on the
SourceForge site is
Chris Metzler wrote:
Sometimes I run into issues with FlightGear -- fgfs, data, scenery,
whatever -- that I'm reluctant to report because I'm concerned that
the developers already know about them;
Indeed, that's a good idea. We've been known to kill and eat
reporters of known bugs. :)
As for
Blast, do we have a few millions to buy us another one? :-)
Seriously though, does this always happen at KLGB? I did a quick test there
yesterday, but couldn't see anything unusual. One thing I found though, is
that the MD11 doesn't do ground handling very well yet. ONe day, I need to
sit
David Megginson said:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
One explanation for the violent maneuvers that I thought of is this: as the
distance between the plane and the waypoint decreases, the accuracy required
in the course calculations increases. Since it takes time for the autopilot
to
Hi,
I've got by cvs fg data today. My fg compiled from cvs a few days ago
doesn't see the new scenery.
So I've just done a new compilation from cvs. At first it gave:
bash-2.05b$ fgfs
Initializing OpenAL sound manager
WARNING: ssgLoad3ds: Texture coords missing.
WARNING:
On June 8, 2004 02:20 pm, Durk Talsma wrote:
Blast, do we have a few millions to buy us another one? :-)
Seriously though, does this always happen at KLGB? I did a quick test there
yesterday, but couldn't see anything unusual.
Yes, it does. Sometimes, it stars to sink in less than a minute,
Problem solved. Thank you very much. =)
Another question: does FlightGear support glow/illumination?
Regards,
Ampere
On June 8, 2004 10:49 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Thank you for replying.
I have tried number two by typing in --disable-specular-highlight, and
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:31, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On June 8, 2004 02:20 pm, Durk Talsma wrote:
Blast, do we have a few millions to buy us another one? :-)
Seriously though, does this always happen at KLGB? I did a quick test
there yesterday, but couldn't see anything unusual.
Hello all,
Another small feather for FlightGear's rather large hat. Today I
passed my instrument rating checkride, significantly helped by the
program in forming a decent scan and control by panel. It certainly
reduced the number of lessons and practice flights.
--
Bill Earnest [EMAIL
William Earnest wrote:
Another small feather for FlightGear's rather large hat. Today I
passed my instrument rating checkride, significantly helped by the
program in forming a decent scan and control by panel. It certainly
reduced the number of lessons and practice flights.
Congrats, and
Andy Ross wrote
Chris Metzler wrote:
Sometimes I run into issues with FlightGear -- fgfs, data, scenery,
whatever -- that I'm reluctant to report because I'm concerned that
the developers already know about them;
Indeed, that's a good idea. We've been known to kill and eat
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 23:01, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Andy Ross wrote
Chris Metzler wrote:
Sometimes I run into issues with FlightGear -- fgfs, data, scenery,
whatever -- that I'm reluctant to report because I'm concerned that
the developers already know about them;
Indeed, that's a
David Megginson wrote:
William Earnest wrote:
/ Another small feather for FlightGear's rather large hat. Today I
// passed my instrument rating checkride, significantly helped by the
// program in forming a decent scan and control by panel. It certainly
// reduced the number of lessons and
Dave Perry wrote:
Are either of you experiencing glideslopes either too high or too low
after the recent
change in the navaid file structure?
See my post GlideSlope Errors for examples. I have posted twice,
but no one has
indicated that they are having such problems. Do I just have a bad
cvs
Dave Perry wrote:
I posted the following near the end of May.
At least some of the glide slopes are now not working that were
before this change.
The glideslope at KSFO is working.
The glideslope at Greeley, CO (I-DCI, 110.3) never comes off pegged
at the bottom (saying you are high).
Same
Curt Olson wrote:
It could be that some glide slope elevations are off in the new nav
data. Check that nav.dat file and compare the elevation of the GS vs.
the field elevation and see if there is any major discrepancy ...
As I indicated in my other post, I checked the elevations in
I'm not sure if this is an isolated problem I'm experiencing, or is
every flightgear user (using multiplayer) quietly in denial about the
poor performance of the multiplayer option???
I speak of the jittery, unstable presence of the 'other plane' when
using flightgear on one PC or across the
26 matches
Mail list logo
