Tiago Gusmão wrote:
meanwhile while using tcp.xml, i noticed that using a line separator of
newline actually printed the word newline (this doesn't happen in var
separator), it doesn't bother me much, just reporting
Good yo know. I'll investigate this.
Is there any generic input support planned
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 03:13
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Spitfire
To create smoke, we will need two things: smoke emitter and smoke object.
The smoke emitter will allow the user to set the following properties:
- X, Y, Z
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it feeds
on the lower tank?
How would that affect balance? Are the tanks exactly above each other?
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
David Megginson asked
Sent: 26 July 2004 12:37
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it
feeds
on the lower tank?
How would that affect
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower,
smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper, larger tank.
For strict accuracy, then, drawing from one tank first and then the other
will not result in exactly the same flight characteristics. The
I wrote
Sent: 25 July 2004 22:32
To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 25 July 2004 21:07
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza
David Megginson wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 13:27
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower,
smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper,
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:28:46 -0400, Norman wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Boris Koenig writes:
But, there seems to be a project related to openRT that is dedicated
to developing the necessary hardware: http://www.saarcor.de/
This is a fascinating project but ... until these
Vivian Meazza wrote:
The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty,
rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a
way around that without tinkering with the logic of
fuel.nas.
No, there's actually a feature for exactly this situation:
That said, the logic of
Andy Ross wrote:
But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's basically the
same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the bottom tank runs
out. Am I misunderstanding the problem?
I think he might want some sputtering for a couple of seconds. From reading
accident reports,
Arnt Karlsen said:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:00:08 +0100, Al wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 23 July 2004 15:23, Jim Wilson wrote:
Sure enough, it's right there in Stroustrup. The strange part is
never having noticed this before now. What is it with these
Hi !
Martin Spott wrote:
Boris Koenig wrote:
--fog-disabled:
http://flitetutor.sourceforge.net/mlist/fgfs-screen-fog-disabled.png
Do you use an ATI Radeon with OpenSource DRI drivers ?
This is an effect I have seen many times during major changes in the
Radeon driver in the XFree86 pre-4.3
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:28:46 -0400, Norman wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am espescially interested in the profiling results from the newer
higher end cards. i.e the GForce 4 class or equivalent cards
..which is the low end limit on ATI, 3dfx etc cards, that can do at
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 18:05
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty,
rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a
way around
Be thankful for that 30-36 fps you have. I usually have about 6-9 fps. ='(
Regards,
Ampere
On July 26, 2004 02:58 pm, Boris Koenig wrote:
On the other hand, the old ATI R128 card achieves about 70-80 fps
in 800x600 resolution under _windows_ running stuff like
counterstrike. While running
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Be thankful for that 30-36 fps you have. I usually have about 6-9 fps. ='(
Yes, as I said: I get pretty much the same with the new nvidia card,
and regarding the ATI card, I did have to disable several options to
come into the 20+ FPS range, but on the other hand I
On Monday 26 July 2004 19:58, Boris Koenig wrote:
Regarding profiling: what would be necessary to be done ?
Are there _any_ profiler tools for 3D/openGL applications ?
you might want to take a look at this:
http://www.hawksoft.com/gltrace/
Regards,
Tiago
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the
logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly. When the
top tank is empty the logic requires that, if kill-when-empty is not
set, for it to be simply deselected. This isn't working: the
Has anyone tried this delightful model under 0.9.5-pre2 recently? I get
YASim failing to converge.
Regards,
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Has anyone tried this delightful model under 0.9.5-pre2 recently? I get
YASim failing to converge.
Confirmed - same problem here.
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Megginson wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 18:34
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote:
But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's
basically the
same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the
Andy Ross wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 22:20
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the
logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly.
When
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power
and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto
switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation
experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power
and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto
switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation
experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:35:47 -, Jim wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen said:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:00:08 +0100, Al wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 23 July 2004 15:23, Jim Wilson wrote:
Sure enough, it's right there in Stroustrup. The
Hi All
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate
a stabilizer trim system in flightgear.If this is not the
case then maybe some kind soul could point me to
the said property.
If there is infact no such property currently, is there
some kind soul who could impliment it in flightgear.
As
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 03:13
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Spitfire
To create smoke, we will need two things: smoke emitter and smoke object.
[snip]
Good analysis. How much of this already exists, either in the
27 matches
Mail list logo
