> Why do you think that? I've not seen any negative responses.
> It's like everything else, a good idea is always welcome but like you,
> others might not have time to develop it (right away).
>
> Erik
>
Well it may be a good idea, but just not worth the development time
for most people. But if an
Arthur Wiebe wrote:
But as it seems to be a bad idea, I guess we can forget this thread.
Why do you think that? I've not seen any negative responses.
It's like everything else, a good idea is always welcome but like you,
others might not have time to develop it (right away).
Erik
_
> And maybe it would also be a good idea to package aircraft and scenery
> in rpm or deb format. That way you don't have to worry about
> dependencies like how so many planes use the p51 instruments. fgadmin
> could run it's own rpm or deb database. Not sure how this would work on
> non-unix platfo
Arthur Wiebe wrote:
> This is an idea that's been floating around in my head for awhile,
> mainly because there is currently no *very easy* way for a newbie to
> install new aircraft in FlightGear. Unless that user is used to going
> through Program\ Files in Windows and through package contents on
On Saturday 26 November 2005 14:25, Arthur Wiebe wrote:
> The idea is for an aircraft application. This application would
> download (preferrably an XML file) from a server, parse, and through a
> GUI have the ability to select aircraft, see details including
> previews, press a button to download
This is an idea that's been floating around in my head for awhile,
mainly because there is currently no *very easy* way for a newbie to
install new aircraft in FlightGear. Unless that user is used to going
through Program\ Files in Windows and through package contents on OSX.
The idea is for an ai
Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Friday 18 Nov 2005 15:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>
>>Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)
>>
>>Take a look at the latest aircraft download page:
>>
>>http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/
>>
>>There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created
>
On Friday 18 Nov 2005 15:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)
>
> Take a look at the latest aircraft download page:
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/
>
> There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created
> for the web page. We need
I can work on aircraft thumbnails for the download page. What is the best way to submit them? Regards, Paul Bohnert "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)Take a look at the latest aircraft download page:http://www.flightgear.org/Download
Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)
Take a look at the latest aircraft download page:
http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/
There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created for the web
page. We need a 171x128 pixel image for each aircraft that has a 3d
model.
Hi Jon
"Jon Berndt" writes
I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models.
I'd be
interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email)
which aircraft
you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that
are not really
know
On June 3, 2005 12:33 pm, Jon Berndt wrote:
> I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models.
> I'd be interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal
> email) which aircraft you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models
> floating around that ar
Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 07:33 -0500, Jon Berndt a écrit :
> I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd
> be
> interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email)
> which aircraft
> you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models fl
I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd be
interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email)
which aircraft
you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that are
not really
known about (albeit in various states
Jon Stockill wrote:
> Ben Morrison wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface.
>> One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is
>> free. I will look at AC3D.
>
>
> I have a registered version of AC3D, and now prefer to work in
This doesn't relate to this topic in anyway but the site looks like it is
partially down (www.flightgear.org). The menu on the left is missing. Has
anyone else noticed this? I am getting javascript errors and after viewing
the source it looks like the function call MainMenu() is causing an error
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 Ã 16:33 +0200, Erik Hofman a Ãcrit :
> Gerard ROBIN wrote:
>
> > AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D
> > modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities
> > missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D
Gerard ROBIN wrote:
AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D
modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities
missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D.
Why not, is that forbidden?
Erik
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 Ã 09:46 -0400, Ben Morrison a Ãcrit :
>
> "Ben Morrison" writes
>
> >The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modelling
> >aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
> >about it. How long would you say it would take yo
Ben Morrison wrote:
Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface.
One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is
free. I will look at AC3D.
I have a registered version of AC3D, and now prefer to work in blender -
once you learn the interface i
"Ben Morrison" writes
>The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling
>aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
>about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
>just so I have an idea. I was also wondering
"Ben Morrison" writes
The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling
aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taki
On May 11, 2005 01:35 pm, Ben Morrison wrote:
> When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the
> aircraft?
Sort of, but "dimensions of parts on the aircraft" would be a better
description. =)
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing l
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the aircraft?
If so, I have all of this data already. The problem I see is my lack of
experience with Blender and the fact that I am a computer programmer not a
graphics artist. If someone enjoys drawing models I would be happy to gi
On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote:
> How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
> just so I have an idea.
It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the
less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look
right
Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to
modify
and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them
can
be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different
approach
for animation they build different objects for
Hi Harald
Harald JOHNSEN writes
I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or
panel).
Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better to
start a new one ?
What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ?
Of the two you mention above(y
Hi Ben
"Ben Morrison" writes
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I
think I will try to convert a model made for
"Ampere K. Hardraade" writes
On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
> To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics
> model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)?
>
> In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file
> for JSBSim
On May 10, 2005 01:48 pm, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or
> panel).
> Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better
> to start a new one ?
>
> Harald.
There are quite a few aircrafts in the cvs that need to be
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ?
Well, you'd make a crazy guy happy if you add a C150 to FlightGear
but I think you should better build one that you _personally_ like.
Creating an aircraft for FG is apparently a lot of work and you need a
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Ben Morrison wrote:
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to
start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example,
which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d
model I
think I will try to convert
On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
> To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics
> model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)?
>
> In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file
> for JSBSim available:
>
> http://cvs.sourc
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:35:47 +0100, Jon wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ben Morrison wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example
> > to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For
> > example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear an
Ben Morrison wrote:
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I
think I will try to convert a model made for Microsof
Ben Morrison wrote:
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I
think I will try to convert a model made for Microsof
Ben Morrison wrote:
> I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't
> worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how
> it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight
Ben Morrison wrote:
> I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't
> worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how
> it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight
Ben Morrison wrote:
I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven’t
worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how
it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics
I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven’t
worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how it
works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar aircraft to
this one and could pass any information along or which one of the aircraft
The 1/26 updates should be fine, but there are quite a few changes going in
(and one already in CVS) for the p51d that will make it incompatible with the
last flightgear release. Not sure how this should be handled.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mai
On January 24, 2005 03:45 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
> I expect you have replaced the accelerated drivers by a software only
> driver now. You should have installed the mesag3-dev package only.
>
> Erik
On January 24, 2005 07:32 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> As someone else mentioned, it sounds like y
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On January 21, 2005 09:01 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Quoting Innis Cunningham:
"Curtis L. Olson" writes
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file
permission,
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Now, I got a little problem of my own. Initially, I couldn't compile plib
because it kept saying that I am missing glList and glLookat. This was
"fixed" after I installed mesag3, and the computer automatically removed
libraries belonged to x-window and x-lib-mesa.
T
On January 21, 2005 09:01 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Quoting Innis Cunningham:
> > "Curtis L. Olson" writes
> >
> > >Innis,
> > >
> > >I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
> > >notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file
> > > permission, cap
Quoting Innis Cunningham:
> "Curtis L. Olson" writes
> >
> >Innis,
> >
> >I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
> >notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission,
> >capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows,
>
"Curtis L. Olson" writes
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission,
capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows,
perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file
permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running
windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the
files?
Cur
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:27:42 +, Lee wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
..this looong post with unsnipped quotes is a FG licensing FAQ
candidate, so I don't snip this time.
> On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
On 21/01/2005 at 10:05 Jim Wilson wrote:
>Frederic Bouvier said:
>
>> Stewart Andreason a écrit :
>>
>> > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
>> >
>> > > fgfs
>> >
>> > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
>> >
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-16
Am Freitag 21 Januar 2005 08:59 schrieb Frederic Bouvier:
> Stewart Andreason a écrit :
> > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
> >
> > > fgfs
> >
> > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
> > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
> > for reading
Frederic Bouvier said:
> Stewart Andreason a écrit :
>
> > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
> >
> > > fgfs
> >
> > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
> > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
> > for reading
> > Abort
> >
> This plane is r
Stewart Andreason a écrit :
It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
> fgfs
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
for reading
Abort
This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from
the standar
Hi All
As you may or maynot be aware Ampere Hardraade and I
are building the A380 for FG but when I went to put the
A380 folder into the Aircraft folder in 9.8 and run the sim
I get this fault "failed to load aircraft from Aircraft/A380/XML
/A380.xml". fallig back to glider.ac.
Now you may notice t
It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
> fgfs
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
for reading
Abort
Stewart
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightg
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 20:10, David Megginson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI
> > because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check)
>
> I'd be pretty i
On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote:
> David Luff said:
> > On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
> > >> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack
> > >> some magic.
> > >
> > >Setting up
> > >
> > >> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S.
> > >> Be
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I
> *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check)
I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some
ASIs do have a
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote:
> We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the
> lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't
> spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about
> (flight modeling). This isn't
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Dave Martin wrote:
> >Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure
> >compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected
> > GS of 270kts.
> >
> >Am I understanding that correctly?
>
> Yes,
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:57, David Megginson wrote:
> You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to
> like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package.
You should try helping clueless windows users to install scenery files in the
IRC channel sometime. A lot
David Luff said:
>
> On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
>
> >> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic.
> >Setting up
> >> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was
> >claiming
> >> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly worki
Dave Martin wrote:
Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure
compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected GS
of 270kts.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Yes, you have to input true airspeed into the cruise section, not
indicate
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Dave Martin said:
> > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > > Dave Martin said:
> > > > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > > > getting an aircraft working
> > > >
> > > > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part vo
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
> > force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
> > do...
>
> I don't t
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:01, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the
> > beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust
> > numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian wit
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the
> beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers
> (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round
> Andy made some code
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
>> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic.
>Setting up
>> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was
>claiming
>> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model.
>
> ... which I
"Curtis L. Olson" said:
> >
> >The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance,
> >(e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior
> >at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide
> >too
> >much (excessive lift
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:40 -, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic
> flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as
> an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about
Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up
> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming
> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model.
... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers fo
Dave Martin said:
> On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Dave Martin said:
> > > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > > getting an aircraft working
> > >
> > > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
> > > > formulas don't cover).
> > >
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Dave Martin said:
> > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > getting an aircraft working
> >
> > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
> > > formulas don't cover).
> >
> > "Any sufficiently advanced tec
Dave Martin said:
> On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
> getting an aircraft working
> > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas
> > don't cover).
> >
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Sir
> Arthur C Cl
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
> >
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>
> > Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
> > continue to do so. :-)
> >
> > Curt.
>
> I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
> is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas
> don't cover).
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Sir
Arthur C Clarke.
Dave Martin
David Megginson said:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is
> > very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about
> > including multiple aircraft is you can
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is
> very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about
> including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things
> t
On January 19, 2005 06:00 pm, Enrique Vaamonde wrote:
> It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c
> download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc.
> It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho.
May be we should just us
David Megginson wrote:
You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to
like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package.
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:57:13 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
>
> In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
> changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
> It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings,
> etc., we could have it look
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 01:57, David Megginson wrote:
> In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
> changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
> It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings,
> etc., we could have it looking qu
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:53:33 -0500, Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to see a golden age or WWII multi engine, but I guess the DC3 isn't
> ready for prime time yet. I'm also *cough* working on a B29, but I haven't
> touched it in months. I was in the middle of getting a Yasim c
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up,
but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must
be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download
page, there's no need to include every aircraft in the ba
I have a few suggestions to improve the current aircraft download page:
It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c
download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc.
It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho.
The other s
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:20:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you
> charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as
> GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to ea
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
> continue to do so. :-)
>
> Curt.
I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume
their offspring.
Dave Martin
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
There is s
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
> As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
> for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
> to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
There is still place for non-GP
Jim Wilson said:
> David Megginson said:
>
> > use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
> > Ralph Nader supporters").
> >
>
> That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he
> uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now fl
David Megginson said:
> use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
> Ralph Nader supporters").
>
Thats it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if Ralph
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someo
David Megginson said:
> use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
> Ralph Nader supporters").
>
That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he
uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:18 +
Dave Martin wrote:
>
> I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is
> often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating
> Author's name.
>
> > one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
> > Copyr
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
> force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
> do...
I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a
strawman to argu
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
>
> Dave Martin wrote:
> > The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
> > their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
> > use of their models / work pro
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of
> the sounds: that violates the GPL.
Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright
notice. No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanyi
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
>
> The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
> their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
> use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed
Just for clarification, you
1 - 100 of 338 matches
Mail list logo
