Richard Hornby wrote:
This may be one for Erik ...
I am using FG 0.9.3 CVS version.
I have compiled fltk and fgrun on SuSE8.2 and both seemed to go fine. I
compiled both with --with-x and --with threads. On running fgrun I get
the following message in the console
linux:~ # fgrun
John Barrett wrote:
Hmm... perhaps the person who was thinking about puting some life on the
ground might like to try shipping first as it might be easier than trying
to follow roads;)
Keep going -- lotsa other things that can be added :)
One issue is consistency of display -- I would say making
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:14:07 +
Richard Hornby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be one for Erik ...
I am using FG 0.9.3 CVS version.
I have compiled fltk and fgrun on SuSE8.2 and both seemed to go fine. I
compiled both with --with-x and --with threads.
You don't need to specify
John Barrett wrote:
headless would be without any graphical display at all
multiplayer does multiple planes in the scene, but expects the controlling
logic for all but the local plane (none in the case of headless) to be
handled by processes over the network
I would VERY much like to see the
Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case you are misunderstanding what I am talking about, let me
clarify. Noone (that I know of) is opposed to multiplayer/multipilot
capabilities being in FG.
Absolutely correct !
[...] What we are debating is combat -- ie.
modelling projectiles
John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this gets us:
[...]
2. running headless connected to a multiplayer server, the FGFS instance can
handle multiple AI driven planes in the world on behalf of the server,
creating a distributed server environment for larger simulations
[...]
I'd like
On a PowerPC platform (iMac) the gnu compiler gcc-3.3 (from Xcode) creates a bad
object
file when optimisation are turned on. This causes FlightGear to crash at startup.
There is no problem when optimisations are off (-O0) for this file.
I didn't found such a problem on another file.
Olivier A.
I have an Apple iMac (G3 500 MHz - 384 Mb RAM, with ATI Rage pro 128 - 16 Mb).
Turning on static objects in the scenery decreases a lot the frames per second
rate (about
a 33% penalty!) whereas random objects (trees, small buildings, ...) are rather fast
to render:
There is only a 10% or
On 10 Nov 2003, at 13:38, Olivier ABILLON wrote:
On a PowerPC platform (iMac) the gnu compiler gcc-3.3 (from Xcode)
creates a bad object
file when optimisation are turned on. This causes FlightGear to crash
at startup.
There is no problem when optimisations are off (-O0) for this file.
I didn't
Olivier ABILLON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a PowerPC platform (iMac) the gnu compiler gcc-3.3 (from Xcode) creates a bad
object
file when optimisation are turned on.
Ah, I got some broken binaries on RS6k/AIX-5.1 using GCC and '-O3'
'-O1' should work on most platforms - at least it
Olivier ABILLON writes:
Turning on static objects in the scenery decreases a lot the frames per second
rate (about
a 33% penalty!) whereas random objects (trees, small buildings, ...) are rather
fast to render:
There is only a 10% or less penalty on the fps rate.
Why there is
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
practicing ILS approaches in my C172 at my local airport.
- Original Message -
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure I like the idea of FlightGear set up as a server. This will
however keeps the code between the server and the client as close as
possible.
I felt there were too many instances where the current simulation code
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There's your answer. Big textures and hundreds or thousands of polys
look great, but really hurt the system. We need to make sure that
we're displaying static 3D models with, at most, a few dozen triangles
each (and even that only for the most famous
Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
To me this is absurd to the extreme.
To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting
judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D
And in case
it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
To me this is absurd to the extreme.
To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting
judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D
...with cross-posts to
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
it offensive to even have source code included that
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet
themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :)
Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
I like the idea of FlightGear being
Gene Buckle writes:
I guess my problem is that I'm totally unable to understand why
someone would object to just the _presense_ of munitions code even
being present. It completely baffles me. Even as I sit here
pondering the why, all I can come up with is pejorative commentary
and that's
Gene Buckle writes:
I read the whole post. Really! :)
Hey Gene since I am the one who initially brought up the issue
I guess you are the one responsible for my ears burning :-)
However note I never objected to the presence of munitions in FlightGear.
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet
themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :)
Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
I like the idea of FlightGear
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
Hey Gene since I am the one who initially brought up the issue
I guess you are the one responsible for my ears burning :-)
Wasn't me. I'd chase down the guy with the matches. :)
What I *was* objecting to and *will* continue to object to is a 'primary goal'
of 'blow them out of the sky'
I think a dynamic shared library system that lets an a/c load up a module of
its particular code when it is loaded needs to be added to the system -- be
a nice place to stick information unique to that plane that is dynamic in
nature -- can handle specialized panel displays, hud, etc
In
On Monday, 10 November 2003 22:40, Gene Buckle wrote:
Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Bruce Eckel's Thinking in C++, 2nd
Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My C/C++ skills
are just
Gene Buckle writes:
Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My
On Monday, 10 November 2003 23:40, Gene Buckle wrote:
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My C/C++ skills
are just enough to be able to identify it on sight and begin running the
other way. :)
I also come from a Delphi background but find the switch very easy.
Both support
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
I think a dynamic shared library system that lets an a/c
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My C/C++ skills
are just enough to be able to identify it on sight and begin running the
other way. :)
Sounds like you need a varient of the following t-shirt (credit to
Mark Barry.)
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:07:15 +1100
From: Michael Matkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Could you describe the
I also come from a Delphi background but find the switch very easy.
Great! I'll help you write the server in Delphi. We can cross compile
with FPC. *laughs*
Why does C++ scare you?
Well scare is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar with
it. I can follow C ok, but the object
a nice place to stick information unique to that plane that is dynamic
in
nature -- can handle specialized panel displays, hud, etc
In that case, some kind of framework should be built so that the plug-in
could run on a seperate machine if needed.
um ?? for code/data local to
I see code like this:
limit_value (double * value, const SGPropertyNode * arg)
.and wonder about the placement of the pointer operator.
I would think the above would be functionally different than:
limit_value (double *value, const SGPropertyNode *arg)
I think of the multiplication operator
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
a nice place to stick information unique to that plane
On Tuesday, 11 November 2003 00:47, Gene Buckle wrote:
I see code like this:
limit_value (double * value, const SGPropertyNode * arg)
.and wonder about the placement of the pointer operator.
C syntax : type *p
C++ syntax : type* p
The compiler doesn't care which you use.
They both mean
Thanks for the clue Paul. :)
g.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 November 2003 00:47, Gene Buckle wrote:
I see code like this:
limit_value (double * value, const SGPropertyNode * arg)
.and wonder about the placement of the pointer operator.
C syntax : type
um ?? for code/data local to an a/c instance ?? remoting that would slow
down the response time to realtime events
For virtual cockpits, you're correct. however, when you're working with a
physical cockpit, you need to have your displays on separate physical
hardware.
If the
On 11/10/03 at 2:47 PM Gene Buckle wrote:
I see code like this:
limit_value (double * value, const SGPropertyNode * arg)
.and wonder about the placement of the pointer operator.
I would think the above would be functionally different than:
limit_value (double *value, const SGPropertyNode
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
um ?? for code/data local to an a/c instance ?? remoting
Personally I prefer
int* ip;
That would turn me into a gibbering idiot. :)
Kernighan and Richie specifically say in The C Programming Language though
that they like to write
int *ip;
since it reinforces the point that dereferencing ip (*ip) gives an int.
Now THAT makes sense. You
I'm just getting back into rooting around in the code and I don't yet have
a solid grasp on all the parts. AFAIK, the only native support for an
external module is OpenGC from what I've seen so far. I was referring the
creation of a universal method of obtaining data from the sim via
[Starting a new thread, since the original is getting a little strung
out. :)]
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are not a lot of combat features we
can really avoid
Andy Ross writes:
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are not a lot of combat features we
can really avoid implementing:
I've been deleting the combat thread unread,
Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And in case someone didn't read my earlier post, I do not hold this opinion
myself, but I do think that a topical RFC should be posted before any war
related code is committed, even with a configuration flag. This _is_ a hot
button whether anyone
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:17, David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross writes:
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are not a lot of combat features we
can really avoid
Ok, I'm having a bit of trouble getting the release version of
flightgear to compile under cygwin. I'm hardly an expert at getting
major projects to compile, so I'm not quite sure what the problem even is.
I've pasted the error at the bottom, so if anyone has any thoughts on
it, maybe you can
I'm also runnng cygwin and hit that one -- you need latest CVS versions of
plib and simgear for starters -- try that then build fg -- I
recommend --prefix=/usr on both plib and simgear builds -- cygwin doesnt
have /usr/local/lib in the ld search path :)
- Original Message -
From: JD
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, David Megginson wrote:
[...] I
also (personally) think we're a little heavy on the warbirds
(especially U.S.) and would like to see more civilian aircraft, but
I'm too lazy to get off my behind and make them, so I guess I don't
have a right to complain.
Speaking of
Gene Buckle wrote:
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Why does C++ scare you?
Well scare is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar
with it. I can follow C ok, but the object references tangle me for
some odd reason.
If C++ doesn't scare you, you have no business using it.
Sorry, but that
If C++ doesn't scare you, you have no business using it.
Sorry, but that was just too open. I had to take the shot. But
seriously, there's more truth in that statement than a sarcastic
retort like it deserves. The time to run screaming from a project is
the moment the architect declares
If you start a project and need OO features, either do it properly (in
Python or Objective-C), or do it the hard way with GLib/GObject.
Naw, Object Pascal is my first love. :)
I'd better shut up on the mailing list of a giant project written in
C++... I still admire you folks for getting it
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Andy Ross wrote:
Gene Buckle wrote:
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Why does C++ scare you?
Well scare is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar
with it. I can follow C ok, but the object references tangle me for
some odd reason.
If C++ doesn't scare you, you
Gene Buckle writes:
I'm going to talk to Peter Dowson about modifying WideFS for use with
FlightGear now that I've got the barest inkling of what the generic
network frame can handle. We'll see how it goes.
As far as I understand WideFS, FlightGear can do all that already.
You can set up one
I wanted to see what the aircraft looks like when there is a wind - for gear
debugging. What are the keyboard commands I will need in viewing my aircraft
from a nearby location or aircraft?
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gene Buckle writes:
I'm going to talk to Peter Dowson about modifying WideFS for use with
FlightGear now that I've got the barest inkling of what the generic
network frame can handle. We'll see how it goes.
As far as I understand WideFS, FlightGear can do all that already.
You can set
On Monday 10 November 2003 23:47, Andy Ross wrote:
[Starting a new thread, since the original is getting a little strung
out. :)]
In an attempt to depoliticize the combat flame war as much as
possible, it's worth pointing out that, irrespective of people's
opinions on the matter, there are
I'm trying to track down a fault with the heading bug where it does not
rotate with the compass card, meaning that the autopilot doesn't roll
level at the desired heading (the heading bug never makes it to
top-dead-centre).
I've looked at the c310 and the seahawk in depth, and glanced at the
Just thought I'd post a link to this article about near state of the art
video h/w.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12599
Not a bad 'bunch' of journos - I was out on a drink-up with them last
Friday:)
LeeE
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Thanks,
That got it.
JD
John Barrett wrote:
I'm also runnng cygwin and hit that one -- you need latest CVS versions of
plib and simgear for starters -- try that then build fg -- I
recommend --prefix=/usr on both plib and simgear builds -- cygwin doesnt
have /usr/local/lib in the ld search path :)
60 matches
Mail list logo
