* Ampere K. Hardraade -- Thursday 07 April 2005 06:00:
On April 6, 2005 05:18 am, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
This isn't a big problem
and works, too. It's just a waste of CPU cycles and then, you may want
to use the gear functions for other effects, where it could be a problem.
Something along
Asking for how to fix the compilation problems would have been a little
smarter, wouldn't it? Probably you don't have the glut headers installed.
No, they are installed in /usr/include/GL and also into the X11
includes. Infact I have the problem only with that file. Bytheway, you
didn't answer
darko wrote:
No, they are installed in /usr/include/GL and also into the X11
includes. Infact I have the problem only with that file. Bytheway, you
didn't answer to my question: which exact version of GLUT I need to
compile FG?
You will need the very latest (at least 3.7.x)
Erik
* darko -- Thursday 07 April 2005 10:26:
Asking for how to fix the compilation problems would have been a little
smarter, wouldn't it? Probably you don't have the glut headers installed.
No, they are installed in /usr/include/GL and also into the X11
includes. Infact I have the problem
Hi there,
I get errors running FG under Windows in debug mode :
assertion failed in ctype.h in isspace cause a character was not in the range
0..255. Running in debug mode I saw that the problem happened during airports
loading because of the copyright character. I modified
Quoting BONNEVILLE David:
Hi there,
I get errors running FG under Windows in debug mode :
assertion failed in ctype.h in isspace cause a character was not in the range
0..255. Running in debug mode I saw that the problem happened during airports
loading because of the copyright character.
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Yes. Did you read somewhere that I would answer all questions? If so,
this was a lie and you should complain to the author. :-P
don't worry, I'm a developer too, brother ;-)
Anyway: I would use freeglut from here: http://freeglut.sf.net/
This is (almost fully) compatible
* darko -- Thursday 07 April 2005 11:43:
don't worry, I'm a developer too, brother ;-)
Sometimes I miss the obvious. :-)
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:13, Josh Babcock wrote:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message
Be warned, racy but authentic nose art...
..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o)
Yeah, this is an excellent opportunity to spread
* Steve Hosgood -- Thursday 07 April 2005 13:58:
FlightGear is basically a video game.
BS! No matter how much you detest it, it's still a simulator. Yes, it has
shortcomings, and yes, in some areas we lack reliable data. But this doesn't
make it a game. (Where is the gameplay. How do you enter
Steve Hosgood probed:
However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be,
FlightGear is basically a video game.
Don't feed the trolls, folks.
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
BONNEVILLE David wrote:
I think I see what you mean, but my intention is to make a .NET
project that is coherent with the GNU makefiles so that I could
fully use all the wonderful .NET functionnalities is it too
much ?
Don't feed the trolls, folks. :)
(OK, that probably wasn't an
Steve Hosgood wrote:
Interactive history is certainly far better than dry facts in books, but
we'd have to be careful how we spread historical information.
FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying
experience alive. The trouble is, AFAIK *no* airplane currently
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
AFAIK *no* airplane currently modelled
in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine.
I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to point out that FlightGear has a
lot of stuff built in for those that want to move beyond a
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 13:24, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Steve Hosgood -- Thursday 07 April 2005 13:58:
FlightGear is basically a video game.
BS! No matter how much you detest it, it's still a simulator.
I *knew* I'd get flamed by Melchior!
I don't detest FG, it's a fine bit of work. True,
* Steve Hosgood -- Thursday 07 April 2005 17:48:
I *knew* I'd get flamed by Melchior!
Hey, you can count on me! (And I was only flaming back.)
m. ;-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Steve Hosgood wrote:
Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being
discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in
FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently)
empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and
Martin Spott wrote:
To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon
real data. Right ?
I think this is always the case. Take the B-29 for instance. Josh has
obviously done a ton of research to get the dimensions and proportions
down exactly right ... that's a key
Steve Hogood wrote:
Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being
discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in
FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently)
empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and physical
Martin Spott wrote:
To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon
real data. Right ?
Yes, the C172p. At least and the F-104, F-15 and F-16 are based on
windtunnel data. The T-37 is partially based on flight test data.
And Both the Fokker 70/100 and Fokker 50 use available
Andy Ross wrote:
I wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
4) Fixed rpm/power numbers under the prop tags. They need to be
scaled back according to the gear ratio. Someone with a better
understanding of mech engineering might be able to explain why the
BHP on the prop shaft is
Vivian Meazza wrote:
However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
control doesn't reduce the power enough. I reasoned that there was too
much boost with the throttle closed, (currently set at 10%,
AFAICS). 10% of the
Andy Ross wrote:
Steve Hosgood probed:
However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be,
FlightGear is basically a video game.
Don't feed the trolls, folks.
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Steve Hosgood wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:13, Josh Babcock wrote:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message
Be warned, racy but authentic nose art...
..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o)
Yeah, this is an excellent opportunity to
Andy Ross wrote
Vivian Meazza wrote:
However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
control doesn't reduce the power enough. I reasoned that there was too
much boost with the throttle closed, (currently set at
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:16:08 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andy Ross wrote
Vivian Meazza wrote:
However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
control doesn't reduce the power enough. I
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:37:31 +0200, Arnt wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:16:08 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andy Ross wrote
Working on it right now. BTW the Merlin had a Roots type
displacement compressor.
..apologies all, I hit the
On April 7, 2005 03:09 am, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Your standard Nasal
key binding skeleton with one commented out line would do (literally)
nothing to solve this problem. But maybe I just didn't understand your
performance enhancement!? Are you suggesting that we replace all nasal
key bindings
Arnt Karlsen wrote
Andy Ross wrote
Vivian Meazza wrote:
However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
control doesn't reduce the power enough. I reasoned that there was
too much boost with the
Both. To be more accurate, anything in the vicinity of the aircraft's
flightpath.
From: Mathias Fröhlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions
flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Subject: Re:
From: Steve Hosgood
FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying
experience alive. The trouble is,
AFAIK
That is right. You don't know.
*no* airplane currently modelled
in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine.
I'm *not* knocking
31 matches
Mail list logo
