Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problems with AC3D 4.0
Innis Cunningham wrote: FATAL: ac to gl: unrecognised token ' crease 45.'. So, in the new AC3D version, they added a so called token. This means that the new version saves some additional info that the old version does not. Since PLIB does not (yet ;-)) know about this, PLIB throws the above error message. I can even guess what the new info does: It says edges less than 45 degrees are smooth and more than 45 degrees are sharp. Since AC3D V4 always saves in the new format, it does not mater whether you changed something. Anyway, send me a small file with the problem and I will have a look. As ulta-short-term workaround, you could do this: Open the file in an ascii editor like notepad. Search for the line. I would guess the crease 45. stands alone on one line. Delete it. Make sure there are no other lines like it. Try again. Cheers Innis The Mad Aussi Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problems with AC3D 4.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Innis Cunningham wrote: FATAL: ac to gl: unrecognised token ' crease 45.'. So, in the new AC3D version, they added a so called token. This means that the new version saves some additional info that the old version does not. Since PLIB does not (yet ;-)) know about this, PLIB throws the above error message. I can even guess what the new info does: It says edges less than 45 degrees are smooth and more than 45 degrees are sharp. Since AC3D V4 always saves in the new format, it does not mater whether you changed something. Anyway, send me a small file with the problem and I will have a look. As ulta-short-term workaround, you could do this: Open the file in an ascii editor like notepad. Search for the line. I would guess the crease 45. stands alone on one line. Delete it. Make sure there are no other lines like it. Try again. That might be difficult to implement in plib anyway. I did a little looking into this recently (as a parameter setting by the app, not a ac3d 4.0 attribute). Basically my investigation revealed that plib would have to split vertices (create duplicates on adjacent polygons) if their normal values were greater than x degrees from each other. The biggest problem is it would slow down the loader so much to make it useless for flightgear scenery objects. A better solution to the crease situation would be do optionally eliminate the automatic snapping of vertices in the plib optimiser and allow the modeller to do what they want in ac3d...good or bad. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problems with AC3D 4.0
Sorry that my email was not clear. The only thing I would implement (at least in the short term) is that PLIB ignores this token. So, it would hopefully be quite trivial to do; I do not have time for more right now anyway. However, like you also say, I do think this would also be a good thing. It seems that AC3D always writes this token, even if the user did not change it. Else Innis would probably have remembered setting it. So, if we would look at it always, it would be a bad thing IMHO. So, one would have to decide when to use it. And even then I guess there are more tedious, but flexible ways to get the same effect (some edges sharp, others smooth). bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problems with AC3D 4.0
Jim Wilson wrote: That might be difficult to implement in plib anyway. I did a little looking into this recently (as a parameter setting by the app, not a ac3d 4.0 attribute). Basically my investigation revealed that plib would have to split vertices (create duplicates on adjacent polygons) if their normal values were greater than x degrees from each other. The biggest problem is it would slow down the loader so much to make it useless for flightgear scenery objects. I have working code that does this, from my game project a few months back. Indeed, the idea is to start at each vertex in the mesh and walk around it, checking the angle of each edge you cross. Angles sharper than your threshold are flagged. You end up with a list of zones of smooth edges, which each get a new vertex with an appropriately averaged normal. The basic idea is pretty simple, but the edge cases (non-closed meshes, for instance) turned out to be enormously hard to get right. But the final result looks really good -- none of the diagonal shading stripes that you see on many of the aircraft wings due to being mis-lit at a corner. And it's really not slow at all -- it happens only at load time, and in my experience was noise compared to the I/O and parsing overhead. It does, obviously, increase the vertex count; but no more than a properly lit/normaled model would have in the first place. And it has the notable advantage of allowing the modeller to preserve the mesh structure without worrying about vertex duplication and normal direction. The only problem is that the code as it stands is not even remotely Plib-like. The model format is based on the syntax of the Nasal language that I wrote as part of the project, it contains (or is polluted by, depending on your viewpoint) support for dot3 bump mapping and prototype-quality stencil self shadows*. * Self only, with no particular integration into the rest of the scene, thus the prototype quality. And it's slow currently; doing too much CPU work to get the list of front-facing normals. But if anyone wants to play with it, the relevent code is up at: http://www.plausible.org/andy/model.tar.gz Specifically, take a look at Model::calcNormals(), which is the code responsible for the edge-sharpness-based vertex splitting. Ignore the TexBlock stuff, which is a texture state bucketing implementation largely useless in a Plib context (it's tied to rendering assumptions in the rest of my code). Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] First real flight
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry this is OT but there isn't anyone else who'd really understand. Still worth reading. Thanks, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear v0.9.3 announcement to developers
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you developers who build prepackaged versions can go crazy now with official builds for v0.9.3 ... Debian, Mandrake, Mac OS X, Irix, Solaris, Slackware, Redhat, Gentoo ... yeah I'm looking at you. :-) Just returned from vacation Solaris binaries are at: ftp://ftp.(ihg.)uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Solaris/FlightGear-solaris-install-0.9.3.tar.bz2 This package includes headers and libraries from PLIB and SimGear. The package is built against PLIB CVS for well known reasons (latest PLIB release does not compile on Solaris), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aide.....Help!
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tu peux télécharger les sources et les compiler toi-même si le coeur t'en dit ;-) C'est ce que je fais lorsqu'il m'arrive de booter sous Linux. Il y'a un manuel - le Installation and Getting Started. Ce n'est pas actuel avec la derniere revision de FlightGear mais ca suffit pour compiler on Linux, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear v0.9.3 announcement to developers
Ok, thanks! Curt. Martin Spott writes: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you developers who build prepackaged versions can go crazy now with official builds for v0.9.3 ... Debian, Mandrake, Mac OS X, Irix, Solaris, Slackware, Redhat, Gentoo ... yeah I'm looking at you. :-) Just returned from vacation Solaris binaries are at: ftp://ftp.(ihg.)uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Solaris/FlightGear-solaris-install-0.9.3.tar.bz2 This package includes headers and libraries from PLIB and SimGear. The package is built against PLIB CVS for well known reasons (latest PLIB release does not compile on Solaris), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- 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] First real flight
Martin Spott writes: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry this is OT but there isn't anyone else who'd really understand. Still worth reading. Absolutely. I missed the original posting, so I had to yank it out of the archives: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-October/022083.html It was an interesting narrative, thanks. Most noticable difference - my seat here at home doesn't move. You don't feel the lift and sink through your backside:) Or the gusts and turbulence... Turbulence sucks: when I'm flying, I usually try to climb out above it. Turbulence often means thermals and updrafts, though, so I imagine that soaring types actually go looking for it. The gusts disappear usually a few hundred feet above the ground. The turbulence disappears anywhere between 1,000 and 10,000 feet above the ground, depending on all kinds of factors. The faster you go, the less you feel the gusts and turbulence. In a slow glider, I imagine that the effects are very pronounced. Most disconcerting difference - there was little sense of forward motion so when in moderate bank it felt more like we were tipping over rather than turning. In steeper banks there was a bit of G and it actually felt a bit more secure. If you felt any sideways pull, then the turns were not coordinated. Slipping turns are good ways to lose altitude, and I'd guess that soaring pilots use them quite a bit to get down to the field. Approach and landing was not what I'd expect either - stick out the airbrakes while still several hundred feet in the air and then dive down to the ground, level off and flair. Sadly, there are powered-plane pilots who try to do the same thing, even through flaps aren't exactly air brakes. Sorry this is OT but there isn't anyone else who'd really understand. On the contrary, it was an excellent posting. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] From the department of useless stats department ...
According to my records, sunday was our all time record in terms of web site hits (262,963). October is on track to have the highest average web site hits per day: http://baron.flightgear.org/webalizer/ Out 0.9.3 announcement was posted on several web sites relating to flight simulation, gaming, and linux. Avsim.com has been our biggest referrer followed by flightsim.com. Our ftp site has been pretty much maxed out since early sunday morning. The following is a set of graphs of current number of ftp users over various time spans: http://seneca.me.umn.edu/mrtg/ftpcount.html Looks like 0.9.3 has been a popular release. Good work everyone! 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] First real flight
On Monday 27 October 2003 23:41, David Megginson wrote: The faster you go, the less you feel the gusts and turbulence. In a slow glider, I imagine that the effects are very pronounced. The a/c we were in was quite a 'tame' craft and my friend showed me what the stall onset was like - at around 30kias you could fell a sort of 'thrumming' through the a/c - a very gentle oscillation (sp?) that was regular and superimposed, or 'under' the turbulance buffet. Sign of a good training a/c I guess - it was clearly felt even though it was pretty bumpy anyway. Most disconcerting difference - there was little sense of forward motion so when in moderate bank it felt more like we were tipping over rather than turning. In steeper banks there was a bit of G and it actually felt a bit more secure. If you felt any sideways pull, then the turns were not coordinated. Slipping turns are good ways to lose altitude, and I'd guess that soaring pilots use them quite a bit to get down to the field. Yeah - we were going down at that point but we were banked approx 50-60 deg (my guess). Very strange to compare 'theory'against practice:) Approach and landing was not what I'd expect either - stick out the airbrakes while still several hundred feet in the air and then dive down to the ground, level off and flair. Sadly, there are powered-plane pilots who try to do the same thing, even through flaps aren't exactly air brakes. It was from FlightGear that I was surprised at the approach. No, it's not the sort of thing you would do in a powered a/c. I wonder how much of this might be due to the all-up weight vs. lift ratios between a glider and a powered aircraft. The speed-brakes were perfectly balanced - I didn't detect any appreciable trim change - very impressive:) We watched a couple of the instructors checking each other out, flying close to the stall, practicing, into the wind. With 20+ kts wind across the field (the 15kt windsocks were horizontal most of the day) and typical stall speeds of ~ 30 kts, they were making barely 10kts ground speed:) They were doing some spins too:) Sorry this is OT but there isn't anyone else who'd really understand. On the contrary, it was an excellent posting. It was an excellent experience:) LeeE All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] From the department of useless stats department ...
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 00:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote: According to my records, sunday was our all time record in terms of web site hits (262,963). October is on track to have the highest average web site hits per day: http://baron.flightgear.org/webalizer/ Out 0.9.3 announcement was posted on several web sites relating to flight simulation, gaming, and linux. Avsim.com has been our biggest referrer followed by flightsim.com. Our ftp site has been pretty much maxed out since early sunday morning. The following is a set of graphs of current number of ftp users over various time spans: http://seneca.me.umn.edu/mrtg/ftpcount.html Looks like 0.9.3 has been a popular release. Good work everyone! 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 I'd like to second that - it's a good package and lots of people have done lots of good stuff. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problems with AC3D 4.0
On Monday 27 October 2003 15:40, Innis Cunningham wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Innis Cunningham wrote: FATAL: ac to gl: unrecognised token ' crease 45.'. So, in the new AC3D version, they added a so called token. This means that the new version saves some additional info that the old version does not. Since PLIB does not (yet ;-)) know about this, PLIB throws the above error message. I can even guess what the new info does: It says edges less than 45 degrees are smooth and more than 45 degrees are sharp. Since AC3D V4 always saves in the new format, it does not mater whether you changed something. Anyway, send me a small file with the problem and I will have a look. As ulta-short-term workaround, you could do this: Open the file in an ascii editor like notepad. Search for the line. I would guess the crease 45. stands alone on one line. Delete it. Make sure there are no other lines like it. Try again. Bye bye, Wolfram. Thanks Wolfram you are bang on.It appears this is a new feature in 4.0 which Plib has not caught up with.The easiest solution I can think of is to reinstall the previous version of AC3D and use it till a fix can be found. I just would be interested if someone in here who is using v4.0 has got it to work. I will follow your advice and see if the crease statement on occurs once or more often. Thaks for the replies Cheers Innis The Mad Aussi I think Andy and Wolfram are right on the trail of the cause. Have you tried running a diff between the two files? How much of it is the same and how much is different? Still on 3.6 here. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Mac OSX 10.3 (Panther) Build
Oops, I sent this to the Users list instead. For those of us who use Macs, I just installed Panther on my machine. Just the OS upgrade increased my frame rate by about 15%. I am currently working through some compiler issues with Xcode and will let you know how well the new compiler works. Jonathan Polley ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Mac OSX 10.3 (Panther) Build
Well, I got it built under Panther only to have it crash during
initialization. This is what I am seeing, can anyone give me an idea
as to what may be wrong? I cleaned everything via a 'make uninstall'
and 'make clean' before attempting to rebuild.
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
0x00298bd4 in gen_vasi_light_map() () at matlib.cxx:184
184 for ( int i = 0; i env_tex_res; ++i ) {
(gdb) backtrace
#0 0x00298bd4 in gen_vasi_light_map() () at matlib.cxx:184
#1 0x0029c868 in SGMaterialLib::load(std::string const, std::string
const) (this=0x5d1c4b0, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) at
matlib.cxx:528
#2 0x000186e4 in fgInitSubsystems() () at
/sw/include/simgear/misc/sg_path.hxx:116
#3 0x64d0 in fgIdleFunction() () at main.cxx:1321
#4 0x87521e18 in -[GLUTApplication run] ()
#5 0x8753bd28 in glutMainLoop ()
#6 0x8b94 in fgMainInit(int, char**) (argc=1, argv=0x4f81f0) at
main.cxx:1761
#7 0x28b8 in main (argc=1, argv=0x5d1c4b0) at bootstrap.cxx:139
Thanks in advance,
Jonathan Polley
On Oct 27, 2003, at 10:57 PM, Jonathan Polley wrote:
Oops, I sent this to the Users list instead.
For those of us who use Macs, I just installed Panther on my machine.
Just the OS upgrade increased my frame rate by about 15%. I am
currently working through some compiler issues with Xcode and will let
you know how well the new compiler works.
Jonathan Polley
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
