Martin Spott wrote:
I'm very much surprised to see that you intend to use YASim for an
aircraft, that you want to model based on existing flight data.
Do you actually expect YASim to be the right tool for that job or is it
simply leftover from using the Cub layout as basis ? I might miss the
Martin Spott wrote:
I'm very much surprised to see that you intend to use YASim for an
aircraft, that you want to model based on existing flight data.
Do you actually expect YASim to be the right tool for that job or is it
simply leftover from using the Cub layout as basis ? I might miss the
On Sunday 27 November 2005 05:19 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
Sets correctly the VRP at the nose :
Yep, the VRP appears actually to be located at the nose, but the offset
to the CG is still missing :-)
Have a try, look at the aircraft from an outside view (chase view w/o
yaw), activate the HUD
--- Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't resist the suspicion that there's something wrong with the 3D
model. At least I get the glider to see and I yet didn't find yout why.
Several XML files and the AC file do have DOS line endings but this
doesn't cause the trouble I've
Buchanan, Stuart wrote:
Have you synced Instruments-3d ?
The new C182 model requires the new yoke, flaps and trimwheel that I
submitted at the same time. I assume they were all checked in at the same
time.
Oops, they hadn't.
Erik
___
Martin Spott wrote:
I can't resist the suspicion that there's something wrong with the 3D
model. At least I get the glider to see and I yet didn't find yout why.
Several XML files and the AC file do have DOS line endings but this
doesn't cause the trouble I've already removed all of them,
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/sr20
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv4330/Aircraft/sr20
Added Files:
sr20-set.xml
Log Message:
Add some missing files.
I'd suggest these changes to get things going:
Ehm, allright. Done.
Erik
On Montag 30 Mai 2005 08:50, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The FDMs are currently the only users of the groundcache, and yes, they
benefit from it. A lot. Per-wheel/contact-point ground awareness hadn't
been done before Mathias implemented the ground cache. And probably it
would have been a big
On Montag 30 Mai 2005 14:21, Jon Stockill wrote:
I'm not certain the area that the ground cache covers, but I suspect it
has applications beyond just contact points. ISTR Lee was wanting to
know ground elevation a distance ahead of the aircraft for the terrain
following mode of the TSR2s
* Jon Berndt -- Monday 30 May 2005 00:26:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
When you fly over a beacon, the ground cache has to eat all these
triangles,
which makes the FDM stutter or even hang.
Is the ground cache for the benefit of the FDM?
The FDMs are currently the only users of the
Still, I didn't mean to blame the problems on the
FDMs. I just called it FDM stuttering because this is what the user sees
(and because the ground-cache code is in the FDM/ directory :-) But the FDM
only stuttered, because it wasn't called in time, because of unfortunate
groundcache/beacon
* Dave Culp -- Monday 30 May 2005 09:27:
The groundcache/beacon interaction was only effecting the Yasim FDM, correct?
I've only tested it with YASim (bo105, b1900d) where I saw it before, but
not after fixing it. I can't say if it happened with JSBSim, although
I use both regularly.
m.
Is the ground cache for the benefit of the FDM?
The FDMs are currently the only users of the groundcache, and yes, they
benefit from it. A lot. Per-wheel/contact-point ground awareness hadn't been
done before Mathias implemented the ground cache. And probably it would have
been a big
Jon Berndt wrote:
Is the ground cache for the benefit of the FDM?
The FDMs are currently the only users of the groundcache, and yes, they
benefit from it. A lot. Per-wheel/contact-point ground awareness hadn't been
done before Mathias implemented the ground cache. And probably it would have
On Mon, 30 May 2005 08:50:43 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Jon Berndt -- Monday 30 May 2005 00:26:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
When you fly over a beacon, the ground cache has to eat all
these triangles, which makes the FDM stutter or even hang.
Is the ground
On Monday 30 May 2005 13:21, Jon Stockill wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
Is the ground cache for the benefit of the FDM?
The FDMs are currently the only users of the groundcache,
and yes, they benefit from it. A lot.
Per-wheel/contact-point ground awareness hadn't been done
before Mathias
On Monday 30 May 2005 13:21, Jon Stockill wrote:
I'm not certain the area that the ground cache covers, but I
suspect it has applications beyond just contact points. ISTR
Lee was wanting to know ground elevation a distance ahead of
the aircraft for the terrain following mode of the TSR2s
Martin Spott wrote:
Melchior Franz wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Airport
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv27845
Modified Files:
beacon.xml beacon.ac
Jon, are you going to update the respective entry in our database ?
It's not in there. Though there are database
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
For those who care: these changes to the beacon solve one of the recently
discussed problems with hanging FDM: The beacon is a quite expensive structure.
It consists of about 1000 vertices and 950 triangles, all on the same spot.
When you fly over a beacon, the ground
Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
In less verbosity: this technique does only make sense for objects with high
face
*density*, not high face *number*.
The beacon has a lot of vertical, or near vertical, faces.
-Fred
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
For those who care: these changes to the beacon solve one of the recently
discussed problems with hanging FDM: The beacon is a quite expensive
structure.
It consists of about 1000 vertices and 950 triangles, all on the same spot.
When you fly over a beacon, the
From: Jon Berndt
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
For those who care: these changes to the beacon solve one of the recently
discussed problems with hanging FDM: The beacon is a quite expensive
structure.
It consists of about 1000 vertices and 950 triangles, all on the same
spot.
On Montag 30 Mai 2005 03:55, Jim Wilson wrote:
To answer your question, the ground cache is for the benefit of the
pilot. :-)
I could not say that better!!!
:)
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Martin Spott wrote:
The model looks very nice and the handling feels pretty easy. It's only
Thanks.
that I'm missing the cabin door being coupled to the parking brake as
it was in your first version ;-)
No, it's not ...
:-)
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel
On Monday 03 Jan 2005 16:11, Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Weather
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv28318/Models/Weather
Added Files:
rain.ac rain.rgb rain.xml
Log Message:
Add a basic model for rain. Test w. the pc-7
This
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Models/Weather
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv28318/Models/Weather
Added Files:
rain.ac rain.rgb rain.xml
Log Message:
Add a basic model for rain. Test w. the pc-7
This looks quite interesting but I realize that this
On Monday 03 Jan 2005 17:32, Erik Hofman wrote:
Well, this will only cover a part of the rain problem.
I had an idea a while back that being able to change the specular material
setting for runways / taxiways 'on the fly' could produce the sort of wet
'sheen' you get on asphalt when it
Dave Martin wrote:
On Monday 03 Jan 2005 17:32, Erik Hofman wrote:
Well, this will only cover a part of the rain problem.
I had an idea a while back that being able to change the specular material
setting for runways / taxiways 'on the fly' could produce the sort of wet
'sheen' you get on
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:55:29 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hm ? I thought Curt just made it working with stock PLIB - is it still
broken ?
It uses the AC3D crease directive, which stock plib doesn't support.
More importantly, FlightGear still tries to load the Nimitz even when
David Megginson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:55:29 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hm ? I thought Curt just made it working with stock PLIB - is it still
broken ?
It uses the AC3D crease directive, which stock plib doesn't support.
At 03:47 today.
Modified Files:
nimitz.ac
Log
From: Lee Elliott
On Thursday 18 November 2004 21:03, Martin Spott wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for carrier
stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because the
take-off performance isn't right - it currently lifts off at
a lower speed
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 13:59, Richard Bytheway wrote:
From: Lee Elliott
On Thursday 18 November 2004 21:03, Martin Spott wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for
carrier stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because
the take-off
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..you forget this plane was made to fight WWIII. ;-).
In a nut shell, you've got it.
Well, the project started in the late fifties, way past WWII.
technical/manufacturing problems (there have been a surprisingly
On Monday 22 November 2004 01:28, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:24:38 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:12 + (UTC), Martin wrote in
message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Lee
Lee Elliott wrote:
I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less than
perfect strips.
Yes, the main gear looks to be very 'robust'. But I still wonder why
they paid attention to these features. To my knowledge the TSR-2 was
designed for long range and high cruise speed. This sort
On Sunday 21 November 2004 21:58, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:32:12 + (UTC), Martin wrote in
message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Lee Elliott wrote:
I also believe the main gear was designed to tolerate less
than perfect strips.
Yes, the main gear looks to be very
On Thursday 18 November 2004 21:03, Martin Spott wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
um, yes - the TSR-2 probably isn't the best a/c for carrier
stuff. The FDM needs really an overhaul because the
take-off performance isn't right - it currently lifts off at
a lower speed if reheat isn't used :( -
Martin Spott wrote
[...]
Did you manage to take off?
With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the
TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting
position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have
worked out. So I crashed
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I don't know. Mathias provides you with a perfectly good carrier-capable
aircraft, and you use every other kind ... :-)
Well, I'm doing everything in small steps: On the Octane it is a
larger undertaking to rebuild FlightGear and after I've finished I'd
like to know where
On Thursday 18 November 2004 08:01, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Martin Spott wrote
[...]
Did you manage to take off?
With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172
but for the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to
shift the starting position to the beginning of the
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add
it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file
$FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg:
OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590 37.76 -7.0 90
Thanks,
Martin Spott wrote
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add
it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file
$FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg:
OBJECT_SHARED Models/Geometry/Nimitz/nimitz.ac -122.590
]
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:
data/Data/AI
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add
it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file
$FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 10:29, Martin Spott wrote:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add
it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file
$FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg:
OBJECT_SHARED
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 11:29, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
I applied all the stuff and it worked very well. My first carrier landing
with the FA-18A succeeded already. The gear code is great! It's fun to
taxi over slopes and actually see the aircraft follow them, rather than
strangely sliding
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote:
You will only be able to taxi on the carrier's deck with that
JSBSim-dropin.tar.gz from the same ftp location.
Well, this statement appears to be maybe mostly, but not entirely
correct ;-) Apparently different rules apply when you put the carrier
into the scenery:
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 22:20, Martin Spott wrote:
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote:
You will only be able to taxi on the carrier's deck with that
JSBSim-dropin.tar.gz from the same ftp location.
Well, this statement appears to be maybe mostly, but not entirely
correct ;-) Apparently
Hi,
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 21:52, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sure. Actually, I do know where it happened. I checked the backtrace, and
wasn't thrilled: It was at program exit when freeing property nodes. That's
why I didn't really attribute it to the new changes, although I hadn't seen
that
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote:
On Mittwoch 17 November 2004 22:20, Martin Spott wrote:
http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Carrier_01.jpg
[...]
Did you manage to take off?
With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the
TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was
On Donnerstag 18 November 2004 00:32, Martin Spott wrote:
With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for the
TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the starting
position to the beginning of the 'runway', otherwise it _might_ have
worked out. So I crashed
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:15:43 +0100, Mathias wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Donnerstag 18 November 2004 00:32, Martin Spott wrote:
With a BO105 it's pretty easy, it is feasible with the C172 but for
the TSR-2 the strip is too short. I was too lazy to shift the
starting position to
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
To be honest: I don't see any carrier.
It isn't anywhere in the scenery yet -- just in cvs. You have to add
it yourself, or replace the saratoga with it. I added this in file
$FG_ROOT/Scenery/Terrain/w130n30/w123n37/942057.stg:
OBJECT_SHARED
Erik Hofman writes:
Jon Berndt wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Add a protocol for the ACMS protocol which seems to be used as an
output format for black-box data flight data. This configuration
does not work directly since there is no FDM available that reads
the accelerations from the
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Docs/InstallGuide/html
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv7474/InstallGuide/html
Modified Files:
getstartch2.html
Log Message:
Reffer to /usr/locla/share/FlightGear now.
You'd better mail such changes to me or at
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Modified Files:
options.xml
Log Message:
Remove an obsolete option for airport-id.
Erik, the option require an ICAO id, so I think this is
the right option and find more logical to deprecate
--airport instead.
There should be no difference between
Erik Hofman wrote:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Modified Files:
options.xml
Log Message:
Remove an obsolete option for airport-id.
Erik, the option require an ICAO id, so I think this is
the right option and find more logical to deprecate
--airport instead.
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Remove an obsolete option for airport-id.
Erik, the option require an ICAO id, so I think this is
the right option and find more logical to deprecate
--airport instead.
I'm with Erik on this one. Otherwise, we'd need to change --vor to
--vor-id, --ndb to --ndb-id, etc.
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
It was just a problem of consistency between the name of the option
and what it is really doing and expecting as argument.
I noticed you didn't touch options.cxx yet so both are still valid.
Yep. And I intend to keep it that way for at least a few months more.
--
Searching
David Megginson wrote:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Remove an obsolete option for airport-id.
Erik, the option require an ICAO id, so I think this is
the right option and find more logical to deprecate
--airport instead.
I'm with Erik on this one. Otherwise, we'd need to change --vor to
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Martin Spott -- Friday 26 March 2004 15:37:
Ha, there is a funny effect: Did you ever fly a loop which shadowing
enabled ? When I do this, I see the shadow flipping through the sky -
similar to a meteorite :-)
Whoops ... I'll look into it, but I don't promise a
Curtis L. Olson said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
How about this one? ;-)
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/barneymobile.png
Is that the don't-ask-don't-tellicopter.
Haha! Is this what they call aviation innuendo? What about these folks:
http://www.harrierpilot.com/oct01/purple.jpg
They
Melchior FRANZ said:
* Martin Spott -- Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:40:
Ooooh, I found the yellow one definitely nicer, it was a cute, coloured
spot in the colloection of mostly uniform coloured aircraft,
Oh, well. Actually I like both versions. I just think that the yellow
one got a bit
Jim Wilson wrote:
How about this one? ;-)
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/barneymobile.png
Is that the don't-ask-don't-tellicopter.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab FlightGear Project
Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minnesota
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:52:57 -0600,
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jim Wilson wrote:
How about this one? ;-)
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/barneymobile.png
Is that the don't-ask-don't-tellicopter.
..using these names sounds like neat nice
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Scenery/w130n30/w123n37
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv5777
Modified Files:
942050.stg
Log Message:
Put a sock in it.
Index: 942050.stg
===
RCS file:
Martin Spott wrote:
You should also modify this one:
PropertyList include=f16-jsbsim-set.xml
^^
This is no longer present,
Thanks for catching this.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:07:10 -0500, David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was this in PLIB 1.6, again? The alpha transparency is fine using the
CVS plib.
I'm pretty sure it was CVS plib.
--
Roy Vegard Ovesen
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Was this in PLIB 1.6, again? The alpha transparency is fine using the CVS
I am using the CVS plib and I am seeing this bug.
That's interesting -- is anyone else seeing this problem?
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel
David Megginson wrote:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Was this in PLIB 1.6, again? The alpha transparency is fine using
the CVS
I am using the CVS plib and I am seeing this bug.
That's interesting -- is anyone else seeing this problem?
No, not for IRIX, not for Linux.
Erik
Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
I don't know for the original bug reporter, but I am using Windows and NVIDIA
if it is of any importance.
That could matter -- I'm using Linux and NVIDIA. Do you have trouble with
transparencies anywhere else? Do other people using Windows and NVIDIA see
a white
David Megginson wrote:
Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
I don't know for the original bug reporter, but I am using Windows and NVIDIA
if it is of any importance.
That could matter -- I'm using Linux and NVIDIA. Do you have trouble with
transparencies anywhere else? Do other people using
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
All needles are OK. The only bug that I see is the non-transparent
attitude 'needle': http://members.aon.at/mfranz/pa28.jpg
Yes -- I have that problem as well -- it has something to do with drawing order.
All the best,
David
___
David Megginson wrote :
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
All needles are OK. The only bug that I see is the non-transparent
attitude 'needle': http://members.aon.at/mfranz/pa28.jpg
Yes -- I have that problem as well -- it has something to do with drawing order.
I am confused. We were speaking
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 12 March 2004 15:59:
All needles are OK. The only bug that I see is the non-transparent
attitude 'needle': http://members.aon.at/mfranz/pa28.jpg
The SGI image seems to be OK, though (and I'm an SGI image expert :-).
I'll look into plib ...
Yep,
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:03:00 -0500, David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
I don't know for the original bug reporter, but I am using Windows and
NVIDIA if it is of any importance.
That could matter -- I'm using Linux and NVIDIA. Do you have trouble
with
Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
Another thing that I noticed about the pa28 panel was the plane in the
TC was not transparent where it should be. The rgb file did have an
alpha channel but because the file was only 256 colors the alpha channel
was not transparent in FlightGear. It was OK when I opened it
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
No. plib has a bug: it doesn't recognize grayscale images with alpha layer yet.
See ssgLoadSGI.cxx:301, where the alpha information is wrongly written to the
blue layer, while the alpha layer is disabled. :-]
Ah -- that explains what's going on here. I had thought that the
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Here are two files for the sgs126. The sgs126-jsbsim-set.xml file now starts
the glider in the air by default. I think some people didn't know it is a
glider, [...]
I assume we already have two of them: The ASW-20 and the SGS 126 -
don't we ?
Yes, but
Martin Spott wrote:
This aircraft gets really nice.
Thanks. The big breakthrough was my finally learning to use Blender to make
the textures (such as the panel plastics and screws) as well as the geometry
-- using a good 3D modeller with a bit of lighting can make even a
ham-fisted dolt like
Martin Spott writes:
David Megginson wrote:
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models
In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv6690/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models
Modified Files:
pa28-161.ac panel.rgb
Added Files:
bench-back.rgb glareshield.rgb
Log Message:
David Luff wrote:
I'll second that - it really is good. It looks really good, and at high
resolutions the frame rate is much better than the default - I've seen 60
(pa28) vs. 30 (c172) at some locations and resolutions.
The old (2D) panel code seemed to be the real killer, since I'm using much
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:10:30 +, David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One bug though - I don't see the instrument needles under Linux with an
NVidia card. I thought you simply hadn't done them, until I saw them
under Cygwin with an ATI card. I see the large tilting plane in the
turn
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, David Megginson wrote:
I used geometry for the needles, and they must just be too narrow to show
up. It's strange, because I also use Linux+NVIDIA (GeForce2Go), and the
needles do show up on my system at 1600x1200.
In any case, I'll be switching to bigger quads with
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
I too, experienced this, no needles in the instruments. I use a NVidia
card under Cygwin. After installing the cvs version of plib, the needles
appeared (I used to have plib 1.6.0).
Ah, yes -- the last official PLIB version has a bug (I can hardly consider
it a
David Megginson wrote:
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
Another thing that I noticed about the pa28 panel was the plane in the
TC was not transparent where it should be. The rgb file did have an
alpha channel but because the file was only 256 colors the alpha channel
was not transparent in
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Modified Files:
radar_misc.rgb Log Message:
Add support for a storm blib
Excellent.
As far as I know, civilian airliners carry radar that is capable only of
detecting weather, not small things like aircraft. They also use a
separate radar system
Erik Hofman wrote:
I know that in Europe they recently added a requirement for collision
detection after two civilian aircraft hit each other when the ATC had
given inappropriate directions.
Is that a requirement for TCAS, or for something else in addition to TCAS?
The copilot on one of those
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
I know that in Europe they recently added a requirement for collision
detection after two civilian aircraft hit each other when the ATC had
given inappropriate directions.
Is that a requirement for TCAS, or for something else in addition to TCAS?
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2004 15:40, David Megginson wrote:
That said, I'm sorry to hear that the Swiss controller died. Was it in any
way related to the accident?
It was not clear up to the yesterday evening news.
Have not seen/heared news from today.
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias
Erik Hofman wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
I know that in Europe they recently added a requirement for collision
detection after two civilian aircraft hit each other when the ATC had
given inappropriate directions.
Is that a requirement for TCAS, or for something else in
On Friday 27 February 2004 14:02, David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Modified Files:
radar_misc.rgb
Log Message:
Add support for a storm blib
Excellent.
As far as I know, civilian airliners carry radar that is capable only of
detecting weather, not small things like
David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
A simple list of id's of metar stations. We can use this list to mark
which airports have corresponding metar data so we don't flood the
noaa site
with bogus queries.
It might be a good idea actually to add lat/lon/elev of each station to
the
Curtis L. Olson writes:
David Megginson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
A simple list of id's of metar stations. We can use this list to mark
which airports have corresponding metar data so we don't flood the
noaa site
with bogus queries.
It might be a good idea actually to
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Curtis L. Olson -- Monday 23 February 2004 18:27:
Any one know where we can get current and definitive information?
Here is a list of weather stations with ICAO ids. But it's not obvious
if all of these do also provide metar reports:
Martin Spott wrote:
I can't withstand the impression that changing the _camera_ position
didn't lead to the intended success. Take a simple stick and rotate it
around one of its ends. For an observer the phenomenon is still the
same even when he changes his viewpoint.
If you want to rotate the
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Martin Spott wrote:
I can't withstand the impression that changing the _camera_ position
didn't lead to the intended success. Take a simple stick and rotate it
around one of its ends. For an observer the phenomenon is still the
same even when he
Jim Wilson wrote:
Actually, it isn't that. It is just the location that the camera points to.
You don't want it pointing at the nose. So add the entry below to the
external views in your xml wrapper that track the plane. The value is the
distance in meters from the FDM reference point (the
David Megginson wrote:
Thanks -- that did the trick. The plane is actually flying well, and
I'm starting to feel tempted to go back and do more work to make it a
fully-usable alternative to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@#na 172 -- after all, it would be
nice for users to be able to fly a light single
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I wonder if we can model the broken air vent door on the pilot's side that
blows -35 degC air on my feet when I'm flying in the winter.
It's already there (parameter: --frostbite=mins where mins is number of
minutes before you lose your toes). With
Jim Wilson wrote:
I wonder if we can model the broken air vent door on the pilot's side that
blows -35 degC air on my feet when I'm flying in the winter.
It's already there (parameter: --frostbite=mins where mins is number of
minutes before you lose your toes). With that all you need is an old
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
