On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jeff wrote:
David wrote:
Looks good. Are you planning to texture it?
Good question. I was going to at a later date. Below is kind of my personal
plan.
1. Make the DC-3 with no textures (done)
2. Make some buildings for cities with textures.
3. Make another
Hi,
I've noticed both th c310 and c182 give a problem at load time.
The problem is related to the retractable landing gear because it dumpt
core right after:
9: GEAR_CONTACT 0
20: GEAR_CONTACT 1
21: GEAR_CONTACT 1
22: GEAR_CONTACT 0
23: GEAR_CONTACT 0
24: GEAR_CONTACT 0
25: GEAR_CONTACT 0
Shadows done the traditional way with shadow volumes are
pretty expensive: Two passes through the scene graph for
objects and 2 passes for the shadows. I'd guess that
reflections are about the same expense. But, there are
many short cuts, especially for relatively static scenes
like the moon
Vallevand, Mark K wrote:
Shadows done the traditional way with shadow volumes are
pretty expensive: Two passes through the scene graph for
objects and 2 passes for the shadows. I'd guess that
reflections are about the same expense. But, there are
many short cuts, especially for
Martin Spott writes:
To explain what Erik's talking about: You don't get an appropriate video
card that you can use in an SGI for just $50. 2x 4 MByte Texture RAM to
upgrade an Octane SSI to MXI cost more than $1000 - and you can't use
FlightGear's textured scenerey without TRAM
Well in
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Martin Spott writes:
To explain what Erik's talking about: You don't get an appropriate video
card that you can use in an SGI for just $50. 2x 4 MByte Texture RAM to
upgrade an Octane SSI to MXI cost more than $1000 - and you can't use
FlightGear's textured scenerey
Erik Hofman wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Martin Spott writes:
To explain what Erik's talking about: You don't get an appropriate video
card that you can use in an SGI for just $50. 2x 4 MByte Texture RAM to
upgrade an Octane SSI to MXI cost more than $1000 - and you can't use
You don't expect a software rendering 386 to give decent frame rates, do
you?
Haven't tried that yet, because just the FGFS base is 50MB ... and that PC
only has a 100MB HD. My 486 doesn't do very well, due to software 3D.
If I come across an ISA 3D card spare, I try it ... it might be
To explain what Erik's talking about: You don't get an appropriate video
card that you can use in an SGI for just $50. 2x 4 MByte Texture RAM to
upgrade an Octane SSI to MXI cost more than $1000 - and you can't use
FlightGear's textured scenerey without TRAM
In my last job we ran a
Erik,
I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to speak ill of sgi or those
who use sgi computers. I was just responding to Martin Spott's
suggestion that it would cost $1000 to turn an Octane SSI into
something that could reasonably run FlightGear. And then pointing out
that for that $1000 you
Any, my real point here is that I personally do not care to work very
hard to support a non-textured flightgear mode simply for the sake of
old sgi hardware. However, if there are other reasons as well
... supporting notebook (few of which have 3d graphics), or to still
support cards with
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik,
I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to speak ill of sgi or those
who use sgi computers. I was just responding to Martin Spott's
suggestion that it would cost $1000 to turn an Octane SSI into
something that could reasonably run FlightGear. And then
Erik Hofman writes:
Anyway, I've discovered that allmost all of the ambient and diffuse
colors in the materials.xml file hive the same value for r, g an b.
I guess there has gone something wrong in the conversion of the
file.
Ahhh, that actually looks like the source of the problem r = g
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hofman) [2002.01.31 14:14]:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik,
I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to speak ill of sgi or those
who use sgi computers. I was just responding to Martin Spott's
suggestion that it would cost $1000 to turn an Octane SSI into
something
Erik Hofman writes:
I guess there has gone something wrong in the conversion of the file.
Does anybody have the original still laying around?
The colours in the original were mostly not filled in either,
unfortunately. When you tweak the colours around, do you get anything
useful?
All
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Megginson) [2002.01.31 15:32]:
Cameron Moore writes:
Yes, this is definately wrong. I have a copy, but I'm not sure how old
it is (prolly a couple months). I don't think it has all of the changes
up to when it was removed. Anybody know how to retrieve it
* Cameron Moore -- Thursday 31 January 2002 22:09:
Yes, this is definately wrong. I have a copy, but I'm not sure how old
it is (prolly a couple months). I don't think it has all of the changes
up to when it was removed. Anybody know how to retrieve it from the CVS
Attic? Or...what are to
Well, the modern SGIs shouldn't have trouble running a recent version of
FGFS. So we run on a SGI.
Yep, as long as you have lots of CPU cycles. I believe an R10k at 300 MHz is
minimum, also a MaxImpact/MXI graphics subsystem with maximum TRAM should be
recommended.
PS: Is there a way to
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Melchior FRANZ) [2002.01.31 16:24]:
* Cameron Moore -- Thursday 31 January 2002 22:09:
Yes, this is definately wrong. I have a copy, but I'm not sure how old
it is (prolly a couple months). I don't think it has all of the changes
up to when it was removed. Anybody
Martin Spott wrote:
From: Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's also worth bearing in mind that
(a) FGFS is currently not taking advantage of some SGI hardware features
Do you believe it might make sense to take these features into account for
FlightGear ? I had the impression that by
Jon wrote:
I'm happy to help out with buildings (I have a registered version of AC3D
lying around from another project). Is there a any documentation anywhere
on how to include the buildings I design in the scenery? Presumably it
needs including in the airport files, but I've yet to work out
David Megginson writes:
Erik Hofman writes:
I guess there has gone something wrong in the conversion of the file.
Does anybody have the original still laying around?
The colours in the original were mostly not filled in either,
unfortunately. When you tweak the colours around, do
Martin Spott writes:
From: Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's also worth bearing in mind that
(a) FGFS is currently not taking advantage of some SGI hardware
features
Alex, what sgi hardware features are you referring to, and are these
available on any of the machines our developers have
On Thursday 31 January 2002 04:09 pm, you wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hofman) [2002.01.31 14:14]:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik,
I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to speak ill of sgi or those
who use sgi computers. I was just responding to Martin Spott's
suggestion that it
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look great), landing at night is too hard
right now. All of us
David,
At work, I run a proprietary FDM on a Sun Workstation and feed the
data to FlightGear. I use the '--fdm=external' and '--native_fdm=...'
options (--native_fmd= uses the same parameters as --native). I did
make some changes to Network/native_fdm.cxx to properly manage the
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:44, you wrote:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
flying nice (and makes roads look great), landing at
On Thursday 31 January 2002 09:02 pm, you wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:44, you wrote:
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of
runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night
I'm getting a lot of positive responses in the booth to the current
feature set. The pilots in the bunch are well pleased with JSBsim.
That's a relief [ said Jon, not quite able to hide the slight surprise in
his voice]. Any particular comments made? I would suspect perhaps a comment
on
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:30, you wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2002 08:56 pm, you wrote:
Anyone got any new screenshots of coming features or anything special
that I could show during my talk next week? Thanks,
David
I can post the foils from my presentation, but I lifted a lot of those
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt that version. Then release 0.8pre1 and have everyone
look for
John Check writes:
Okay heres a bug. When flying towards the sun/moon, the body in question
will jump down ~45 degrees for a frame or two. When ever this happens the
time jumps ahead on the clock. Uh... ok... so the time stutters.
Yes, I see the time stutter as well -- it seems to
John Wojnaroski writes:
Question? You mention roads. Are there features (objects) not enabled by the
CVS version?
TerraGear can build scenery with roads, rivers, railroads, small
towns, etc. from the vmap0 CDs, but Curt hasn't included that in the
official scenery distro yet.
All the
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 18:51, David Megginson wrote:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt that
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:51, you wrote:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt that version. Then
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 19:26, David Findlay wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:51, you wrote:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon,
This is weird. Your back trace isn't showing where exactly in the
options.cxx:fgSetDefaults() routine you are crashing. But, the value=
shows -110.6642444 so this is clearly dying on the first
fgSetDouble():
fgSetDouble(/position/longitude-deg, -110.6642444);
So somehow your property
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Megginson) [2002.01.31 20:56]:
David Findlay writes:
I think the other thing needed is stabilising all current
features. There's lots of little annoying bugs that need to be
reported and fixed. 0.7.9 should be released soon, then everyone
could bug hunt
Alex, what sgi hardware features are you referring to, and are these
available on any of the machines our developers have access to?
I'm still not sure what special graphics features sgi provides (that
something like a mid-hi level geforce card doesn't) that we'd be
interested in.
I'm
Someone should actually go through all the entries and pick
appropriate non-texture colors for each material. I thought it would
be intresting to taket the average of all the pixels in the texture,
but never got around to seeing how well that would work. But it's
something you could then
- Original Message -
From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:44 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the
absolute top priority
Guys I propose to use multicast for multiply windows visualisation
Now we can only use tcp and udp but it now very usefull to have same data on
multiply image generators
so I propose to include in simgear multicast networking
for example for fdm server we can use this
option
42 matches
Mail list logo
