> That is quite impressive!
Indeed !
> Vertex smoothing and transparent windows would be great...
Until now it's got a transparent a**, eh, tail ;-))
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Whups, should be arriving soon.
This is the font that seemed to work the best of the 3 that people
mentioned when I asked earlier.
Curt.
John Check writes:
> On Monday 18 February 2002 10:22 pm, you wrote:
> > On Monday 18 February 2002 09:44 pm, you wrote:
> > > John, David, other panel desig
On Monday 18 February 2002 10:22 pm, you wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2002 09:44 pm, you wrote:
> > John, David, other panel designers,
> >
> > I have just added support for multiple panel fonts. Right now we have
> > the default (typewriter) font and an LED font.
> >
> > When specifying panel
> Some reuse. I'm running a 16mb Voodoo3 3000. What will you be using?
8MB + AGP in a RagePro chipset
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c172r-tiled-panel.png
> > http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c310-tiled-panel.png
>
> Very nice. Do you do enough texture re-use that it'll run well on
> low-texture-memory machines ? I'm doing a demo on Wednesday 8-)
>
> Ot
On Monday 18 February 2002 09:44 pm, you wrote:
> John, David, other panel designers,
>
> I have just added support for multiple panel fonts. Right now we have
> the default (typewriter) font and an LED font.
>
> When specifying panel text, you can include led to
> specify the LED font.
>
> The p
On Monday 18 February 2002 08:50 pm, you wrote:
> Here are a couple screen shots, the first is the C172R IFR panel with tiled
> background and another shot of the c310 panel that I did last week cleaned
> up a bit. There's still a couple things to work out but hopefully I can
> post the code chan
Jim Wilson writes:
> Here are a couple screen shots, the first is the C172R IFR panel with tiled
> background and another shot of the c310 panel that I did last week cleaned up
> a bit. There's still a couple things to work out but hopefully I can post the
> code changes in the next day or
John, David, other panel designers,
I have just added support for multiple panel fonts. Right now we have
the default (typewriter) font and an LED font.
When specifying panel text, you can include led to
specify the LED font.
The panel support code could be generalized a bit more, but this is
Alex Perry writes:
> That doesn't seem too hard. Curt, how about having FGFS write
> the values of all the properties to a file in a shellscript
> acceptable fashion ? Given a collection of such files, with
> names that describe the developers' opinion on survivability,
> it should be easy
matthew law writes:
> That is quite impressive!
Thanks.
> All done in blender/gimp?
Yes, completely. After years of aversion, I found that it was
actually quite easy to learn both because of the many excellent,
step-by-step online tutorials. I *like* layers and masks in the Gimp
now that I
> http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c172r-tiled-panel.png
> http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c310-tiled-panel.png
Very nice. Do you do enough texture re-use that it'll run well on
low-texture-memory machines ? I'm doing a demo on Wednesday 8-)
Other than that, you need some mini texture fragments
Here are a couple screen shots, the first is the C172R IFR panel with tiled
background and another shot of the c310 panel that I did last week cleaned up
a bit. There's still a couple things to work out but hopefully I can post the
code changes in the next day or so.
http://www.spiderbark.com/f
> OTOH getting beyond something fairly simple would probably need
> some sort of time history of key events and some aero data.
Ok, here's one as example. It's the second plane I trained in, after the
first one was intentionally flown acrobatically until the wings failed.
This accident wasn't me
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:16:25 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rick said:
>> The ideal, but probably unobtainable, result would be a excerpt
>> from the accident investigation report:
>>
>> 'The aircraft impacted nose down with an angle of approximately
>> 83 degrees to the ver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:09:37PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> I have a feeling that if I were a real C-172 pilot looking at 50 kt
> surface winds, I'd just leave the plane tied down and take a bus.
I think you wouldn't feel very comfortable in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Still not completely happy with it, but don't want to hold it off
any longer. Wind layer configuration is at the top. You can add
as many as you want, but remember to add them in order from low
to high.
Usage: nc -vve wind
===[ wind ]===
Rick said:
> The ideal, but probably unobtainable, result would be a excerpt
> from the accident investigation report:
>
> 'The aircraft impacted nose down with an angle of approximately
> 83 degrees to the vertical and 3 degrees of bank. There was no
> evidence of rotation about any of the aircr
Martin van Beilen writes:
> Speaking of ground handling, all aircraft have the tendency to
> slowly float sideways, even with zero wind, brakes applied and
> engine(s) stopped. What's up with that?
>
Numerical precision errors somewhere.
Cheers - Dave
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > BTW, it's good to see that people have started experimenting with
> > various combinations of wind and FDM's. There are interesting
> > differences in ground handling between various models.
> >
> > Speaking of ground handling, all aircraft have the tendency to
> > s
> BTW, it's good to see that people have started experimenting with
> various combinations of wind and FDM's. There are interesting
> differences in ground handling between various models.
>
> Speaking of ground handling, all aircraft have the tendency to
> slowly float sideways, even with zero w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:59:26PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> > It is now fixed. dir += 180 has been added back in, and the
> > JSBSim.cxx interface file has been changed to reverse the sense for
> > JSBSim.
>
> No, that's not right after a
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:30:38 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Curt comments:
>> Erik Hofman writes:
>> > Alex Perry wrote:
>> > > I see nothing wrong with a fireball feature ... a PLIB sequenced 3D
>> > > animation that gets loaded from a file (if requested by config option)
>>
David,
That is quite impressive!
All done in blender/gimp?
Vertex smoothing and transparent windows would be great...
All the best,
Matt.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-dev
Alex Perry writes:
> For a slight headwind, or a slight tailwind, you can use the
> ailerons to modify the effective angle of attack and oppose that
> rolling torque. However, the stated example is exactly at 90
> degrees and thus this would have no effect. In real life, you'd
> zigzag dow
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> Yes something similar happened to me the first time I saw code to an
> MSVC program.
Thank god it wasn't VB, then.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PRO
>
> --
> "I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!"
> http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
Hey. Are you paying royalties on that quote!
;-)
Actually, my quote was that we wanted to be "plausible, off-nominal",
meaning in outer-envelope flight we wanted to be believable in our m
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Christian Mayer writes:
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > When you get a strong shock (in the medical sense) it might happen that
> > you see yourself as a bystander. (Happend to me once).
>
> Yes something similar happened to me the first time I saw cod
> Alex Perry writes:
> > I suspect the LaRCSim is the most accurate. It is possible to taxi
> > (carefully) with those winds, but takes considerable planning and
> > operation of the controls to make it work out safely.
David comments:
> The tests were run with the plane stationary, engine at
> And they do it for entertainment value. For most people FGFS
> is classified as a game. That's right up there with offensive capability
> on the top 10 list at demos . Besides, we can always have a switch
> to turn it off.
>
> TTYL
> John
>
I think that having it be optional would be good.
Christian asks:
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> > Landing lights: I saw a very convincing implimentation of this in a
> > sim where the ground was a 100% flat plane in all directions and they
> > did their own ground lighting calcs. They used a texture to simulate
> > the imperfections of the lens i
Christian Mayer writes:
> Not necessarily.
>
> When you get a strong shock (in the medical sense) it might happen that
> you see yourself as a bystander. (Happend to me once).
Yes something similar happened to me the first time I saw code to an
MSVC program.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson IVLab / Hum
Curt comments:
> Erik Hofman writes:
> > Alex Perry wrote:
> > > I see nothing wrong with a fireball feature ... a PLIB sequenced 3D
> > > animation that gets loaded from a file (if requested by config option)
> > > and triggered to be played by the rising edge of the "crash flag".
> >
> > Well,
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> Landing lights: I saw a very convincing implimentation of this in a
> sim where the ground was a 100% flat plane in all directions and they
> did their own ground lighting calcs. They used a texture to simulate
> the imperfections of the lens in the beam and it looke
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hofman) [2002.02.18 03:52]:
> Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> >Hi!
> >Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear release
> >and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0?
>
> I would like to see a 0.8.0 release (moslty bugfixes and fgat support
> only). This should b
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 02:23:47PM -0500, John Check wrote:
>
> And they do it for entertainment value. For most people FGFS
> is classified as a game. That's right up there with offensive capability
> on the top 10 list at demos . Besides, we can always have a switch
> to turn it off.
>
You
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> Erik Hofman writes:
> > Alex Perry wrote:
> > >>>I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser.
> > >>>People do ask for it.
> > >>>
> > >>From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes
> > >>tend to snap or crumple rather than expl
Thanks
D Luff writes:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > The unix zip utility had a lot of problems building a zip file that
> > large last time I tried it, so if someone else wants to create a zip
> > version and send it to me (or rather post it where I can fetch it)
> > that would be great.
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
>
Thats a great shame. My first contact with this list was Normans
helpful and friendly advice on how to compile FlightGear with
Cygwin.
Cheers - Dave
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) writes:
> (Yet Another Stupid Feature Request Inquiry From an Ignorant Developer)
>
> I have seen several articles (seen != fully_read_or_understood) mentioning
> the modeling of "shadows" using projected texturing. Has anyone here ever
> considered doing this?
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> The unix zip utility had a lot of problems building a zip file that
> large last time I tried it, so if someone else wants to create a zip
> version and send it to me (or rather post it where I can fetch it)
> that would be great.
>
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf
David Megginson writes:
>
> No, that's not right after all. Following a message from Jon Berndt,
> I took a peek at the property browser, and the wind-{north|east}-fps
> is the to- direction, not the from- direction. JSBSim was using the
> from- direction already, while the other FDM's were usi
Alex Perry writes:
> > fgfs --aircraft=c172 --airport-id=KSFO --heading=270 --wind=0@50
> > The JSBSim C172 actually takes off, weathervanes in the air, then
> > lands again facing north. The LaRCSim C172 flips over, and the
> > UIUC C172 starts sliding smoothly sideways. YASim takes the
Erik Hofman writes:
> Alex Perry wrote:
> >>>I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser.
> >>>People do ask for it.
> >>>
> >>From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes
> >>tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above).
> >>
> >
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is this now how the "system" works?
The command-line option has always been meant (and documented) to give
the from direction. I guess it's still up for grabs how the internal
NED properties represent wind.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECT
Alex Perry wrote:
>>>I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser.
>>>People do ask for it.
>>>
>>From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes
>>tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above).
>>
>
> The fire (non-ball) does happen occ
Erik Hofman writes:
> Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > D Luff writes:
> >
> >>I can do. I assumed Norman would provide a MingW compiled
> >>one, but he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
> >>
> >
> > Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
>
> For any particular reason
> I have uploaded the new binaries of FlightGear-0.7.9 at:
> http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/
Yeah, yeah, yeah
_That_ makes me happy. Pretty nice work. More features that previous
versions at same or better frame rate. _This_ is really nice,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it'
On Monday 18 February 2002 01:44 pm, you wrote:
> John Check writes:
> > > > As for me I'd like to see
> > > > 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot
> > > > explosion textures)
> > >
> > > Hmm, I'm not sure I see a reason for this one.
> >
> > I'd move it down the lis
> > C172 starts sliding smoothly sideways. YASim takes the prize for this
> > one, since it simply weathervanes on the ground until it's facing
> > north, into the wind.
>
> I suspect the LaRCSim is the most accurate.
Yep. That was my thinking, too. Again, our gear model and high beta aero need
> fgfs --aircraft=c172 --airport-id=KSFO --heading=270 --wind=0@50
> The JSBSim C172 actually takes off, weathervanes in the air, then
> lands again facing north. The LaRCSim C172 flips over, and the UIUC
> C172 starts sliding smoothly sideways. YASim takes the prize for this
> one, since it s
> > I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser.
> > People do ask for it.
> From the crash reports I've read and pictures I've seen, small planes
> tend to snap or crumple rather than explode (often none of the above).
The fire (non-ball) does happen occasionally, but is usually d
David Megginson writes:
> > And guess what I discovered when diffing 0.7.8 against 0.7.9? In
> > Main/options.cxx, around line 900, someone *commented out* the
> > line "dir += 180;", thereby *changing* the definitions of
> > /environment/wind-{north,east}-fps! Okay, who did that? Just wa
> It is now fixed. dir += 180 has been added back in, and the
> JSBSim.cxx interface file has been changed to reverse the sense for
> JSBSim. All three models should now see the wind from the same
> direction, but they don't behave the same -- try this at the default
> airport:
>
> fgfs --air
John Check writes:
> > > As for me I'd like to see
> > > 1)ground explosion when plane crash the ground (I have a lot explosion
> > > textures)
> >
> > Hmm, I'm not sure I see a reason for this one.
>
> I'd move it down the list, but it would be a crowd pleaser.
> People do ask for it.
Martin van Beilen writes:
> And guess what I discovered when diffing 0.7.8 against 0.7.9? In
> Main/options.cxx, around line 900, someone *commented out* the
> line "dir += 180;", thereby *changing* the definitions of
> /environment/wind-{north,east}-fps! Okay, who did that? Just wait
> till
> > Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
> Bummer
Seconded.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> D Luff writes:
>
>>I can do. I assumed Norman would provide a MingW compiled
>>one, but he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
>>
>
> Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
For any particular reason, or is that unknown?
Erik
__
On Monday 18 February 2002 10:30 am, you wrote:
> D Luff writes:
> > I can do. I assumed Norman would provide a MingW compiled
> > one, but he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
>
> Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
>
Bummer
__
On Monday 18 February 2002 04:33 am, you wrote:
> Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> > Hi!
> > Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear
> > release and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0?
>
> I would like to see a 0.8.0 release (moslty bugfixes and fgat support
> only). This should be the
Michael Basler writes:
> Curt,
>
> > Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
>
> Bad news...
>
> > > I've put a Cygwin compiled one up at
> > >
> > > http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/fgfs-win32-bin-0.7.9.zip
> > >
>
> Curt, can we have an accompanying *.zip file of
Curt,
> Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
Bad news...
> > I've put a Cygwin compiled one up at
> >
> > http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/fgfs-win32-bin-0.7.9.zip
> >
Curt, can we have an accompanying *.zip file of the base package for Win
users this time? I am
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> > I can do. I assumed Norman would provide a MingW compiled
> > one, but he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
>
> Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
That is very sad news. I hope that we'll see him back before too
long.
All
BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM) writes:
> Shadows from ones own aircraft would of course be useful as a
> position cue.
I'd like to see this, but I'd have other priorities first, including
some decent buildings, etc., and a general TerraGear cleanup. Of
course, that won't stop anyone from
(Yet Another Stupid Feature Request Inquiry From an Ignorant Developer)
I have seen several articles (seen != fully_read_or_understood) mentioning
the modeling of "shadows" using projected texturing. Has anyone here ever
considered doing this? Is this something that is inherently not possible in
* Martin van Beilen -- Monday 18 February 2002 17:08:
> And guess what I discovered when diffing 0.7.8 against 0.7.9? In
> Main/options.cxx, around line 900, someone *commented out* the
> line "dir += 180;", thereby *changing* the definitions of
> /environment/wind-{north,east}-fps! Okay, who did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:58:44AM -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> What are/is the way[s] a user can specify wind on the FGFS command line? All
> I can see is this:
>
> --wind=DIR@SPEED: specify wind coming from DIR (degrees) at SPEED (knots)
Correct
D Luff writes:
> I can do. I assumed Norman would provide a MingW compiled
> one, but he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
Norman has resigned from the FlightGear project for now ... :-(
> I've put a Cygwin compiled one up at
>
> http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/fgfs-win32-bin-0.7.
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> As people build executables for these platforms it would be great to
> be able to point to them.
>
> Dave, were you going to do the windows binaries like you did for the
> pre releases?
>
I can do. I assumed Norman would provide a MingW compiled
one, but he doesn't s
"Jon S. Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Was there a properties way to do it that is opposite to the above? Perhaps
> we are given too much power! ;-)
In the /environment path there are variables for wind direction that specify a
force value as fps from east and/or north, the "sum" of which a
From: Martin van Beilen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the same vein, it is a convention to report vertical winds as
> 'to' headings. Although vertical heading is binary, it is
> reported as 'to-up', not 'from-down'. So if you want to stick to
> the meteo conventions, your horizontal components should
From: Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That is a "to" vector, by definition. Really, the
> "from" convention applies to a 1-dimensional compass direction; I'm
> not aware of anyone else trying to apply it to a 3D vector environment.
Ooh! Yeah, that is a good point about the 3D part of it. It's b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:15:01PM -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> We are talking about simulating an aircraft, about an
> aircraft-centric phenomena, and about a phenomena that is normally reported
> by humans in a particular way. Sitting on the runw
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
> Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> > Hi!
> > Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear
rel
Roman Grigoriev wrote:
> Hi!
> Curtis could you please tell us your priotities to next FlightGear release
> and It would be 0.7.10 or 0.8.0?
I would like to see a 0.8.0 release (moslty bugfixes and fgat support
only). This should be the most reliable release of the past five years.
:-)
There is
75 matches
Mail list logo
