Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] feature request: a menu sustem
HI, thanx for a great game :) I am playing flightgear for the last months and i really enjoy it.But i believe that it lacks something: a menu I would like when flightgear starts to have a menu, to select _graphically_ which airplane and which airport i would like to use, and to set some other options, like a random instrument failure, or a nickname, and then to select play and load the real scenery of the game.I believe this would be a major enhancement to the game and it will attract many new players. Thanx a lot ps: sorry for my english, i am not a native speaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Greece http://www.angelfire.com/on3/ironhell3index/HellWorld.html _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: a menu sustem
Ironhell3 . wrote: HI, thanx for a great game :) I am playing flightgear for the last months and i really enjoy it.But i believe that it lacks something: a menu I would like when flightgear starts to have a menu, to select _graphically_ which airplane and which airport i would like to use, and to set some other options, like a random instrument failure, or a nickname, and then to select play and load the real scenery of the game.I believe this would be a major enhancement to the game and it will attract many new players. Yeah, we are aware of that. But unfortunately the history of FlightGear makes it a bit difficult to implement this. We are slowly but steadily working towards the possibility to add these feature. I'm glad you like it so far. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
Not to forget the prop liners before the jets. Also by the by is there any intention of updating to 9.3 in the near future.Just asking to see whats in the pipe line Cheers Innis Curtis L. Olson writes We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel _ E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] What is Everybody Doing
Hi All In an effort to see what 3D models might be in the pipeline and to save people working on the same model. Maybe people could say what A/C they have under development(not in your imagination though). I am currently working on the 737-300(almost finished) plus panel(half finished). After that I was thinking 707 or DH Dash8. Anyway it would give 3D modellers some idea what to work on. Cheers Innis _ Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] What is Everybody Doing
Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All In an effort to see what 3D models might be in the pipeline and to save people working on the same model. Maybe people could say what A/C they have under development(not in your imagination though). I am currently working on the 737-300(almost finished) plus panel(half finished). After that I was thinking 707 or DH Dash8. Anyway it would give 3D modellers some idea what to work on. Why not open a page on the Wiki ? -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Beyond presets
David Megginson writes: Tony Peden writes: /sim/startup/init/position-type : (latlon|airport|navaid|runway) /sim/startup/init/altitude-type : (msl|agl|glidepath) /sim/startup/init/orientation-type : (rph|runway) /sim/startup/init/time-type : (utc|local|sunpos) This sounds awful close to /sim/presets, so it sounds to me like we may always need the functionality. That being the case, why change it? Not really -- the difference is that the actual values (lat/lon/alt/hpr/airport/navaid/etc.) live in the main property tree, and these tell us only where we should look for them. Sounds to me like what is needed is a way to do $MY_TREE = which branch I want / sim / $MY_TREE / *** / ** Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Beyond presets
Norman Vine writes: Not really -- the difference is that the actual values (lat/lon/alt/hpr/airport/navaid/etc.) live in the main property tree, and these tell us only where we should look for them. Sounds to me like what is needed is a way to do $MY_TREE = which branch I want / sim / $MY_TREE / *** / ** I don't think that's it either -- we have too many different ways to set the initial position, velocity, etc. Simply selecting a branch of the property tree won't do it (unless we want to duplicate all of the information in that branch, in which case we're back to presets again). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Beyond presets
David Megginson writes: Norman Vine writes: Not really -- the difference is that the actual values (lat/lon/alt/hpr/airport/navaid/etc.) live in the main property tree, and these tell us only where we should look for them. Sounds to me like what is needed is a way to do $MY_TREE = which branch I want / sim / $MY_TREE / *** / ** I don't think that's it either -- we have too many different ways to set the initial position, velocity, etc. Simply selecting a branch of the property tree won't do it (unless we want to duplicate all of the information in that branch, in which case we're back to presets again). I should have clarified this is only when the properties are in 'persistant' mode, reading or writing to/from disk I agree that we do not want or need more then one tree in memory. Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] What is Everybody Doing
Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All In an effort to see what 3D models might be in the pipeline and to save people working on the same model. Maybe people could say what A/C they have under development(not in your imagination though). I am currently working on the 737-300(almost finished) plus panel(half finished). After that I was thinking 707 or DH Dash8. Anyway it would give 3D modellers some idea what to work on. I'm not planning or doing any aircraft at the moment other than the F-104, FOkker 50 and Fokker 100 I will continue to work on. I am *hoping* to create an F-16 model some time, but if some one beats me to it I would be more than happy (hint hint ..) ;-) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Compiling Under Cygwin
I'm building FG under Cygwin on XP home this morning. All is well, but I did find that I needed to add a link directory (the linker couldn't find libsgmath): $ LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib ./configure I installed Cygwin this morning and plib, SG, and FG are from CVS and AFAIK I did nothing different or unusual. -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] [Fwd: help]
Erik Hofman writes: Norman Vine wrote: Erik Hofman writes: Tests have shown that in-lining code doesn't make a huge difference (actually the code might become slower ...) but it decreased the executable tremendously. IMO the jury is still out on this :-) Compiling with minimal inlining *will* decrease compile times and IIRC was the prime motivator for those making the argument that inlining doesn't do any good. statistics-like-code-can-be-tweaked-to-prove-anything'ly yr's True. But given that there was no noticeable effect I guess we're safe. Unless someone literally follows your advice and removes all the inlined code that we currently have :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Service Pack for Visual Studio . net ?
Hi, I try to compile Metakit with MSVC7 and got some error's. I have looked for service packs, but I only found Service pack 5 for the earlier version. Is this right, or can I use the service pack for Visual C++ 7 ?? Bodo ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Opengc-devel] Linux Hardware
http://www.a-g-t.com http://www.microchip.com http://cockpit.varxec.de/ What about having these links added to the Relateds sites/projects section on the FlightGear webpage ? I'm always afraid I might lose an URL, and these look like promising projects... -- Jorge Van Hemelryck ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200 Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) hum... The Mirage 2000C is definitely a fighter, whereas the Mirage 2000D would be a fighter-bomber (is that what you call attack aircraft?), as it does have air-to-air capacity. The Mirage F1C was a fighter (no longer in service in France), the F1CT is an attack aircraft, and the F1CR a reconnaissance aircraft. All of them can act as fighters as well. And the Rafale was designed to be a multirole aircraft as well. Maybe you could make some distinctions among MiG and Sukhoi aircraft... For instance, the Su-27 was mainly a fighter, until more recent versions gained air-to-ground capacity, whereas the Su-25 is just an attack aircraft. I'm not really criticizing, but I'm saying it's going to be more and more difficult to sort all these modern aircraft in categories. -- Jorge Van Hemelryck ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] more hotspots
I added some more hotspots to Davids c172p since he already had done all the animation. Also I tried making the throttle and mixture knobs into hotspots even when they are moving adding extra hotspots for them. Also you can click on the trim wheel to trim now. I added a directory for the labels for the white toggle switches, but there is probably better way to do the labels then I came up with. There is a short readme file which gives the path for the new directory. Let me know if it works ok? the package is here http://mysite.verizon.net/vze3b42n/hotspots.tar.gz Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
On Saturday 20 September 2003 17:45, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200 Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) hum... The Mirage 2000C is definitely a fighter, whereas the Mirage 2000D would be a fighter-bomber (is that what you call attack aircraft?), as it does have air-to-air capacity. The Mirage F1C was a fighter (no longer in service in France), the F1CT is an attack aircraft, and the F1CR a reconnaissance aircraft. All of them can act as fighters as well. And the Rafale was designed to be a multirole aircraft as well. Maybe you could make some distinctions among MiG and Sukhoi aircraft... For instance, the Su-27 was mainly a fighter, until more recent versions gained air-to-ground capacity, whereas the Su-25 is just an attack aircraft. I'm not really criticizing, but I'm saying it's going to be more and more difficult to sort all these modern aircraft in categories. -- Jorge Van Hemelryck Those are pretty good points and we risk having more categories than a/c. Categeories could be helpful to someone who doesn't know what they want to fly but the categories should be kept small and simple. Perhaps several simple lists might be easier to handle, such as Size, Propulsion, Use etc, with simple categories in each list, such as Small, Medium Large in the Size list, Piston, Turbine Rocket in the Propulsion list and Civil, Military, Experimental Research in the Use list. Each a/c would appear in each list, in the appropriate category, so for example, the 747 would appear in the Large category of the Size list, the Turbine category of the Propulsion list and the Civil category in the Use list. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service Pack for Visual Studio . net ?
Bodo von Thadden wrote: Hi, I try to compile Metakit with MSVC7 and got some error's. I have looked for service packs, but I only found Service pack 5 for the earlier version. Is this right, or can I use the service pack for Visual C++ 7 ?? AFAIK, there is no service pack for VC 7. Don't try to install VC6SP5 or you will definitely corrupt your installation. BTW, latest CVS version of FG no longer require MetaKit -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Service Pack for Visual Studio . net ?
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Bodo von Thadden wrote: Hi, I try to compile Metakit with MSVC7 and got some error's. I have looked for service packs, but I only found Service pack 5 for the earlier version. Is this right, or can I use the service pack for Visual C++ 7 ?? AFAIK, there is no service pack for VC 7. Don't try to install VC6SP5 or you will definitely corrupt your installation. However, there is a .NET 2003 version, aka VC 7.1 -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Fwd: help]
Norman Vine wrote: Unless someone literally follows your advice and removes all the inlined code that we currently have :-) Now, that would be a waste of precious time :-) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having a one aircraft, one file type configuration. The idea is basically to put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the archives into one directory. Of course, each archive would need some kind of .info file in it to tell fg what the aircraft name is, etc. Optimally, a command line option would override any faults set in the archive. Matevz Jekovec wrote: Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:29:48 +0200 Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For modern military aircrafts, I would make the following hierarchy: - Fighter (most of F-xx, Rafale, MiG-s, Sukhoi-s) - Attack (A-10, Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000, my J-22, Su-25) - Bomber (F-117, B-1, B-2, B-52, Iljusin-s) - Transport-Support (Hercules, Galaxy, KC-10, KC-135, Antonov-s) - EWS (EC-3? AWACS, Prowler) - Recon (light, fast, reconaissance aircrafts) - Trainee (light military aircrafts developed specially for teaching) hum... The Mirage 2000C is definitely a fighter, whereas the Mirage 2000D would be a fighter-bomber (is that what you call attack aircraft?), as it does have air-to-air capacity. The Mirage F1C was a fighter (no longer in service in France), the F1CT is an attack aircraft, and the F1CR a reconnaissance aircraft. All of them can act as fighters as well. And the Rafale was designed to be a multirole aircraft as well. Maybe you could make some distinctions among MiG and Sukhoi aircraft... For instance, the Su-27 was mainly a fighter, until more recent versions gained air-to-ground capacity, whereas the Su-25 is just an attack aircraft. I'm not really criticizing, but I'm saying it's going to be more and more difficult to sort all these modern aircraft in categories. Yes, of course. I was just giving examples of generaly, which aircrafts to put it to folders (why they are there). I think overall it's not hard to categorize aircrafts, but I is no doubtly a must, cause the available aircrafts number is drasticly growing. My J-22 A is a version which is most widely spread - Fighter-Bomber role aircraft (therefore let's say J-22 is an attack aircraft), although variant B is a double seater (trainee or a better close air support) and an R variant for recon. Anyway, every aircaft does a description of it, usually commented in xml wrapper files (what type, how old, development, who uses it, history, armement etc.), which should some day be showed in game too (I had in mind a technical library accessible from the game menu, which will show a 3D model of an aircraft, a tree structure data, a description, radar symbols etc.) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- A scientist claims in court that the reason he ran a red light is that, due to his speed, the color was blueshifted till it appeared green. Needless to say, the charges of running the red light were dropped and he lost his license for speeding excessively. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: heads up - aircraft reorg
On Saturday 20 September 2003 04:29 pm, JD Fenech wrote: I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having a one aircraft, one file type configuration. The idea is basically to put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the archives into one directory. Of course, each archive would need some kind of .info file in it to tell fg what the aircraft name is, etc. Optimally, a command line option would override any faults set in the archive. This came up recently. The consensus, I think, was that the files first needed to be placed in a single directory, which is being done. The next step will be to chose an archiving library, I believe. Dave -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
JD Fenech writes: I know this is slightly off topic, but what is the possibility of having a one aircraft, one file type configuration. The idea is basically to put all of the requisite files for a particular aircraft into some kind of archive file, such as a tarball, and then drop the archives into one directory. Of course, each archive would need some kind of .info file in it to tell fg what the aircraft name is, etc. Optimally, a command line option would override any faults set in the archive. The difficulty with a single file approach is in the handling of the aircraft 3d model and textures. We use plib and depend on it's model/texture loaders so we would have to rewrite all those plib loader routines to know about our special file conglomeration format ... and that would get really messy really fast. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] What is Everybody Doing
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:35:02PM +0800, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All In an effort to see what 3D models might be in the pipeline and to save people working on the same model. Maybe people could say what A/C they have under development(not in your imagination though). Boeing 717-200 Regards, Manuel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] What is Everybody Doing
Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi All In an effort to see what 3D models might be in the pipeline and to save people working on the same model. Maybe people could say what A/C they have under development(not in your imagination though). I am currently working on the 737-300(almost finished) plus panel(half finished). After that I was thinking 707 or DH Dash8. Anyway it would give 3D modellers some idea what to work on. Well I've been thinking about the emb-135 for a long time, and recently we talked about the beech 1900 on the list. But for now I'm going to be showing some restraint and just focus on the things that I've already started or promised someone I would do. These include: Finishing the 747-400, P51-D, and c310/U-3A 3D models. Building a 3D compass model for cessnas. a 3D cockpit for the ornithopter. Maybe some more detail in the A-4 (after all the rest). The only thing that I started that I consider pretty much done is the 1903 Flyer model...so my record isn't all that good on this right now. And progress has been a little slow recently...but I've got some significant changes to the 747 in progress. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be useful? Don't all of our aircraft fit into that category? :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: snip Two areas of concern. There are about 40 variations on the c172 and about 20 variations on the c310 with different incantations and aliases and various conglomerations of yasim, jsbsim, 3d cockpits, 2d cockpits, etc. etc. etc. This was kind of messy since they all tend to refer back and forth to each other and all over the place. I think I got everything tweaked correctly, but those of you who care about these should maybe double check that I didn't screw something up. I'll run through some the next couple of days. This is really a great improvement. At some point it might be worth taking a pass through the existing aircraft and moving those that have significant problems or significantly missing pieces off to some other area ... We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ That's good. Maybe a more generic Historical category would be useful? Not all of the planes that fit in WWII would necessarily be just military and I'm not sure the j3cub would necessarily belong in the light singles (even though it would in a sense). Oh yeah and we have light twin piston too. An eye toward organizing for a menu system (interactive aircraft selection) would be good. Not sure what if any issues lay there. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up - aircraft reorg
We might also want to start thinking of an official organization hierarchy such as: Aircraft/ LightSingles/ JetFighters/ CommercialJets/ CommercialTurboProps/ Bombers/ WWI/ WWII/ SailPlanes/ Experimental/ Regards, Curt. Are there any plans for helicopters, rockets, ballons and airships? Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] model airplanes - but without FGFS so far
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9733962835.html There _must_ be a better way to communicate with the remote model aircraft than to use a web application server as the client software ... ... any ideas ? 8-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
