[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] /controls/gear/tailwheel-lock=true means ... unlocked?!
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:29: The first sounds right (the confusing lock). I'm not sure exactly what the second idea is about. The meaning was reversed, which could be fixed by either reversing the value or the name. The second possibility was to reverse the name, and thus match it YASim's CASTERING property. But ... The only thing I can add is if you make that sort of change to the syntax please update all the yasim config files :-) ... I decided for reversing the value, and yes, I changed all YASim files and the joystick files that set the property. I only changed the *-set.xml files that demanded tailwheel-lock=false (assuming that the authors knew that the property was reversed), but not those who explicitly demanded tailwheel-lock=true (assuming that the author did *not* know about the problem. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38: Melchior FRANZ wrote: Anyone preferring Helicopter View? Yes, me. While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The Helicopter View doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. I tend to agree with Erik. I don't use the helicopter or chase view for a more realistic experience. Huh? The more realistic is without any doubt the Chase View, which I prefer. Erik prefers the Helicopter View nevertheless. You prefer neither? Anyway: I thought this was a no-brainer, and that the current setting was just a left-over from past times. (And I assume Erik meant most people who prefer Helicopter, prefer it because ..., not that most people prefer that awkward view.) I'll just continue to apologize to every new user about this and won't bring it up again. So much for usability ... :-/ m. PS: thanks for bothering to reply to all my RFCs! I guess I'm out of ideas now. :-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Dave Culp wrote: After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run. Karsten Krispin wrote: [...] But there would be a better way: The holes which were now cutted by terragear could be cutted in runtime of FGFS. I'm glad you looked into it, because I was hoping to add Sembach Airbase, EDAS, to my local Germany terrain. Looks like this may be more work than I thought. I don't believe that cutting holes into the scenery at runtime meets the performance expectations of FlightGear users. Therefore we already have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw. On the other hand I'd be willing to maintain a PostGIS database where we could store hand-tuned scenery shapes that don't fall into the regime of TaxiDraw. Maybe this could somehow be coupled with the FlightGear Scenery Designer for input if someone adds the required bits to let TerraGear read the output. Unfortunately we can't store elevations in such a database but Norman promised to be he would give us an update as soon as progress is made in this area ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Actually, Karsten wrote this: Dave Culp wrote: After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run. And I wrote this: Karsten Krispin wrote: I'm glad you looked into it, because I was hoping to add Sembach Airbase, EDAS, to my local Germany terrain. Looks like this may be more work than I thought. Therefore we already have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw. Can we put defunct airports into the database? If not, is there an alternative way to build a scenery tile with said defunct airport in it? Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Am Mittwoch 11 Mai 2005 09:18 schrieb Martin Spott: Dave Culp wrote: I don't believe that cutting holes into the scenery at runtime meets the performance expectations of FlightGear users. Therefore we already have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw. On the other hand I'd be willing to maintain a PostGIS database where we could store hand-tuned scenery shapes that don't fall into the regime of TaxiDraw. Maybe this could somehow be coupled with the FlightGear Scenery Designer for input if someone adds the required bits to let TerraGear read the output. Unfortunately we can't store elevations in such a database but Norman promised to be he would give us an update as soon as progress is made in this area ;-);-) Well I would say that rather the half of all have a more or less high-end machine avaible. And those whoose machine isn't able to render the scene properly arent forced to use this feature at all. If they don't load a custom mesh-file, they never will have to deal with that. But were you are right is the fact of recompiling the whole at runtime. (even for the more faster machines.) Probably a good idea would be to compile your own Mesh as a btg-file for example or something other equal. So that you already have calculated the vectors of the border. If you keep them quite straight you shouldn't feel such a great perfomance loss - This all just happens when intializing the object - Not every frame. The idea with a PostGIS Database is a quite good idea indeed. would be cool in addition to the real custom objects ;) But this data also needs to get involved into the FlightGear Scenery - Not just to every local one compiling at your own. Greetings, Karsten ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to modify and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them can be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different approach for animation they build different objects for different positions of aircraft parts. E.G the landing gear will have a separate model for gear up than gear down and then they just hide the model they dont want to show.This did change when they went to GMAX models but as far as I am aware PLIB can't handle those models. I would say build your own you will look back in a years time and say what a load of rubbish but the experience will be invaluble.One thing I would say is to make the fuselage with plenty of sides because if and when you come back to improve it you won't have to start from scratch as I have had to do.Currently I use no less than 40 sided fuslages. Cheers Innis The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model, just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Thanks, Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Dave Culp wrote: Therefore we already have an airport database where everyone can submit their favourite airport definitions they make with TaxiDraw. Can we put defunct airports into the database? I already did. I think there are numerous British defunct airports on the list as well, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Martin Spott wrote: I already did. I think there are numerous British defunct airports on the list as well, ^^^ disused airfields, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
disused airfields, OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists? I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to the scenery. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote: disused airfields, OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists? I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to the scenery. Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted to Robin - there's some of those already. OTOH I'm not sure if TerraGear currently builds them or not. Airfields that don't physically exist anymore might be more problematic - I don't think he'd want to include those! It's not *that* hard to rebuild a few tiles of custom scenery oneself though. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38: Melchior FRANZ wrote: Anyone preferring Helicopter View? Yes, me. While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The Helicopter View doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. I tend to agree with Erik. I don't use the helicopter or chase view for a more realistic experience. Huh? The more realistic is without any doubt the Chase View, which I prefer. Erik prefers the Helicopter View nevertheless. You prefer neither? Anyway: I thought this was a no-brainer, and that the current setting was just a left-over from past times. (And I assume Erik meant most people who prefer Helicopter, prefer it because ..., not that most people prefer that awkward view.) I'll just continue to apologize to every new user about this and won't bring it up again. So much for usability ... :-/ m. PS: thanks for bothering to reply to all my RFCs! I guess I'm out of ideas now. :-) If an old user can pipe up, I prefer the chase view if I'm in spectator mode, such as watching a replay or on autopilot but if I'm flying and want an outside view then I'll use the helicopter view. Doing acrobatics in chase mode can be pretty hairy :) Mostly if I'm flying though I will be in the cockpit so I personally wouldn't mind if chase view was promoted. One vote for. Also I'd like to say the new 3d clouds and start up sequence are great. Also I've got some pretty nice screen shots taken at 1400x1050 with anti-aliasing and with the 3d clouds that I could put on a web page if they could be useful. Geoff ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
Geoff Reidy wrote: Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38: Melchior FRANZ wrote: Anyone preferring Helicopter View? Yes, me. While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The Helicopter View doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. I tend to agree with Erik. I don't use the helicopter or chase view for a more realistic experience. Huh? The more realistic is without any doubt the Chase View, which I prefer. Erik prefers the Helicopter View nevertheless. You prefer neither? Anyway: I thought this was a no-brainer, and that the current setting was just a left-over from past times. (And I assume Erik meant most people who prefer Helicopter, prefer it because ..., not that most people prefer that awkward view.) I'll just continue to apologize to every new user about this and won't bring it up again. So much for usability ... :-/ m. PS: thanks for bothering to reply to all my RFCs! I guess I'm out of ideas now. :-) If an old user can pipe up, I prefer the chase view if I'm in spectator mode, such as watching a replay or on autopilot but if I'm flying and want an outside view then I'll use the helicopter view. Doing acrobatics in chase mode can be pretty hairy :) Mostly if I'm flying though I will be in the cockpit so I personally wouldn't mind if chase view was promoted. One vote for. I think this is a very minor issue, but I generally like the chase view (the one that tracks roll/pitch) more than the helicopter view. I'd have no problem swapping the two, so that ye-olde-average-user sees the chase view first. The experienced users will still be able to quickly pull up any view they want. So I'll add my yes vote to the view order swapping idea. Also I'd like to say the new 3d clouds and start up sequence are great. Also I've got some pretty nice screen shots taken at 1400x1050 with anti-aliasing and with the 3d clouds that I could put on a web page if they could be useful. Send them over and if they meet some minimal level of aethetics I'll get them posted. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 18:34:
I think this is a very minor issue
Agreed. I wouldn't have asked if I had thought that this even is a
controversial topic. I though it's clear which of both are preferred
by the majority of *users*. Developers don't have that 'problem', anyway.
Editing $FG_ROOT/preferences.xml is one way. I only wanted to get rid of
my local changes there out of egotism. (It makes committing other things
easier, if you don't have to back out local modifications. :-) But now
I've created my $FG_ROOT/Nasal/local.nas which does this for me (and
doesn't get in the way when committing. Some nasal knowledge is all
you need.)
So I'll add my yes vote to the view order swapping idea.
Hmmm ...
m.
PS: and that's local.nas. Does anyone find the triple-ternary frightening?
stepView = func(step) {
curr = getprop(/sim/current-view/view-number);
views = props.globals.getNode(/sim).getChildren(view);
if (step == 1) {
curr = curr == 0 ? 2 : curr == 2 ? 1 : curr == 1 ? 3 : curr + 1;
} elsif (step == -1) {
curr = curr == 3 ? 1 : curr == 1 ? 2 : curr == 2 ? 0 : curr - 1;
}
if (curr 0) {
curr = size(views) - 1;
} elsif (curr = size(views)) {
curr = 0;
}
setprop(/sim/current-view/view-number, curr);
}
settimer(func { view.stepView = stepView }, 0);
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
From: Melchior FRANZ * Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38: Melchior FRANZ wrote: Anyone preferring Helicopter View? Yes, me. While the Chase view is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I think most people prefer the Helicopter view because it doesn't have the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The Helicopter View doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. I tend to agree with Erik. I don't use the helicopter or chase view for a more realistic experience. Huh? The more realistic is without any doubt the Chase View, which I prefer. Erik prefers the Helicopter View nevertheless. You prefer neither? What I meant by I agree with Erik is my preference is the current view 1. My comment was that neither was particulary realistic, but I did not mean to disagree that there is some view modeling going on with the View 2 that is interesting. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
Melchior FRANZ wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: I think this is a very minor issue Agreed. I wouldn't have asked if I had thought that this even is a controversial topic. I though it's clear which of both are preferred by the majority of *users*. Maybe an elegant solution would be to write an interface where the user could select which views appeared in the V/v cycle. Then the default list could include the more attractive chase view, while those interested could re-select helicopter view if they wanted it. The whole thing could be implemented with an enabled property in the view definition that was honored by view.stepView(). Andy PS: and that's local.nas. Does anyone find the triple-ternary frightening? Yes. When the guy that wrote the parser doesn't know what an expression means, maybe it's time for some parentheses. :) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote: How long would you say it would take you to create this model, just so I have an idea. It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look right. Experience also contributes, of course. My first model took me more than a month to get right. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Kitbashing? May be. But aircrafts rarely share parts. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the aircraft? If so, I have all of this data already. The problem I see is my lack of experience with Blender and the fact that I am a computer programmer not a graphics artist. If someone enjoys drawing models I would be happy to give them the proper dimensions of every part that is needed and then take the project over once I have the model. I just don't think I can draw a model from scratch. On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote: How long would you say it would take you to create this model, just so I have an idea. It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look right. Experience also contributes, of course. My first model took me more than a month to get right. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Kitbashing? May be. But aircrafts rarely share parts. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Geoff Reidy wrote: Also I've got some pretty nice screen shots taken at 1400x1050 with anti-aliasing and with the 3d clouds that I could put on a web page if they could be useful. Send them over and if they meet some minimal level of aethetics I'll get them posted. Regards, Curt. Okay I've put them up, they are 1400x1050 jpegs at highest quality so are about 1 meg each. Let me know if you want them downsized or reduced in quality. http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-016.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-018.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-028.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-032.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-035.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-037.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-039.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-049.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-050.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-051.jpg http://home.pacific.net.au/~reidygh/fgfs/fgfs-screen-053.jpg Hmmm, seems to have filled up my web page. Have some nice ones of the ornithopter flapping it's way over San Fran but they're possibly not realistic. Regards, Geoff ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 11, 2005 01:35 pm, Ben Morrison wrote: When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the aircraft? Sort of, but dimensions of parts on the aircraft would be a better description. =) Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
What kind of graphic cards do you have?! Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
* Andy Ross -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 19:19: * * Melchior FRANZ wrote: [stuff] Maybe an elegant solution would be As I said on the IRC channel (you know, the place where the real decisions are made :-), I don't think that this is something that people would use. Even less so if the results aren't stored and loaded next time (on a per-aircraft basis, because different aircraft add different views). PS: and that's local.nas. Does anyone find the triple-ternary frightening? Yes. When the guy that wrote the parser doesn't know what an expression means, maybe it's time for some parentheses. :) If I want redundancy, I prefer spaces to parentheses any day! :-] m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote: disused airfields, OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists? I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to the scenery. Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted to Robin - there's some of those already. OTOH I'm not sure if TerraGear currently builds them or not. Airfields that don't physically exist anymore might be more problematic - I don't think he'd want to include those! It's not *that* hard to rebuild a few tiles of custom scenery oneself though. ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: What kind of graphic cards do you have?! Ampere It's an Nvidia 6600gt, more specifically a Leadtek 6600gt tdh. Nice card and I think the 6600gts are the best bang-for-the-buck card at the moment on linux at least. Having said that the first card I got was defective and I had to get it replaced. Geoff ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11/05/2005 at 09:50 Dave Culp wrote: disused airfields, OK, this would then not be the same as an airport that no longer exists? I would think some people would have a problem with having these added to the scenery. Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted to Robin - there's some of those already. OTOH I'm not sure if TerraGear currently builds them or not. Airfields that don't physically exist anymore might be more problematic - I don't think he'd want to include those! It's not *that* hard to rebuild a few tiles of custom scenery oneself though. ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional, but occasionally it doesn't hurt to think before you speak. There have been many far worse tragedies before 9/11 and after. Earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, approximately 8000 people die each day from aids related illnesses ... But still, 3000 innocent people died on that day. I have some close up pictures of people falling from the building after they've jumped. I have a picture of scores of people hanging out the windows from above the impact area, smoke rising around them, desperately searching for help that would never come. These pictures were never published in the media that I'm aware of because they were too graphic, but I think perhaps they should have been so people would have a better idea of the magnitude of just what happened. This had and has a great affect on a great many people. My wife went and volunteered to help the firefighters and construction workers who put their lives on hold for many months during the recovery effort. Someone there gave her a small container of sand from the site that still smelled of jet fuel. I don't really care personally about the twin towers themselves ... there were just two big buildings, but the event and the people that died there need to be treated with the *utmost* respect. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected anyway, and isn't his fault. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
Andy Ross wrote: Maybe an elegant solution would be to write an interface where the user could select which views appeared in the V/v cycle. Then the default list could include the more attractive chase view, while those interested could re-select helicopter view if they wanted it. The whole thing could be implemented with an enabled property in the view definition that was honored by view.stepView(). I like this idea even less. It seems the majority votes for swapping, so go ahead. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
From: Dave Culp Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected anyway, and isn't his fault. Ah! Speaking of insensitivity! ;-) One might be recommended to learn more about what Tourette's is before making that sort of remark. I suppose a person with Tourette's Syndrome could write something like that in an email, but it would not be because of the Tourette's. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] RE: Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17
--- Martin wrote: Mostyn Gale wrote: In the meantime I will just do a few warmup projects, i.e. A Robinson R22, Piper PA25 Pawnee and Cessna 152. Luckily you decided to choose the C152. In contrast to the C150 people already consider the former to be a real aircraft whereas the C150 is pretty close to an UL ;-) --- I chose the C152 because it would be fairly easy to model. In any case I would imagine that the C152 and C150 would be pretty close in performance. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Jim Wilson wrote: From: Dave Culp Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected anyway, and isn't his fault. Ah! Speaking of insensitivity! ;-) One might be recommended to learn more about what Tourette's is before making that sort of remark. I suppose a person with Tourette's Syndrome could write something like that in an email, but it would not be because of the Tourette's. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Yes. That's a completely different disease. Typettes. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] RE: Thanks
- ghours wrote: I have tried to make two helicopters as close as possible to the specifications 1/ CH53 seastallion: mass:36700 pounds 2/ AS330 puma : which is 16300 pounds it is very difficult to give the good delta and rellenflaphinge parameters according to the real model. The result for the flyable modele does contain non realistics parameters. I could never get goods result whith torque activated. Sometime it work , sometime it don't. It seem that the programm dont like the heavy helicopter. CH47 chinhook which is in the stable distribution, is not realistic. I tried to remodelise it good mass good sizes good rpm , its crazy the two rotors makes funny results In fact we should probably take advantage to develop a spicifique FDM helicopter, i am not abble to do it. - I am looking into modelling rotors in JSBSim. More information will follow on my website, but I plan to model the rotor system properly so that things like rotor RPM, rotor inertia etc are important. The problem with the Chinook is that the rotors are manipulated in strange ways. Pitch is provided by varying thrust, roll by rotating the rotors left and right together and yaw is provided by rotating the rotors left and right in opposite directions. Additionally the forward movement is permitted by rotating the rotors forward to allow level flight. (otherwise the fuselage would provide too much negative lift.) This can all be modeled by conventional rotor systems if they are coupled properly. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] RE: Thanks
You might want to post this to the JSBSim mailing list, too. There is a growing amount of discussion there about modeling helos in JSBSim, if that is what you are aiming for. Jon - ghours wrote: I have tried to make two helicopters as close as possible to the specifications 1/ CH53 seastallion: mass:36700 pounds 2/ AS330 puma : which is 16300 pounds it is very difficult to give the good delta and rellenflaphinge parameters according to the real model. The result for the flyable modele does contain non realistics parameters. I could never get goods result whith torque activated. Sometime it work , sometime it don't. It seem that the programm dont like the heavy helicopter. CH47 chinhook which is in the stable distribution, is not realistic. I tried to remodelise it good mass good sizes good rpm , its crazy the two rotors makes funny results In fact we should probably take advantage to develop a spicifique FDM helicopter, i am not abble to do it. - I am looking into modelling rotors in JSBSim. More information will follow on my website, but I plan to model the rotor system properly so that things like rotor RPM, rotor inertia etc are important. The problem with the Chinook is that the rotors are manipulated in strange ways. Pitch is provided by varying thrust, roll by rotating the rotors left and right together and yaw is provided by rotating the rotors left and right in opposite directions. Additionally the forward movement is permitted by rotating the rotors forward to allow level flight. (otherwise the fuselage would provide too much negative lift.) This can all be modeled by conventional rotor systems if they are coupled properly. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison writes The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model, just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Solid work day in day out about 2 weeks but I would get sick of it so about 2 months.Also the fact that you are starting on Blender does not help.I am sure Blender is a great program but it is not all that intuitive to use.I use AC3D. Starting from scratch is the way to go.I would say start with the fuslage by creating cylinders and shaping them to resemble the fuselage.You might be surprised how quick things develop. Thanks, Ben Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
On Wed, 11 May 2005 14:09:20 -0500, Dave wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional ..apologies, my point was we show these towers up when we set the sim time inside their lifetime, and remove them before and after that time frame. Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected anyway, and isn't his fault. .. ;o) I _have_ delivered a few chew outs on good guys with spines, on their stupidity. Ambushed Forrest Gump types running like idiots back and forth carrying wounded buddies, landing on enemy airfields and farmland under enemy fire to pick up shot down buddies, flying a C172 to the Red Square to say Hi! to Soviet ruled Russians, ripping the Soviet Union apart with their bare hands in the face of KGB troops, stopping 4 Chinese tank armed with 2 white plastic bags and a spine, because they wanted peace, justice and democracy, just like us. ..without idiot stunts like these, _I_ would have had to face a nuclear WWIII here in Norway, first from the commies, then from good people doing due diligence on reasonable and realistic intelligence on what would be left of us. ..I was all Riiight! on Gorbies talk of glasnost and perestroyka, because I read Gorbie right when he chose those 2 words to tell the Soviets what help he needed to restore the guts of the Soviet war machine. ..the leftist Peace Movement's in the West took their orders to help make the Soviet propaganda machine coherent using those same 2 words to tell us we wanna be just like you, and for once it worked on the Soviet side too, as the Iron Curtain leak grew in 1989 thru 1991, I was all ready for the Big Bonfire, only to be fired because of Peace, as the Russians threw the Soviet Union, _out_. ..as an exit bonus, I even got myself a life to live, and in peace! ..now, instead of peace and democracy, Russians and Chechens are being screwed like Yanks in 'Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, while Muslims enjoy the wee beginnings of Endlsung-2.0 in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. ..the worst part is how dimwits like Pfc. Lynndie England are denied justice when they grow enough brains to match Saddam's spine, because the judge tries to keep the Supreme Commander off Death Row for Treason and War Crimes in places like Gitmo. Tourette my ass, the truth is uglier than that, after the Muslims, who's next, the Chinese, Indians, Russians, Africans, Latinos, or us? ..now, _unless_ you _actually_ voted for the _re_-lection of Sissy Boy George the Nepotist Warrior Ace who Flew so High and Far he Missed Vietnam, and Instead Scored 152 Kills on Texan Death Row Inmates, then on the US Military, Democracy, Freedom, Justice, Civilization, to make the Amerikanski Sovietsky Soyus possible, I apologise. ..am I clear? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:59:26 -0400, Josh wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jim Wilson wrote: From: Dave Culp Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional Insensitivity, or perhaps Tourett's Syndrome, which I've always suspected anyway, and isn't his fault. Ah! Speaking of insensitivity! ;-) One might be recommended to learn more about what Tourette's is before making that sort of remark. I suppose a person with Tourette's Syndrome could write something like that in an email, but it would not be because of the Tourette's. Yes. That's a completely different disease. Typettes. ..that, plus insensitivity grown on bad news on people who deserve better days like those I was given by the Russian, Chechen, Ukraine etc nations when they threw out the Soviet Union, and on Nato servicemen who helped pave their way. _Not_ the Sissy Boys. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:46:08 -0500, Curtis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:49:19 +0100, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Airfields which still exist but are now disused can be submitted to Robin - there's some of those already. OTOH I'm not sure if TerraGear currently builds them or not. Airfields that don't physically exist anymore might be more problematic - I don't think he'd want to include those! It's not *that* hard to rebuild a few tiles of custom scenery oneself though. ..treat these fields the same way we treat the WTC Twin Towers, axe'em down on 9/11/2001. Hmmm, I sure any insenstivity here was not intentional, but occasionally it doesn't hurt to think before you speak. There have been many far worse tragedies before 9/11 and after. Earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, approximately 8000 people die each day from aids related illnesses ... But still, 3000 innocent people died on that day. I have some close up pictures of people falling from the building after they've jumped. I have a picture of scores of people hanging out the windows from above the impact area, smoke rising around them, desperately searching for help that would never come. These pictures were never published in the media that I'm aware of because they were too graphic, but I think perhaps they should have been so people would have a better idea of the magnitude of just what happened. This had and has a great affect on a great many people. My wife went and volunteered to help the firefighters and construction workers who put their lives on hold for many months during the recovery effort. Someone there gave her a small container of sand from the site that still smelled of jet fuel. I don't really care personally about the twin towers themselves ... there were just two big buildings, but the event and the people that died there need to be treated with the *utmost* respect. ..agreed, having blown off steam later in this thread, I advice watching out for post traumatic stress syndrom symptoms, this shit may hit you, your wife, kids, etc again, at some later stage in life, people usually learn this on top of some other shit happening. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RE: Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17
Mostyn Gale wrote: I chose the C152 because it would be fairly easy to model. In any case I would imagine that the C152 and C150 would be pretty close in performance. Oh, the C152 has 20 % more engine power. People who know both aircraft told me this makes a significant difference. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
