[Flightgear-devel] msvc6 - new year update

2002-01-05 Thread Geoff McLane
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Christian Mayer
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

[Flightgear-devel] Properties problem

2002-01-05 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] msvc6 - new year update

2002-01-05 Thread Geoff McLane
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Norman Vine
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread David Megginson
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Cameron Moore
* [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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Gene Buckle
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Ralph Jones
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Christian Mayer
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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?

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread John Check
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread John Check
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Norman Vine
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Norman Vine
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Norman Vine
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Christian Mayer
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.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] msvc6 - new year update

2002-01-05 Thread Wolfram Kuss
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?

2002-01-05 Thread Martin Olveyra
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Jon S. Berndt
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread David Megginson
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]

RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Norman Vine
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

[Flightgear-devel] Hello? Is anyone listening?

2002-01-05 Thread Ross Golder
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hello? Is anyone listening?

2002-01-05 Thread Ross Golder
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?

2002-01-05 Thread Alex Perry
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:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Alex Perry
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Christian Mayer
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Alex Perry
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread throttle1000
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Christian Mayer
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear TLE

2002-01-05 Thread Norman Vine
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread David Findlay
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread Alex Perry
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?

2002-01-05 Thread James Gallagher
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why not use FS2002 aircraft files?

2002-01-05 Thread David Findlay
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