Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT, article] Memphis Belle pilot passes away
On Sunday 16 May 2004 10:29 am, Jon Berndt wrote: I hope this doesn't offend anyone's sensitivities, but from a purely Only because it's from fox news. Don't bother wasting time on a reply, just eat shit Tex. historical perspective this article is interesting: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,120053,00.html Jon ___ 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] FlightGear news letter
On Sunday 02 May 2004 01:25 pm, Erik Hofman wrote: Jonathan Richards wrote: Firstly, a title. How about: Don't panic in nice and friendly letters? Resistance Is Useless You could have a bad poem of the month. :-D Erik ___ 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] Voice Capability
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 05:03 am, David Luff wrote: On 2/2/04 at 10:17 PM John Wojnaroski wrote: Yes, tuning to the ATIS freq returned information Quebec for KSFO, but nothing on tower freq or approach control. OK, at the moment the only voice implemented is the ATIS. Tower control (and AI traffic) is now reasonably active, but with text output only. At the moment a new voice can't just be dropped in - some code changes are required, but this is not a big problem - I can do that quite quickly. The main problem is the time it takes to record, edit and index all the phraseology required. There was some interest expressed in I'll have to keep tabs on this, I've done a bit of recording and editing, but I haven't made any contributions here in long time.. recording more voices in a thread a while ago (look for ATC Talk just after Christmas in the December archives), but as yet I haven't written up any instructions on the phraseology and format required. I'll get round to doing that ASAP and post it to the list. Please do. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument and Panel README
On Friday 07 November 2003 12:10 pm, Jon S Berndt wrote: Is there a README, FAQ, or manual on making instruments for a panel and/or creating the panel itself? Try F1 Jon ___ 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] Linux World Expo, NY, Jan 2004
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 10:42 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: If anyone is interested in organizing a FlightGear booth at the Linux World Expo in NY, Jan 20-23 2004, now is the time to apply for booth space. I will be unable to attend because my wife will be very, very pregnant by then, but if someone else wants to organize a booth, now is the time to begin the process. I can send details and contact info if anyone wants to do this. Regards, Curt. I got a pdf copy of the contract and stuff today. I fwd a copy to Randy Locklair, who expessed interest. If I don't hear back from him, or anybody else, I'll nail down getting a slot with IDG on monday. I dunno that I can contribute a whole lot to the booth, but I can handle reserving the space. TTYL J ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] next release ...
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 11:40 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I think I would like to start prepairing for the 0.9.3 release of FlightGear. Lot's of stuff has changed, and the latest scenery works slightly better with the current cvs code. Thanks, Curt. Standing by ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
On Wednesday 27 August 2003 7:54 pm, Norman Vine wrote: To all concerned May we please put this thread to rest and allow FGFS to return to soaring above petty OS bigotry Thanks Norman Amen to that ___ 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] [OT] Angry rant: the end of david@megginson.com
On Monday 25 August 2003 9:44 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Gene Buckle writes: Thanks Norman. I wish they'd stop writing such crap. *sigh* g. On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Norman Vine wrote: FYI http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-07.html On average for the last 10 years, Sendmail has probably been good for one of these alerts per week. :-) Most of them probably aren't as serious as they sound though. A lot of unix security alerts are for theoretical problems with no known implimentation of an exploit. Not everybody runs sendmail either. It's the first thing I ditched. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] MacOS X port, and linuxworld
On Saturday 23 August 2003 4:21 am, Erik Hofman wrote: John Check wrote: On Friday 22 August 2003 11:01 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: The flipside is that it is also a lot of work, and hauling equipment in and out is not necessarily an easy task. Javits Center is a lot better than Moscone in that regard. The main issue is anything with wheels is supposed to be handled by a union member. With a bit of luck we might be able to get some sgi gear to run FlightGear (both IRIX and Linux). Anyone think this might be worth some effort? I guess it all depends what you mean. If you know you have a good shot at getting loaded hardware to the venue, then sure. Erik ___ 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] FGFS Base CVS
On Saturday 23 August 2003 9:00 am, Norman Vine wrote: David Megginson writes: It's time to develop a package manager for aircraft and add-on scenery, and perhaps for other stuff as well. I agree it is certainly time for some kind of 'data' manager not really sure what 'form' the manager should be though Can you elaborate a bit on what you envision Cheers Norman Just a thought, but how about something along the lines of gentoo's portage? It's implemented in python FWIW. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] MacOS X port, and linuxworld
On Friday 22 August 2003 11:01 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Randy Locklair writes: My name's Randy Locklair, I'm a student pilot and a long time developer and I joined the list to find out a couple of things. Hi Randy, First of all I'd like to know what the status is of the MacOS port. I mainly use os X lately and I'd like to get involved. If no one is running the show I'd be happy to take over. The last Mac OS X build that I'm aware of was for version 0.8.0. Right now we are at version 0.9.2 for the most recent official release, but I haven't seen a Mac build yet. :-( We have had a couple people working with Mac OS X, but my sense is that there hasn't been a lot of recent activity. It would be great to get more Mac developers involved and get more activity going on the Mac side. I know that one thing that would be nice would be to make FlightGear a little more Mac friendly, and perhaps bundle up the result in a more mac friendly way. OSX is unix underneath, but I get the sense that most Mac people view the keyboard as a useless appendage (kind of like unix people view the mouse) :-) I once tried to go through installing the 0.8.0 Mac OS X build with a knowledgable Mac guy here locally. I'd say stuff like make a directory, cd to such and such, now run tar to extract some file, etc. etc. He would click and drag and click and drag and copy and paste, and drop icons into text windows and other sort of strange behavior after some effort (and apparent magic) the task would get accomplished. So I think what I learned from this experience is that even though Mac OSX is unix underneath, it still might be worth some effort to make the Mac build a little more mac friendly. Even with OS X, being a mac expert doesn't necessarily mean being a unix expert. Also, I read somewhere about you guys being at the .org pavillion at LinuxWorld. I don't know who organizes that or if anyone is planning to for January 2004 in New York, but I'd be happy to organize/help with that too. We missed the most recent SFO linux world, but if we can get someone to head up a booth in NY, that would be great. I think there are a couple other developers in the area as well. We did a booth out there one year. My wife will be very pregnant about that time so I don't think I'll be able to help much myself, beyond offering tips and suggestions. Actually '01 and '02. I didn't see any indication registration opened up for '04 yet. It's a pretty good bet JIm Wilson will come down. If somebody else wants to be boothmeister, just give me a heads up so we don't get the fine folks at IDG confused. The paperwork end isn't a real big burden, you just have to stay on top of dealines. I will say that it is a blast to do a booth ... you get to talk about FlightGear all day long. What could be better?!? :-) Sign up to give a conference session, they feed you. The flipside is that it is also a lot of work, and hauling equipment in and out is not necessarily an easy task. Javits Center is a lot better than Moscone in that regard. The main issue is anything with wheels is supposed to be handled by a union member. The FlightGear booth is usually pretty popular. People walk around and see a lot of nicely packaged stuff, but most of it is static ... maybe a tiny computer that can run linux, or some PC vendor, or boring business software, or some sysadmin tool that looks best on a 80x24 xterm, or some big name like IBM which has a big fancy booth that is well staffed by people in matching shirts handing out cool pens, but still, usually nothing too fun on the computer screens. Then people walk by the FlightGear booth and see linux being used as a platform to run a cool 3d application. It's very visual so after all the other boring :-) booths, we can come as a nice change of pace. :-) Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS Base CVS
On Friday 22 August 2003 9:05 am, Norman Vine wrote: Hi All, All the new aircraft etc in FGFS is very impressive :-) But this is starting to add for me anyway an unacceptable time burden on statying current. i.e. I am trying to debug a Cloud3D crash which appeared today and assuming that it was probably something in the base files that changed I am did a cvs up for fgfsbase. This took over 45 minutes on my 56k dialup. :-( I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to split the fgfsbase CVS into two parts. I was aware of this becoming an issue at some point when I was doing the base CVS. IMO, the best way to handle it is each plane should be it's own module, then there should be a base package tagged that includes just the basic C172, and another module that is the basic plane extra modules. 1: Those files distributed in the fgfsbase tarball fgfsbase 2) Those files not distributed. fgfsextra I'm still rolling releases of the base package. At one point I was doing that. This seems a logical separation and should allow finer granularity on what one updated. i.e within the fgfsextra CVS one could selectively update directories. Note this isn't really feasable with the current setup in that you need the toplevel CVS files to run FGFS I'm out of touch at this point, but extra planes could be stored outside the main tree so cvs up wouldn't update everything and one wouldn't have to give it commands to change the target module. Do we still have the --aircraft-directory option? could it take multiple paths as an argument? I realize that this would take a bit of work to setup but as FGFS gets more 'extras' this will become a larger problem and require even more work to convert thoughts / flames ?? This is because unlike other sims everybody that develops planes for FGFS can get them included. It's not a problem for me. It wouldn't be hard to tag things like I described, but it would mean some extra work on the user end to sync with the new paradigm. Norman ___ 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] FGFS Base CVS
On Friday 22 August 2003 2:26 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Norman Vine writes: I agree having many FDM's and many Aircraft is one of FGFS's cooler points, but, IMO there is no reason these all need be in the 'core' package, esp when just staying current with the core package gets in the way of code development. I think at some point (maybe sooner rather than later?) we need to do some tweaking to the aircraft directly layout so it is possible to: a) make everything related to a particular plane be contained in a single, dedicated directory tree. Where have I heard _that_ before? Oh yeah, me. ;P b) allow these aircraft to be grouped and arranged in various subdirectories (the system would do a recursive search for aircraft or something like that.) This would allow any aircraft to be distributed as a single .zip or .tgz or .tar.gz or whatever. Installation of an aircraft would be simply extracting the archive into the appropriate folder inside the aircraft folder (at the end user's discretion.) Removal of an aircraft would simply be to delete the subdirectory. I think most end users could handle this arrangement ... they seem to be able to do similar things for other simulators. Then we could maintain a core set of aicraft in the official repository, and beyond that, aircraft developers would be responsible for maintaining and distibuting their own designs. (We could perhaps do something like making a separate area on the ftp server to facilitate the storage and distribution of add on aircraft ... because we are *not* trying to make things more difficult for the aircraft designers as a side effect.) Regards, Curt. As I suggested in my prior email, we can do in CVS it with modules. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some European cities satelite photos
On Sunday 17 August 2003 5:47 pm, Tony Peden wrote: On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 13:46, David Megginson wrote: Curtis L. Olson writes: Yeah, we still have a lot of My governor can beat up your governor bumper stickers and t-shirts ... it would be a shame for them to go to waste. We obviously can't use them in MN any more. Remember that, unlike that actor from the monkey movies who once became California governor, the actor from the action movies cannot go on to become president without a constitutional ammendment. Is Arnold not a citizen? No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. or a citizen of the United States, _at the time of the adoption of this Constitution_ He's not _that_ old ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
On Friday 18 July 2003 6:55 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: what makes this possible, It's because the horizontal surfaces are very thin. -Fred _All_ surfaces are very thin:) (geometry joke) That's what I like to hear, plane talk hwaah hwaah hwaaah hwah Do I get double points for that one? I didn't think so ;) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Splash5.rgb corrupted on windows
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 4:03 am, Erik Hofman wrote: Frederic Bouvier wrote: David, Erik, Splash5.rgb has been added in CVS not binary and I get it corrupted by WinCVS on windows ( line ending expansion ). Could you apply 'cvs admin -kb' on it ? Done. Erik Hmm I'm pretty sure I handed over the cvswrappers file from when it was on my machine Looking at log... Hey David, did you step on Jims P-51D splash? ___ 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] Linux World conference in August
On Friday 27 June 2003 12:06 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: It looks like we didn't get our .org application in soon enough this year [my fault] so all the .org booth space is already claimed. We are on the waiting list (1 ahead of us) so two groups will have to cancel in order for us to have a chance. I guess we'll have to start thinking about this sooner next year. Regards, Curt. Wow, they must have scaled back pretty good if there was a waiting list. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 0.9.2 release is tagged ...
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 11:49 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I just tagged the 0.9.2 release in CVS so I guess that's it. Any further changes will have to go into the next release. John, feel free to bundle up the corresponding base package any time. Thanks everyone! Curt. Roger that. Standby ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 0.9.2 release is tagged ...
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 11:49 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I just tagged the 0.9.2 release in CVS so I guess that's it. Any further changes will have to go into the next release. John, feel free to bundle up the corresponding base package any time. Thanks everyone! Curt. I'm having a problem tagging: cvs [server aborted]: could not open lock file `/var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/T38/,T38-electrical.xml,': Permission denied I tagged the directories outside of Aircraft, with the exception of gui, which gives the same error. You'll want to give it a `cvs tag rel_0_9_2` from the top to catch ones I didn't. Anyway, here's tarballs http://rockfish.net/fg/fgfs_base-0.9.2.tar.bz2 http://rockfish.net/fg/fgfs_base-0.9.2.tar.gz I can pull the distribution load if you want to link to them directly. TTYL John ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] cvswrapper (was: Re: C-GPTRornithopter)
On Wednesday 04 June 2003 7:04 pm, Melchior FRANZ wrote: [the -kb problem] * Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 04 June 2003 23:01: I think that John might have had a wrapper set up. I've made the same mistake myself a couple of time. So, let's install a wrapper, too. I've copied the one from KDE, removed some irrelevant and added (hopefully) all fgfs-related binary file types. This will add -kb to all of them. m. IIRC the wrappers file is case sensitive, so it's a good idea to cover upper and lowercase for each extension. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] next release?
On Monday 02 June 2003 3:38 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I've got a *lot* of constraints on my time currently, but I'm thinking I'd like to sneak out a casual interim release since it's been so long since the last official release. I'm going to try to interleave this with other stuff and not worry so much at this point about features vs. bugs and giving extra time to let things settle out. If I do all that, I won't have time to do a real release until probably July. Regards, Curt. Standing by ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] next release?
On Monday 02 June 2003 4:08 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: John Check writes: On Monday 02 June 2003 3:38 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I've got a *lot* of constraints on my time currently, but I'm thinking I'd like to sneak out a casual interim release since it's been so long since the last official release. I'm going to try to interleave this with other stuff and not worry so much at this point about features vs. bugs and giving extra time to let things settle out. If I do all that, I won't have time to do a real release until probably July. Regards, Curt. Standing by Ok, many thanks! Are you able to do everything you need for a base package release with standard cvs access (no shell access)? Curt. Yup. Should be good to go. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: P-51D 3d Model and help request
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 6:41 am, Richard Bytheway wrote: As a pay-by-the-minute modem user, I would prefer not to have 200MB of data dumped into the base package CVS if possible. The cheapest my connection gets is £0.48 per hour. 200MB is about 20 hours of download time, thus costs about £10 (US$16 or so), and my phone line is busy for a day. Uh, actually 200MB is a the entire Repository. A full checkout is 132MB and you only have to do it once. You can download a 30-40MB nightly snapshot and start your repository that way. If you're only interested in certain nodes of the tree, you don't have to checkout from the head. I think that splitting the base package into two branches/repositories would work best, one for what is needed at runtime, and one for the source files (everything else). I am not in favour of separate branches for different aircraft, or even one new branch for optional aircraft, since CVS is used by people who want the latest features, thus new features should appear in CVS, not elsewhere. Speaking as the guy that does the tagging I agree with the latter, but regarding the former, the bulk of the repository is textures. The only source stuff is 4 MB of TeX and ps files in the Docs folder. People who want to play with the source files can then take the decision to download however many MB of data, but for those of us on modems with no graphical abilities can avoid the pain. For the runtime texture files, would is be possible to switch to a format with lossless compression, such as png? Whilst it does not save on video card memory usage, it has a minor (negligible) benefit for hard disk space, but could have a significant benefit on download times. Richard m. :-) And I have another 200MB of xcf files for hi-res C172-S Panel :o). IMHO one and only solution is to make new CVS branch for it. I'am really interested in source files of some 3d panels and aircrafts. Madr ___ 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] base package cvs update failing...
On Monday 17 March 2003 9:57 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Frederic BOUVIER writes: James Turner writes: cvs server: Updating . cvs [server aborted]: cannot stat /tmp/cvslck: No such file or directory cvs [server aborted]: cannot stat /tmp/cvslck: No such file or directory I see the same thing. I know there was a chance that John would be shuffling things around on his end a bit. Sounds like he needs to tweak permissions in /tmp/cvslck or create that directory or something. (Maybe he rebooted and everything in /tmp was wiped.) :-) Yep that sounds like it Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] base package cvs update failing...
On Monday 17 March 2003 9:57 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Frederic BOUVIER writes: James Turner writes: cvs server: Updating . cvs [server aborted]: cannot stat /tmp/cvslck: No such file or directory cvs [server aborted]: cannot stat /tmp/cvslck: No such file or directory I see the same thing. I know there was a chance that John would be shuffling things around on his end a bit. Sounds like he needs to tweak permissions in /tmp/cvslck or create that directory or something. (Maybe he rebooted and everything in /tmp was wiped.) :-) Curt. That was it. We're good to go now. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16/Panels
On Thursday 13 March 2003 7:13 am, Martin Spott wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed Mar 12 16:07:34 EST 2003 Author: cvsroot Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16/Panels In directory dash:/tmp/cvs-serv31668/f16/Panels Modified Files: f16-2d-panel.xml kias.xml I think, something went wrong here: quickstep: 13:10:19 ~/CVS/FlightGear tail -15 fgfsbase/Aircraft/f16/Panels/f16-2d-panel.xml w12/w h12/h /instrument instrument include=ded.xml nameDED/name x729/x y286/y w120/w h120/h /instrument /instruments /PropertyList quickstep: 13:10:25 ~/CVS/FlightGear find fgfsbase/ -name ded\.xml quickstep: 13:10:53 ~/CVS/FlightGear When I start the F-16 using the current base package CVS I get a notice on a missing file, I don't get any panel and from outside I see the yellow and blue glider. Anything wrong with my CVS checout ? I missed two new files at the last commit, they're in now. Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] FlightGear and the US Military
On Thursday 27 February 2003 3:52 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: John Check writes: Yes, I know. Actually I con't care about this too much (it _was_ meant to be a joke), so if someone want's to use FlightGear to driver their toilet flusher, go ahead! H Honestly, I hesitated before I sent this out, but in the end, I just couldn't stop myself. I always liked flightgear because it combined my two favorite activities ... computers and aviation ... now the thought of combining this with a 3rd favorite activity ... this could be just the answer to finding more time to work on FlightGear. I do my best thinking under pressure??? Ok that's enough, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry ... I should have just left it at Hm. Curt. HAHAHAH nice. Now we know yer favorite sound: Bawsh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] FlightGear and the US Military
On Thursday 27 February 2003 4:23 pm, Gene Buckle wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Curt Olson) [2003.02.27 15:02]: John Check writes: Yes, I know. Actually I con't care about this too much (it _was_ meant to be a joke), so if someone want's to use FlightGear to driver their toilet flusher, go ahead! H Honestly, I hesitated before I sent this out, but in the end, I just couldn't stop myself. I always liked flightgear because it combined my two favorite activities ... computers and aviation ... now the thought of combining this with a 3rd favorite activity ... this could be just the answer to finding more time to work on FlightGear. I do my best thinking under pressure??? Ok that's enough, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry ... I should have just left it at Hm. I was going to make a joke about FG not supporting the dropping of bombs, but... ;-p Puts a whole new twist on bunker buster, doesn't it? *gdrvff* IS that chem or bio warfare? What if I ate GM corn? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] F-16
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 4:22 am, Erik Hofman wrote: Michael Selig wrote: Really good to see (and nice to have in the base package). Any chance of getting the HUD to also display the g-load? I find this info extremely useful while developing flight models. For now, I get this info by using the unix 'watch' command to look at the tail end of uiuc dump file while flying the sim. I'd like to, but the more I use the HUD configuration file, the more I think it needs a major overhaul. It's just too limited for HUD's like that of the F-16. Was the HUD ever hooked up to the property system proper? One other thing, on a side note, Id like to be able to reprogram key bindings on a per aircraft basis. For example, for the F-16 I would like the 'h' key to switch between different HUD layouts instead of switching colors. I don't know if you can override individual bindings, but I'm pretty sure you can include an aleternate kbd layout in the set file. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 2:22 pm, Martin Spott wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Modified Files: f16.xml Log Message: improved f-16 from Erik Hofman Oh, _very_ nice, but eerm, did anyone manage to get the beast off the runway without crashing _before_ take-off ? Is it possible ? I dunno, did you try flying it? Does it? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 3:40 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: John Check writes: On Tuesday 25 February 2003 2:22 pm, Martin Spott wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Modified Files: f16.xml Log Message: improved f-16 from Erik Hofman Oh, _very_ nice, but eerm, did anyone manage to get the beast off the runway without crashing _before_ take-off ? Is it possible ? I dunno, did you try flying it? Does it? It flies fine for me but exhibits some odd behavior at the fringes of the flight regime. Ground handling has some problems to... try land braking hard at just about any speed and you will cartwheel forward. Curt. I didn't get as far as landing. I got it off the ground and once I saw I was supersonic I pulled back on the stick. I was trying to get the AP kicked in after I leveled off and FGFS crashed with: Stopping audio after 0 sec: stall Refreshing timestamps for -122.875 37.6875 scheduling needed tiles for -122.802 37.6635 Playing audio after 1.81396 sec: stall 33: GEAR_CONTACT: NOSE_LG 1 34: Crash Detected: Simulation FREEZE. 35: GEAR_CONTACT: LEFT_MLG 1 36: Crash Detected: Simulation FREEZE. 37: GEAR_CONTACT: RIGHT_MLG 1 38: Crash Detected: Simulation FREEZE. Playing audio after 111.405 sec: rumble Playing audio after 139.931 sec: squeal Tile not found (Ok if initializing) Attempting to schedule tiles for bogus latitude and longitude. This is a FATAL error. Exiting! I'm not sure of my altitude, but it was above the cloud layer. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] F-16
On Sunday 23 February 2003 2:49 pm, Erik Hofman wrote: Christopher S Horler wrote: Erik, I'm not running flightgear at the moment, any chance of a screenshot? http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/ (and scroll down a bit). That's awesome. I'll commit it after I give it a test run. Erik ___ 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] Unable to access base package via CVS
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 1:54 pm, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, James Turner wrote: Since the base cvs was brought back up, I haven't been able to update it: I get: cvs server: Updating . cvs [server aborted]: cannot stat /tmpcvslck: No such file or directory cvs [server aborted]: cannot stat /tmpcvslck: No such file or directory This happened on both OS-X and Linux, so I blew away my tree on OS-X and tried a clean checkout. Cvs login worked fine, doing co produced: cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/cvsroot co fgfsbase cvs server: Updating fgfsbase cvs server: cannot open directory /FlightGear/FlightGear: No such file or directory cvs server: skipping directory fgfsbase Any suggestions? The lock directory got deleted when cron purged /tmp . Yes, try co FlightGear/FlightGear instead. No, you should follow the directions and check out fgfsbase. That worked for me. Not if you saw that (misspelled) error message at any time. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Return of the BPCVS
On Monday 03 February 2003 5:54 pm, Julian Foad wrote: Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:39:28 -0500, John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Base package cvs is back, now with more cvsweb http://rockfish.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ ..imaginary folder like directory icons? ;-) I see this effect too. No image is displayed by a HREF=FlightGear/img SRC=/doc/cvsweb/dir.gif ALT=[DIR] BORDER=0 WIDTH=20 HEIGHT=22/a; just an empty square. Maybe the path /doc/... is wrong or inaccessible. - Julian Okay, now I know what he meant. Maybe I'll just pull the plug. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Return of the BPCVS
On Sunday 02 February 2003 8:36 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:39:28 -0500, John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Base package cvs is back, now with more cvsweb http://rockfish.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ ..imaginary folder like directory icons? ;-) Huh? There's an extra level because I didn't know what I was doing when I initialized the repository 2 yrs ago (not like now ;-) I'd change it but for convenience sake. Maybe when it moves to flightgear.org, eh? Or do you mean something else? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Return of the BPCVS
Base package cvs is back, now with more cvsweb http://rockfish.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Base package repository move pending
Heads up! The bpr server is changing IP's in the next couple of days. The repository itself may be migrated to flightgear.org, but expect a few hours of outage between now and sunday. TTL John ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Henti Smith
On Friday 17 January 2003 12:31 pm, Jon S Berndt wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:20:02 -0600 Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not looking for or expecting a concensus on this, but I'd be My quick reply (I'm almost off to lunch) given with no thought whatsoever (and without carefully reading all the fine print) is to mention that JSBSim offers logo'ed stuff on CafeShops.com. There is zero markup, so no profit needs to be distributed. There is also FGFS stuff at the same place. It is currently marked up a couple of dollars but hasn't registered a sale in almost 2 yrs. Then there's the whole Sporty's pilot shop copyright thing but that wouldn't be our problem. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Henti Smith
On Friday 17 January 2003 3:07 pm, David Megginson wrote: Curtis L. Olson writes: This is to distract the 2 year old so that I have a bit of time to use the text editor computer and C++ compiler. So really it's a legitimate FlightGear need. :-) Two year olds are usually happy watching the clothes drier spin round and round. I still suspect some involvement from the father here. You can have the TV, but you can't watch anything but Barney ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ADF change?
On Sunday 29 December 2002 8:17 pm, David Megginson wrote: John Check writes: I think that was just an interim thing until we could make the KR-87 the default, but Curt would know. I think I have some other bendix thingy in the pipeline that needed that too. The best choice, I think, is to put all possible inputs under /radios/adf, and then have different radios ignore the ones they don't understand. You can swap the KR-87 with other models as desired, both for development and release. I'm not sure I follow you. The KR-87 properties are coming from the c++ end, not the XML. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-announce] Red Baron (postscript)
On Thursday 19 December 2002 4:40 am, Erik Hofman wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Michael Selig wrote: rotary engines were done by his 16-yr old son Matthew. A screen grab showing the Red Baron in pursuit of Wop May is here: http://aa10.aae.uiuc.edu/~m-selig This makes me wonder why they didn't use FlightGear for the show. It's not looking that much better than FlightGear. Never mind, I just remembered we don't shoot. plib does have flames and particles though. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] B-52
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 9:54 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I just commited a YASim B-52 to CVS. This is built by Lee Elliott who has also done an A10 and a TSR2. If you haven't tried these, you should at least check them out. Lee has built some really great 3d models of these aircraft and set up all the gear/flap/etc. animations. We now need someone who can take these .3ds format models and apply suitable textures to them, and then they should look *spectacular*. The underlying geometry is really well done. Then maybe Andy or others can take a pass through the fdm config and spot check those. Regards, Curt. Okay now we have something to drop the X15 from! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] B-52
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 5:18 pm, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Hello, trying the B52 under WinXP, I have this message : WARNING: ssgLoad3ds: Illegal chunk 3D00 of length 77129789. Chunk is longer than parent chunk. followed by a segfault. I also noticed that the 3ds model has not been checked in as binary (no -kb). Really. Lemme fix that up. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] B-52
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 5:23 pm, John Check wrote: On Wednesday 18 December 2002 5:18 pm, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Hello, trying the B52 under WinXP, I have this message : WARNING: ssgLoad3ds: Illegal chunk 3D00 of length 77129789. Chunk is longer than parent chunk. followed by a segfault. I also noticed that the 3ds model has not been checked in as binary (no -kb). Really. Lemme fix that up. Should be good to go now. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] B-52
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 5:51 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: John Check writes: On Wednesday 18 December 2002 5:23 pm, John Check wrote: On Wednesday 18 December 2002 5:18 pm, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Hello, trying the B52 under WinXP, I have this message : WARNING: ssgLoad3ds: Illegal chunk 3D00 of length 77129789. Chunk is longer than parent chunk. followed by a segfault. I also noticed that the 3ds model has not been checked in as binary (no -kb). Really. Lemme fix that up. Should be good to go now. Sorry, my fault. Curt. Actually it was a good thing because none of the 3ds files were flagged binary. I've since added the file type to cvswrappers. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hsi and question
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 8:12 pm, paul mccann wrote: John Did you ever get a chance to look at the hsi files? any if not I have sort reworked it any how so that now it loads the hi resolution compass card, and I moved the glideslope pointer to the left side, which I think is technically more correct. I have seen it both ways though. Sorry, I haven't gotten around to commiting yet. How about if we keep the one you submitted and we'll use the left side gs pointer version as a hi res one? My other question is if I wanted to add a red glide slope flag that covers the pointer when there is no signal, can I just add the xml code, or does this have to be built into the flight gear source code? XML should do it. I don't know the property to use offhand. Any how I will try to finish this next week, in mean time here is sceen shoot of it on the c310u3a-3d. http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/fgfs-screen-009.jpeg Paul ___ 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] Re: [Flightgear-announce] Red Baron (postscript)
I'm watching it now! I'm also cleaning my oven! Very cool. On Wednesday 18 December 2002 10:52 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Just a quick update. I watched this at 8pm local time and it was really well done. Michael got a lot of face time and there were quite a few quick snippets showing FlightGear in the background (good job Michael) :-) The actual simulation run for the test was done in a different sim, so I guess we'll have to shoot for next time to get more graphics from FlightGear shown. :-) According to the local TV schedule they are replaying at 10pm central time which is in 9 minutes ... Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hsi and question
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 8:48 pm, paul mccann wrote: John That be fine, also the original one I submitted did not work with the c310u3a-3d panel so I fixed it and also made small change to the outer most layer. The updated files are at http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/patch9.1.tar.gz Also I only made one xml.set file to load it in the c310vfr panel, but it works now in all panels. Okay. unfortunately I'm not going to get to it tonight but it's the next thing on my list. Thanks Paul I have to set up different emailer, this kmail makes a mess of my post. looks okay here ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hsi and question
On Thursday 19 December 2002 12:35 am, John Check wrote: On Wednesday 18 December 2002 8:48 pm, paul mccann wrote: John That be fine, also the original one I submitted did not work with the c310u3a-3d panel so I fixed it and also made small change to the outer most layer. The updated files are at http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/patch9.1.tar.gz Also I only made one xml.set file to load it in the c310vfr panel, but it works now in all panels. Okay. unfortunately I'm not going to get to it tonight but it's the next thing on my list. I had a chance to take a look at the raw files :-/ I hate to be a wet blanket but do you think you can get the texture file sizes down a bit? 222k for the glareshield is not good. Does that really need to be1024x1024? There are 2 issues at play. Firstly, available texture memory. Some people still have 16Mb vid cards. Secondly, we have a constant battle to keep the base package size manageable. The markup is great, but every k we can save on textures is a good thing. Suggestions: misc-2.rgb - can you either move the couple pixels you are using to hsi.rgb or crop it way down (just keep it power of 2)? You can use transformations to draw it where it needs to be. glareshield1.rgb - it's square, you can easily quarter the size and not lose. Thanks J ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] LWCE NYC
I just started the ball rolling for this years winter LWCE booth. Is anybody planning on attending the show, and if so, can they contribute time and/or hardware? Contact me off the list ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] whoops
On Saturday 14 December 2002 12:17 pm, paul mccann wrote: Umm the patch for the hsi and rmi was slightly broken. The c310-ifr-set.xml was not right, so I changed that and everything is working again. patch is here http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/patch9.1.tar.gz Cool thanks. I'll commit it shortly updated screenshot http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/fgfs-screen-001.jpeg Paul ___ 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] comments
On Saturday 14 December 2002 1:06 pm, paul mccann wrote: [Flightgear-devel] patch and screenshot John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:05:52 -0500 Previous message: [Flightgear-devel] patch and screenshot Next message: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Re: preferences.xml change Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Thursday 12 December 2002 4:45 pm, paul mccann wrote: I put a patch at my webserver for the hsi and rmi on the c310, if any one wants to try it. Maybe fix it up too. I was using fgfs version 9.1 for this. http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/patch9.1.tar.gz This looks good. Do we have any objections to using this, or should we add this and keep the old one too? Comments? John Thanks for response and If it works correctly I set it up so it loads the old c310-vfr panel, with the changes I made. I renamed it c310-ifr and it loads from comand line with that. That way I did not mess up any of the other c310s'. I did it on the current 9.1 version of flightgear. Seems to work ok in the other aircraft too but the 3d cockpits were it border seems to wiggle a little. Don't know why that is? It has to do with precision, when the location is straddling the border of two pixels, the image jitters. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] patch and screenshot
On Thursday 12 December 2002 4:45 pm, paul mccann wrote: I put a patch at my webserver for the hsi and rmi on the c310, if any one wants to try it. Maybe fix it up too. I was using fgfs version 9.1 for this. http://members.verizon.net/~vze3b42n/patch9.1.tar.gz This looks good. Do we have any objections to using this, or should we add this and keep the old one too? Comments? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Re: preferences.xml change
On Thursday 12 December 2002 11:01 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The main problem I have with our current views is that theres no random access, you have to cycle. If they were bound to specific key combos, I wouldn't have a problem. Maybe we can have distant and near views grouped? It wouldn't be a big change to make that possible (right now it isn't without a code change). Actually I was kind of thinking about binding V (shift v) so that it would always return to the view 0, the cockpit. That's usually the problem I run into...wanting to see if the animation is working and then finding my way back to the cockpit before stalling the aircraft. That's exactly the problem I have. I think what you propose is a nice compromise. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ~30 new GPL'd models that work w/ FlightGear
On Friday 13 December 2002 1:42 pm, Michael Selig wrote: Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and Captain Slug: I (we) have obtained permission from them to use their 3D external models under the GNU GPL. All of these models will work with FlightGear. I have the zip files. To fly, all they need are flight models (aero, propulsion, gear, etc) backing them up. If anyone is interested in these, I'll email off the zip file(s). It might be a good idea to make a cvs module that contains these yet to be fully developed FGFS aircraft. That way they will not get lost. Absolutely. I think though, that we should concentrate on models for planes that we have data for. The base package is getting tubby, which a module will address nicely, and we can roll individual models over as they are ready. It's not currently an issue, but storage may be getting tight on the base package server in the not too distant future. I'd have to question putting the helicopters in at this point. Perhaps the best way to go would be archive the whole ball of wax and introduce them into CVS as needed instead of dumping them all in now. Here's the list: ~~ AF Scrubby WWI Belgian Collection ~~ Nieuport 17 with one gun Spad XIII Spad VII Nieuport 17 with 2 guns Hanriot hd-1 Sopwith Camel (already flying) Captain Slug Propeller - Beech B76 Duchess Cessna 180 wheels floats skis EAPL Eagle X-TS Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia GlastarTail Tri Floats Raytheon T-6A Texan II Tango 22 Repaints Jets Bede BD-10 Falcon Cessna CitationJet 500 Cessna CitationJet 525 Dassault Falcon 900EX De Havilland Venom Mk4 Gulfstream V Lear Jet 23 Lockheed F-117 NightHawk Me163 Komet North American T-2 BuckEye Northrop B-2 Spirit Northrop T-38 Talon Helicopters --- Bell AH-1S SuperCobra Kaman K1200 K-max Sikorsky UH-60 BlackHawk Others -- BatWing Schweizer 2-33 Airwave Xtreme Hang-Glider (already flying) Regards, Michael ___ 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] ~30 new GPL'd models that work w/ FlightGear
On Friday 13 December 2002 2:26 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:42:20 -0600, Michael Selig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Some good news and a BIG THANKS to AF Scrubby and Captain Slug: I (we) have obtained permission from them to use their 3D external models under the GNU GPL. All of these models will work with FlightGear. I have the zip files. To fly, all they need are flight models (aero, propulsion, gear, etc) backing them up. If anyone is interested in these, I'll email off the zip file(s). ..shoot! ;-) It might be a good idea to make a cvs module that contains these yet to be fully developed FGFS aircraft. That way they will not get lost. Here's the list: ..snip. Helicopters --- Bell AH-1S SuperCobra Kaman K1200 K-max Sikorsky UH-60 BlackHawk ..use/develop the fdm from http://autopilot.sourceforge.net/ ? One of these guys attended my conference session at LWCE last year. IIRC autopilot is just that, but I beleive they were interested in using FGFS as sim to develop on. I do not know if they made a chopper FDM we can use, but I don't think they would have hesitated to let us know about it. Then again, they're doing their own thing, so who knows. I can't pull up the FAQ right now. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Re: preferences.xml change
On Thursday 12 December 2002 6:06 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: Michael would like to add an additional default view (a third, closer tower) to the base package preferences.xml. I'm against it since we offer the ability to add custom views and there's already too many default views for my taste. That's just my opinion and others will feel differently, so I thought I'd forward this discussion on to the list. Besides, I wouldn't want to get on Michael's bad side over this :-) The main problem I have with our current views is that theres no random access, you have to cycle. If they were bound to specific key combos, I wouldn't have a problem. Maybe we can have distant and near views grouped? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 0.9.1 for Mac OS X 10.1.5
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 6:30 pm, Jonathan Polley wrote: I would really like to build it, but since I haven't been able to access CVS since the roll out of 0.9.1, I can't. It's odd that only the CVS FlightGear and SimGear don't work (plib works just great). If someone would like to help me get CVS access again, I would love to build the MacOS 10.1 version. I know that CVS access is not strictly required to get the Mac version to build, but it makes things much easier for me to submit the required changes. Check the FGFS and simgear sites. When Curt split the dev and stable branches he did it with separate repositories, so the log in changed. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 0.9.1 for Mac OS X 10.1.5
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 9:05 pm, Jonathan Polley wrote: On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 06:25 PM, John Check wrote: On Wednesday 11 December 2002 6:30 pm, Jonathan Polley wrote: I would really like to build it, but since I haven't been able to access CVS since the roll out of 0.9.1, I can't. It's odd that only the CVS FlightGear and SimGear don't work (plib works just great). If someone would like to help me get CVS access again, I would love to build the MacOS 10.1 version. I know that CVS access is not strictly required to get the Mac version to build, but it makes things much easier for me to submit the required changes. Check the FGFS and simgear sites. When Curt split the dev and stable branches he did it with separate repositories, so the log in changed. I have looked at both sites and they still show 0.8/0.9 (FlightGear) and 0.2/0.3 (SimGear). Those be them. Sorry. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 4:22 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: You could also imagine that something downstream of this central transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I unhealthy state you guys crack me up. Sounds more like brown trousers time to me ;-) agree with the people who are saying this can be made to fly safely within reasonable tolerances, but I also think there are certain phases where it's probably always going to be a little less safe than a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 ... Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] build failure with g++ 3.2
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/j4strngs/Repository/FlightGear/src/Input' g++ -g -O2 -L/usr/X11R6/lib -o js_demo js_demo.o -lplibsl -lplibsm -lplibul -lm js_demo.o: In function `main': /home/j4strngs/Repository/FlightGear/src/Input/js_demo.cxx:21: undefined reference to `jsJoystick::jsJoystick[in-charge](int)' /home/j4strngs/Repository/FlightGear/src/Input/js_demo.cxx:84: undefined reference to `jsJoystick::read(int*, float*)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status If this is because of the namespace dealie, can somebody point me in the right direction for determining the relevant include? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATI vs. Linux
On Friday 29 November 2002 4:54 pm, David Megginson wrote: Andy Ross writes: ** Linux vs. Windows (no! FreeDOS!). NVidia vs. ATI (no! Matrox!). More than a few people called me an idiot. More than a few of those hadn't bothered to read the link. Whee. That's very impressive for SlashDot. I wish that only a *few* people had called me an idiot when I submitted the Blender Fund story. Bloody favouritism, that's what I call it. All the best, David Thats what you get for being Canadian ;-D ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Blender Status
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 4:38 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Erik Hofman writes: Allright, If you think lowres is not good enough, we can keep them. I was just trying to remove 11 Mb from the base package and thought the lowres version would be good enough. Perhaps the high-res could be an optional add-on. That wouldn't be good I don't think. They seem to be used by default. And are worth it. Gzipped we'd be looking at about 5.5mb. I haven't been following the conversation but, a couple things about the base package: 1) Releases != cvs snapshots It gets groomed. 2) While a smaller download is always better, the better FGFS gets, the more slack people will cut us when it comes to the download. The current gzipped cvs snapshot tarball is less than 40mb. How does this compare with other sims -demo- downloads? The base package also includes a manual in PDF and HTML formats, so add that in to the calculations. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sopwith Camel model added
On Sunday 10 November 2002 2:21 pm, Michael Selig wrote: At 11/10/02, Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Thank you very much. It might be a good idea in the future to put 3D models directly into Aircraft/*/Models/ rather than Aircraft/*/Models/uiuc/, since 3D models are usable by all FDMs (all four major ones use the same C172 model, for example). Agreed, there need not be a one to one relationship between fdm models and 3D models and the path implies there is. If there are differences in fdm data output that require multiple 3Dmodel xml files for animation, they can still be named according to the fdm they work with and still live in the same directory as a single mdl or ac file and texture set. Best, Jim Since these are imports courtesy of developers working with MSFS, would it be a good idea to keep a copy of their models in original form in a separate directory? That way they could always come to FGFS and fly their I vote no. We can archive 'em someplace, but why should we use the extra bandwidth distributing something thats not used? original models as well as any enhancements to them? In each case, the original model developers have expressed some interest in FGFS. We don't keep on the cvs legacy code as we develop it, but it might make sense to keep working legacy models when they are native to MSFS with their associated credits. If this does make sense, I am not attached to the uiuc dir name. We could call it OEM, orig, the author's name or something like that. I understand where you are coming from, wanting to keep all uiuc enchancements segregated, but graphic and cosmetic stuff really should be consistently stored project wide. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sopwith Camel model added
On Sunday 10 November 2002 2:37 pm, Michael Selig wrote: At 11/10/02, Curt Olson wrote: Michael Selig writes: Since these are imports courtesy of developers working with MSFS, would it be a good idea to keep a copy of their models in original form in a separate directory? That way they could always come to FGFS and fly their original models as well as any enhancements to them? In each case, the original model developers have expressed some interest in FGFS. I would think that the author already would provide an original reference version, i.e. the one that works with MSFS. If we have to make slight modications to get the model to work with FGFS then why not go whole hog and spruce it up a little while we are at it... assuming we have the author's permission to do so. Ok, this makes sense. The OEM resides w/ the working package for MSFS and people can always get that from, say, http://www.flightsim.com. We will only keep those parts (original or otherwise) that are currently working w/ the latest version of FGFS. Right. I'd put a download URL for the original in the README. In the future for the new aircraft that I add, I'll just put the models in the ~/Aircraft/*/Models. Sweet. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sopwith Camel model added
On Sunday 10 November 2002 2:24 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Michael Selig writes: Since these are imports courtesy of developers working with MSFS, would it be a good idea to keep a copy of their models in original form in a separate directory? That way they could always come to FGFS and fly their original models as well as any enhancements to them? In each case, the original model developers have expressed some interest in FGFS. I would think that the author already would provide an original reference version, i.e. the one that works with MSFS. If we have to make slight modications to get the model to work with FGFS then why not go whole hog and spruce it up a little while we are at it... assuming we have the author's permission to do so. Curt, How about putting something on the main site about the situation regarding MSFS models? This way anybody from that community will be aware if/when they check out the FGFS pages. TTYL J ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Airwave Xtreme 150 hang glider updates
On Friday 08 November 2002 9:43 pm, Michael Selig wrote: I have just updated the Airwave Xtreme 150 hang glider on the fgfs cvs to include the external model from Captain Slug! He has granted permission for us to use and release these with FlightGear under the GNU GPL. Regards, Michael Rock on! Please include a README with the contents of the email documenting his approval. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 747-yasim Questions
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 3:14 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: When the 3D model origin is set at the nose or cockpit, the aircraft is too far back on the runway at startup. So far back that the main gear is not on the pavement. It looks stupid. Even as it is currently, it sits too far back. If we can agree how to fix that problem, then I can make the adjustments to the 3D model. That's really because the startup position is based on a smaller aircraft though, isn't it? Is the code taking into consideration the size of the plane? Is that even reported in a consistent manner? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] building models
On Thursday 31 October 2002 7:09 am, David Megginson wrote: Jon Stockill writes: But implementing them in a different format, with much reduced detail, as would be required for flightgear, using the original ones only for inspiration, and basic dimensions? Why not start with a 3-view of the real Eiffel Tower, then? (Is there one online?) Personally, if I make a complex structure, I'll probably start with the Golden Gate bridge, since it's so close to out default starting point. All the best, David The TA pyramid wouldn't be a bad pick for somebody just starting to mess with 3D modeling.. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] building models
On Thursday 31 October 2002 9:22 am, David Megginson wrote: John Check writes: Personally, if I make a complex structure, I'll probably start with the Golden Gate bridge, since it's so close to out default starting point. The TA pyramid wouldn't be a bad pick for somebody just starting to mess with 3D modeling.. Absolutely, though I wouldn't call it a complex structure (four polys). It will look a little silly without the surrounding tall buildings, though. DOH! Note to self: coffee first, --then- email. It'd be 12 really, since it has those wings on two sides. It would be kind of goofy by itself, but we gotta start someplace. On that note: There are 2 or 3 simple structures that would be really important for my neck of the woods. Is there a faq for using blender derived models? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] I've got a few minutes to spare
On Sunday 27 October 2002 12:22 am, Jon Berndt wrote: I've got a few minutes to spare this evening, so I'm going to try again to build the latest development flightgear. Questions: 1) I plan on using the latest bleeding edge flightgear sources from development CVS. Which base package do I download? 2) Does the base package from #1 (above) work with the latest simgear and plib? 3) Any issues with Cygwin and trying the above approach? Jon There is only one repository for the base package. The stable code is a branch. You shouldn't have to do anything special. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yeager [OT]
On Saturday 26 October 2002 8:30 pm, Frances Berndt wrote: A little OT, but interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/26/yeager.sound.ap/index.html Jon 79 y.o.? I have a mental picture of an F15 travelling at mach 1.45 with blinker on the whole time. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yeager [OT]
On Sunday 27 October 2002 7:03 pm, Jon Berndt wrote: John Check wrote: On Saturday 26 October 2002 8:30 pm, Jon Berndt wrote: A little OT, but interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/26/yeager.sound.ap/index.html Jon 79 y.o.? I have a mental picture of an F15 travelling at mach 1.45 with blinker on the whole time. :-D I was thinking he should have said something like: I tried to go faster but at 79 years old it was the best I could muster. - or - I wanted to fly the F-20 but my walker wouldn't fit in the cockpit. :-o Jon Well at least I won't be the -only- one burning in hell ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ADF change?
On Saturday 26 October 2002 5:30 pm, Julian Foad wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: ... What would be really useful when you get into modeling push buttons is to be able to model a switch where it is true while the mouse is depressed and then immediately returns to false when the mouse button is released. Currently you need to click a second time to return the button to false. ... mod-up would seem to be the appropriate syntax. If that doesn't work for mouse buttons, perhaps making it work for mouse buttons would be better than inventing a new type of action. That approach would work for me. - Julian ___ 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: Panel interaction (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] ADF change?)
On Saturday 26 October 2002 10:08 am, James Turner wrote: On Saturday, October 26, 2002, at 02:23 am, David Megginson wrote: Curtis L. Olson writes: What would be really useful when you get into modeling push buttons is to be able to model a switch where it is true while the mouse is depressed and then immediately returns to false when the mouse button is released. Currently you need to click a second time to return the button to false. One feature I'd love is the ability to spin dials by hovering over and using the mouse wheel, though I assume GLUT may not support this (unless the wheel is mapped as buttons 4 and 5, which I think is common under X?). MSFS does this (at least the newest version) and it's very intuitive and quick to work with. HH James I'd just be happy to use the mouse wheel to scroll the properties window. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] ADF change?
I see that tuning the ADF radio is now done on the standby channel. It was my understanding (which ain't much) that at least on some units you can tune the active channel 2 questions. 1) Would anybody object to me activating a switch so we can have both? 2) Should we just switch to the KR87 thats sitting in cvs unused? Re: 2. It works according to the description of a tutorial I found. It also has flight/et/countdown timers and some other cool stuff. Currently it's confusing to use because the timer functions require momentary switch action, which we don't have. You have use two clicks and some of it is time dependant, i.e. hold down the switch for two seconds to set some timer modes. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ADF change?
On Friday 25 October 2002 9:14 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: David Megginson writes: Curtis L. Olson writes: Yes, I dont' know what it would take to get a momentary mouse click mode working, but that would be really helpful. David: is this possible? Easy? Hard? Someone else is going to have to work on this though since I have my hands full with other things. Please explain. Right now you can create clickable areas on the panel where a mouse click will change the state of a boolean property, or increment a value or decrement a value, etc. What would be really useful when you get into modeling push buttons is to be able to model a switch where it is true while the mouse is depressed and then immediately returns to false when the mouse button is released. Currently you need to click a second time to return the button to false. This would also be the ticket for the magneto switch. We have both types of buttons on the KR-87 ADF, those that you depress and they click in and stay depressed, and then you push them again and they come back out (ADF, BFO). And also the kind of buttons (FRQ, Flt/Et, Set/Rst) where they immediately return to not-depressed when you remove your finger. Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ADF change?
On Friday 25 October 2002 8:57 pm, David Megginson wrote: John Check writes: I see that tuning the ADF radio is now done on the standby channel. It was my understanding (which ain't much) that at least on some units you can tune the active channel My experience is limited, but the only units I've seen where you tune the active frequency directly are radios without a standby frequency (the ones I've used are big cold-war jobs that have a nob for each digit on a physical wheel). It beats my experience, thats for sure. 2 questions. 1) Would anybody object to me activating a switch so we can have both? It depends on what we're emulating. Before you go ahead and add it, though, why do you want it? For radio navigation, you generally want to be able to tune your next station in advance without losing the current signal as you move from one NDB to the next. Typical examples include following a Romeo air route between two NDBs (not that uncommon in Canada -- I've done it a few times already) and flying an instrument approach that uses one NDB for the FAF and another NDB for the missed approach (I'll be doing that soon). In reality I can't think of a case, because you'd know what stations to tune in advance, but if you classify fgfs as a game, you might want to be able to search for ground stations. I seem to recall something about some units having an AM reception mode also. Its the same principle that you use with the VOR and the VHF radio -- try to stay one step ahead of the plane by having your next frequency already tuned it (for example, I usually have Ottawa Terminal ready on standby while I'm still talking to Ottawa Tower after departure). 2) Should we just switch to the KR87 thats sitting in cvs unused? Sure. It seemed like a good time to remind everybody that we have that. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ***long*** pauses after flying a while
On Thursday 24 October 2002 8:02 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: John Check writes: On Wednesday 23 October 2002 11:48 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I just fixed a bug in the tile freeing code which accounted for the very long pauses people were seeing after flying for a while. Cool, but it breaks for gcc3.2 line 704 of tileentry.cxx needs std::cout You can just remove that line ... left over debugging output ... Curt. That was my humble non programmer way of nudging you on behalf of the 3.2 users. Subtle, I know. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] dc3 pannel lights
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 8:10 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: John Check writes: Well, Ideally, no, but like anything else, unless we have some documentation to work from, getting it right isn't likely. I don't know what doco is available. My feeling is that that we should at least have the battery and/or alternator connected to a main buss, which is simpler than what the 172 has. All we need is for a generic_electrical.xml to be loaded when one isn't specified. I have no problems with making it a requirement to add one to the markup for a plane, but I'm sure others may feel differently. I have no idea how this was handled prior. John, That might be the best way to go, build a super simple electrical system that has battery, alternator feed into a single master bus, and have all the outputs feed off that. This would probably be better than putting in a C172 electrical system into an A4 or a 747. At some point if someone cares, they could research the electrical system of the specific aircraft and impliment it then. I don't know how much time I'll have today, but I can try to take a quick look at this at some point, unless you want to knock it out. Regards, Curt. I'll bang one out ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Generic systems
Curt sent me a generic-electrical.xml that I'll be committing shortly. In the interest of tidyness I'm considering adding a directory Aircraft/Generic to hold stuff like this. I'm not planning on moving anything like instruments in there, but possibly things like the mini panel. Basically, it would be a place for markup that would best be customized versions for a given plane, but said customized versions have yet to be written. Comments? Questions? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] segfault
I just ran through firing up all the non 172 planes and there are several JSBsim planes that segfault x24b X15 Shuttle On Wednesday 23 October 2002 10:30 pm, Tony Peden wrote: On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:14, Michael Selig wrote: At 10/23/02, Tony Peden wrote: On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 17:39, Michael Selig wrote: I am trying to compile and run the latest version of fgfs, but I have hit a problem. When I run it I promptly get the error message Segmentation Fault There are no other messages. What I have: - Redhat 7.1 - automake 1.6.3 - autoconf 2.53 - plib 1.6.0 - yesterday's cvs of Simgear, fgfsbase, Flightgear (0.9) I am able to compile and run my older version of fgfs (from 8/20/2002) w/ the new plib and Simgear. Also, we're able to compile and run the new setup on some other Redhat machines. So this does seem to be machine specific, but I have not changed anything at the system level. Anyone have any ideas on what I could try next? It may help to know where it's crashing. run fgfs with this: gdb fgfs type run at the gdb prompt then, when it crashes, type bt and post the results. Here's what I get: ~/www-flightgear-org gdb ./FlightGear/src/Main/fgfs GNU gdb 5.0rh-5 Red Hat Linux 7.1 Copyright 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type show copying to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type show warranty for details. This GDB was configured as i386-redhat-linux... (gdb) run Starting program: /home/m-seligSim/www-flightgear-org/./FlightGear/src/Main/fgfs [New Thread 1024 (LWP 21926)] Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread 1024 (LWP 21926)] __strtol_internal (nptr=0x8833618 , endptr=0x85ccee0, base=139597448, group=1065353216) at eval.c:36 36 eval.c: No such file or directory. in eval.c (gdb) bt #0 __strtol_internal (nptr=0x8833618 , endptr=0x85ccee0, base=139597448, group=1065353216) at eval.c:36 #1 0x0834b82a in SkyTextureState::SkyTextureState (this=0x8833618) at SkyTextureState.cpp:47 #2 0x08348a5f in SkyMaterial::SkyMaterial (this=0x8833578) at SkyMaterial.cpp:60 #3 0x08348223 in SkyLight::SkyLight (this=0x8833500, eType=SKY_LIGHT_DIRECTIONAL) at SkyLight.cpp:67 #4 0x08346ce6 in __static_initialization_and_destruction_0 (__initialize_p=1, __priority=65535) at /usr/include/g++-3/stl_multimap.h:52 #5 0x08346d8e in global constructors keyed to eType () at /usr/include/g++-3/stl_multimap.h:75 #6 0x083fb895 in __do_global_ctors_aux () at slMODfile.cxx:686 #7 0x0804e0ae in _init () at eval.c:41 #8 0x40317161 in __libc_start_main (main=0x80573ec main, argc=1, ubp_av=0xb8ec, init=0x804e098 _init, fini=0x8450e80 _fini, rtld_fini=0x4000e184 _dl_fini, stack_end=0xb8dc) at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:122 FWIW I have done things like: - uninstall SimGear and plib, and reinstalled. - I have done a cvs co from our uiuc mirror and a cvs update -dP from the fgfs site. I get the same segfault w/ both versions of the code. - As compared w/ the last version that worked, there has been a bunch of new 3D cloud work and runway lighting (I think). - I also installed metakit from the tarball in SimGear/src-lib, but I speculate that I did not really need to do that. - Through all of these gyrations, my version from 8/20/02 still compiles and runs w/ the new SimGear and plib. Hmm, this looks like its in the 3D clouds code ... you might try running with it disabled using: --disable-clouds3d Beyond that, I'm not going to be much help. Regards, Michael Regards, Michael ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds ___ 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] segfault
I seem to recall having problems with crashes when starting up with the telnet interface. Well, the problem really was with subsequent attempts at starting. I'd see segfaults if the first run didn't exit normal, either through a crash or other means. At the time I had the line for the telnet interface in my .fgfsrc. Commenting it out allowed the program to start normally. I don't know if this is apropos, but you never can tell. On Wednesday 23 October 2002 11:50 pm, Michael Selig wrote: At 10/23/02, Curtis Olson wrote: Michael Selig writes: I am still getting the same segfault w/ this option. It even promptly crashes w/ ./fgfs --help i.e. I don't get the option list. Are you missing the base package some how, or pointing to the wrong directory? If I run my working old version w/o setting FG_ROOT, I get this: [221] m-selig@qtee:/home/m-seligSim/work ./flightsim-0.7.pre11/src/Main/fgfs FlightGear: Version 0.7.11pre1 Built with GNU C++ version 2.96 Scanning for root: command line fg_root = /home/m-seligSim/www-flightgear-org/fgfsbase Usage: strings/usage strings/general-options: --help, -h strings/help-desc snip For a complete list of options use --help --verbose Base package check failed ... Found version 0.9.0 at: /home/m-seligSim/www-flightgear-org/fgfsbase Please upgrade to version0.7.11pre1 When I run the new one the same way, I get this: [226] m-selig@qtee:/home/m-seligSim/www-flightgear-org ./FlightGear/src/Main/fgfs Segmentation fault So this does not seem to be related to the base package. FWIW I will not rule out that I could be making some mistakes at my end, but I have already tried working this out w/ Rob Deters here. Also, our most recent update follows the steps we have taken before ... and on Rob's computer it is working. He is running Redhat 7.2. I am running 7.1, and that's the only difference on the surface. Still puzzled in Illinois ... and trying very hard to avoid having to reinstall my wonderful Linux box. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ___ 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] ***long*** pauses after flying a while
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 11:48 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: I just fixed a bug in the tile freeing code which accounted for the very long pauses people were seeing after flying for a while. Cool, but it breaks for gcc3.2 line 704 of tileentry.cxx needs std::cout ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] segfault
On Thursday 24 October 2002 12:18 am, Jon Berndt wrote: And it only happens with *some* *JSBSim* aircraft? Jon Heres console output from X15 Starting and initialitoken = OBJECT name = KHAF.btg zing JSBsim T,p,rho: 518.67, 2116Start common FDM init ...initializing position... FGJSBsim::set_Longitude: -2.13554 FGJSBsim::set_Latitude: 0.65648 cur alt (ft) = 35000 FGJSBsim::set_Altitude: 35000 lat (deg) = 37.6135 Terrain altitude: -0.00124871 ...initializing ground elevation to -0.000380607ft... ...initializing sea-level radius... lat = 37.6135 alt = 35000 ...initializing velocities... FGJSBsim::set_V_calibrated_kts: 250 ...initializing Euler angles... FGJSBsim::set_Euler_Angles: 0, 0.0074002, 5.19934 End common FDM init Segmentation fault ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] dc3 pannel lights
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 10:11 pm, Dave Perry wrote: The c172-yasim pannel is lit at night, so this seems to be a change to the dc3 only. - Dave What it is is that when electrical system modeling was added it affected planes for which no electrical system was added. I went through and added the markup to include the electrical.xml from the default 172 to all the variants, but never did the non Cessna planes. I don't recall any replies to my asking about using that as a default for the rest of the fleet. ___ 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] dc3 pannel lights
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:44 am, Andy Ross wrote: John Check wrote: What it is is that when electrical system modeling was added it affected planes for which no electrical system was added. I went through and added the markup to include the electrical.xml from the default 172 to all the variants, but never did the non Cessna planes. Shouldn't the sane choice for the defaults be the opposite? The instruments work unless the electrical system tells them that they are disabled? Otherwise every all new panel work will either be useless at night or require hacking in a nonsensical simulation. The A-4 has the same symptom, for example. Certainly we don't want a Cessna electrical system, no? Andy Well, Ideally, no, but like anything else, unless we have some documentation to work from, getting it right isn't likely. I don't know what doco is available. My feeling is that that we should at least have the battery and/or alternator connected to a main buss, which is simpler than what the 172 has. All we need is for a generic_electrical.xml to be loaded when one isn't specified. I have no problems with making it a requirement to add one to the markup for a plane, but I'm sure others may feel differently. I have no idea how this was handled prior. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] breakage
On Saturday 19 October 2002 1:33 pm, Andy Ross wrote: John Check wrote: Latest cvs build falls down with: pt_lights.cxx:304: `cout' undeclared (first use this function) You're using gcc 3.2 I assume? It's a namespace issue. The C++ standard library naming is stricter now. You need to use std::cout, or insert a using namespace std; above the usage. main.cxx:153: void (*glPointParameterfvEXT)(unsigned int, const GLfloat*) /usr/X11R6/include/GL/gl.h:2520: glPointParameterfvEXT(unsigned int, const GLfloat*)' OK, this one looks kinda wrong. Our code is defining its own copy of the glPointParameter function pointers, when they've already been declared as regular functions in gl.h. What's the purpose here? All of the declared extensions are supposed to be defined in the ARB glext.h header, I believe. User-level code shouldn't have to play this kind of game anymore. It's worth pointing out that I don't see this issue. I have the NVidia drivers installed, which might have differeing header behavior? Andy nvidia-glx-1.0.3123 here. This is Gentoo 1.4-r1 machine FWIW. I'll apply the patch from your later email. Your explaination is right in line with the error message. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] LWCE
On Saturday 19 October 2002 6:03 pm, William Earnest wrote: John Check wrote: [snip] So, my question is, is anybody planning on attending the show and/or willing to do some booth time? It's not necessarily the deciding factor in the long run, but I don't want to wait too long to register. TTYL J ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel John, I signed up for an exhibits only pass 9 days ago. Had been planning to do about half of one day, as in the last 2 years. Checked the bus schedule, and it looks practical to make it a full day. Could also make it a second day from appearances now, and if it would really help. Friday is not an option for me, however. Duly noted. Of possible relevance, does anyone have an idea for FlightGear might perform on a laptop with an ATI Mobility Radeon chip and 32MB DDR video memory? There is a small chance I might be able to carry said laptop with me on days I am there. Totally irrelevant, has anyone noticed an odd temperature on ATIS at KSFO, or is my system doing it uniquely? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] breakage
On Saturday 19 October 2002 2:47 pm, Andy Ross wrote: [Er, oops. The last one had the patch but not the text. Apologies!] OK, looking more carefully, I think I see how this is supposed to work. Because not all OpenGL implementations export the PointParameter functions, Curt is using function pointers and the GetProcAddress stuff. This is fine; the only bug is that the names of the function pointers are identical to the names of the functions. This is attractive, because you can use the same syntax for both. But it doesn't work across all implementations. In some, the definition of the functions are as regular functions, not pointers. So while the invocation syntax is the same, the assignment syntax is not. You can't redeclare a regular function as a function pointer -- they're not compatible types. The following patch just renames the symbol used to avoid the collision. It seems to work for me. Andy diff -u -w -r1.31 main.cxx --- main.cxx17 Oct 2002 04:34:32 - 1.31 +++ main.cxx19 Oct 2002 18:38:22 - @@ -141,16 +141,16 @@ typedef void (APIENTRY * PFNGLPOINTPARAMETERFVEXTPROC)(GLenum pname, const GLfloat *params); - PFNGLPOINTPARAMETERFEXTPROC glPointParameterfEXT = 0; - PFNGLPOINTPARAMETERFVEXTPROC glPointParameterfvEXT = 0; + PFNGLPOINTPARAMETERFEXTPROC gl_PointParameterfEXT = 0; + PFNGLPOINTPARAMETERFVEXTPROC g_lPointParameterfvEXT = 0; Is this last line correct? The rest of the patch uses gl_PointParameterfvEXT FWIW I couldn't get the patch to apply and I noticed while applying changes ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] runway lighting
On Saturday 19 October 2002 7:42 pm, William L. Riley wrote: The base scenery package was rebuilt tonight and is available for download. http://www.randdtechnologies.com/fgfs/newScenery/ The rebuild went very smoothly so there is probably some huge glaring error that I missed. ;) Wm ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] runway lighting
On Saturday 19 October 2002 7:42 pm, William L. Riley wrote: The base scenery package was rebuilt tonight and is available for download. http://www.randdtechnologies.com/fgfs/newScenery/ The rebuild went very smoothly so there is probably some huge glaring error that I missed. ;) Wm Looks good to me, but what do I know. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] breakage
On Saturday 19 October 2002 8:52 pm, Andy Ross wrote: John Check wrote: Is this last line correct? Uh, no. :) Sorry. I don't compile on a windows box, so that part of the change was blind. windows box? I don't like the way they look. Shutters are okay, but windowboxes.. not my thing. Obviously, the actual names of the symbols used isn't important. You could just as easily use GL or fg, or fgfsgl or whatnot so long as it's consistent and doesn't collide with the existing OpenGL names. Right. But the patch should have applied cleanly -- it just would have failed during compilation. Or is that what you meant? It wouldn't apply. I was getting 4 failed hunks. I should have saved the .rej file. It might have been because I saved the email and trimmed off the headers and the list sig. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] runway lighting
On Friday 18 October 2002 7:13 pm, Jon Berndt wrote: John Check writes: Curt, What do you think about tossing this in the base package? Just wondering That's fine, although it's not elevated and has large gaps where it meets the surround terrain ... The last time we had KSFO with lights in there it had some problems too. I think it's worth the tradeoff but if you think it's going to break anything I can hold off. CUrt. John: Are you going to go ahead with this? When it gets in the base package (you I have to try it first. Yes, that would be the unstable (main) branch. You shouldn't need to do anything special. do mean the develpment package?), are you going to post an announcement? I Well, commits automagically generate posts to fg-cvslogs, but I'll give you a heads up. am going to try and build FGFS again with the new base package. Haven't had time to do this lately. But I want to wait for the runway stuff. Jon ___ 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] Wright Flyer
On Thursday 17 October 2002 10:34 am, Jim Wilson wrote: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hehe, if you start out with a fairly stable approach and are pretty close already, the autopilot seems to hold the Wright Flyer right on the glide slope. ATC was complaining a bit about my 33 kt. (full throttle) approach speed though ... Hmmm...maybe we should do a full glass cockpit with GPS? Best, Jim Hahah, a GC for that would be an hour glass ___ 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] Wright Flyer
On Thursday 17 October 2002 2:43 pm, Jon Stockill wrote: On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, John Check wrote: Hahah, a GC for that would be an hour glass and a spirit level. Thanks, I knew there had to be another peice. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Wright Flyer
On Thursday 17 October 2002 3:46 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thursday 17 October 2002 10:34 am, Jim Wilson wrote: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hehe, if you start out with a fairly stable approach and are pretty close already, the autopilot seems to hold the Wright Flyer right on the glide slope. ATC was complaining a bit about my 33 kt. (full throttle) approach speed though ... Hmmm...maybe we should do a full glass cockpit with GPS? Hahah, a GC for that would be an hour glass Now come on John, it wasn't THAT long ago! Besides, an hour glass would never work on that thing. Best, Jim You're right, let's go analog. Sundial and a plumb bob ;D ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Wright Flyer
On Thursday 17 October 2002 3:50 pm, Jim Wilson wrote: Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, John Check wrote: Hahah, a GC for that would be an hour glass and a spirit level. Hmmm... I did a google on spirit level wright flyer and nothing came up. Any idea what it looks like? Best, Jim Just your regular run of the mill glass tube filled with mineral spirits and an air bubble. ___ 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
[Flightgear-devel] starter value
Where is the initial startertrue/starter coming from? It's set to off in preferences.xml and generally not defined in the set files. As it stands, switching off the magnetos leaves the engine cranking. Also, the switch is drawn in the start position. It should suffice to set engine/running=true correct? I have to say, preferences.xml is looking right nasty about now. There is a lot of stuff that shouldn't be in there IMO. I'm out of touch with whats going on at the moment so no flames please. I expect to be doing some clean up and maybe wiring up some switches at the weekend. TTYL J ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172-larcsim -why?
On Friday 11 October 2002 02:23 am, Christian Mayer wrote: John Check wrote: I was going through the c172 variants and adding the electrical system and I fired up the c172-larcsim. It's got a major problem. It just sits on the runway no matter how much throttle you give it. I took a quick look at the xml file in case it was something obvious. I gave comparative analysis a shot, but the only other planes that use larcsim are the UIUC planes. We used to have a Navion. Have we lost it on the way? CU, Christian I don't see a config for it, but I thought it was hardcoded. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
