On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 10:31, Brandon Bergren wrote:
How about a control to make the UFO beam up a cow if you're over it?
(Now this would be cool)
AI cows would be a neat addition to the dynamic scenery we were talking
about before. At one of the local airports (KBCB) there are several
fields
(Now this would be cool)
AI cows would be a neat addition to the dynamic scenery we were talking
about before. At one of the local airports (KBCB) there are several
fields and some silos right under the airplane on final approach.
What about Kangaroos with Stinger launchers? (RooPADs!)
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 12:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
(Now this would be cool)
AI cows would be a neat addition to the dynamic scenery we were talking
about before. At one of the local airports (KBCB) there are several
fields and some silos right under the airplane on final approach.
On 24 Jan 2003 11:53:28 -0500,
Luke Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 10:31, Brandon Bergren wrote:
How about a control to make the UFO beam up a cow if you're over it?
(Now this would be cool)
AI cows would be a neat addition to the
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 14:14, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On 24 Jan 2003 11:53:28 -0500,
Luke Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 10:31, Brandon Bergren wrote:
How about a control to make the UFO beam up a cow if you're over it?
(Now this would
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It would also be nice to have a couple more aircraft that are finished
from top to bottom including good flight model, good external animated
3d model, good internal 3d cockpit, decent sounds, etc. I'd like to
see something like a 737, some sort of smaller commuter jet,
As for 1.0, although its just a number, I personally think its a pretty
significant number, and probably worth a bit of work polishing bugs , user
interface, and installation problems out as much as possible before
release. It might also make a good opportunity to test Curt's contention
that
How about including a bugreporting file in the root of the tarball with:
How to recognize the metakit problem (names of symbols!)
GDB 101
How to see if your segfault is video driver related (glxgears, quake,
tuxracer tests)
For ati people: Go sign a petition to make them fix their drivers.
David Luff wrote:
There's a lot of wobble and drift when stationary, particularly with the
brakes on. This might be a floating point issue rather than a JSBSim issue
though. Its much less noticable at the default startup location than some
others which may be why it doesn't get mentioned. I'm
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Brandon Bergren wrote:
How about an After Dark FDM? (Flying toasters, of course!)
Ah, done that one.
Someone bet me I couldn't make a flying toaster.
Half an hour later after a quick hack with AC3D, and a the harrier FDM
with all the weights tweaked, and with the gear
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 08:15, Brandon Bergren wrote:
David Luff wrote:
There's a lot of wobble and drift when stationary, particularly with the
brakes on. This might be a floating point issue rather than a JSBSim issue
though. Its much less noticable at the default startup location than
On 23 Jan 2003, Tony Peden wrote:
How about using fast fixed-point math?
Maybe I'm not understanding your meaning, but consider that we calculate
many different things with different precision requirements. Speed and
altitude, for example, are probably fine rounded to the nearest whole
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, David Megginson wrote:
We also have fields for this information in the current default.apt
data, but they don't seem to be filled in.
Some of the UK ones certainly are.
EGNM for example.
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, David Megginson wrote:
Then, late, you can specify rules for which ones get included or
excluded in a build (i.e. the DAFIF KSFO and the X-Plane KSFO are
treated as different, mutually-exclusive airports).
Hmmm It seems like that's just putting off the problem - but
Michael Basler writes:
We also might look into what's already been done for FS2002 (or below). Even
if we can't get actual developers of (PD) add-on Scenery on board for
FlightGear, we might profit from their knowledge. I am pretty sure, there
are several developers of (free) add-ons with
David Luff writes:
Yes, the x-plane way really screws the rendering up now that yellow
lines are added. However, the amount of work that has gone into
specifying the taxiways and aprons at major airports must be *huge*
- it would take a long time to replicate it with a better system.
Mike Bonar writes:
Can you elaborate on the XML GUI support a bit. I have spent the last two
months bringing myself up to speed on XML for a RL project (I know, two
months=total newbie), and I might have enough airspeed to at least get me
into ground effect with GUI development. Thx.
Jon Stockill writes:
Then, late, you can specify rules for which ones get included or
excluded in a build (i.e. the DAFIF KSFO and the X-Plane KSFO are
treated as different, mutually-exclusive airports).
Hmmm It seems like that's just putting off the problem - but it would
David,
If any developers have buildings they'd like to share, that would be
great; otherwise, I'll probably base any models on actual photos.
Just a quick update. I looked up (free) MSFS add-ons for KSFO, and I only
found one which was for FS98. Besides that, it was part of a former payware
Matthew writes:
I know I should know this, but what is the roadmap for version 1.0?
Sorry, this reply got a little long ...
From my perspective, version numbers are pretty arbitrary. We assign
version numbers simply so we can keep track of which version is older
or newer than which other
Curtis L. Olson writes:
We do use a convension where odd numbered releases are considered
developmental, and even numbered releases are considered stable.
Except that all development stops on the even-numbered version as soon
as it's released, so bug fixes show up only in the unstable
No. Some of the 2D instruments, like basic gauges, are OK projected
onto a 3D surface, but levers and knobs just look silly. The
background texture won't be used in 3D either, and I'll bet that
Martin ends up putting a lot of his effort into that.
Instrument panels done in the style used
On 1/14/03 at 2:58 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David Megginson writes:
Except that all development stops on the even-numbered version as soon
as it's released, so bug fixes show up only in the unstable version
(which is usually more stable).
That may be true. Personally I keep my focus on the
[...] My personal hope as a
non-US citizen is that world-wide DEM-3 data from STRM becomes available
prior to 1.0, but I'm not holding my breath on that one any more.
To be honest - I don't believe SRTM data will be available for free for the
next decade
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user
David Luff writes:
As for 1.0, although its just a number, I personally think its a
pretty significant number, and probably worth a bit of work
polishing bugs , user interface, and installation problems out as
much as possible before release.
David,
Definitely we want to get out releases
On 1/14/03 at 4:10 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Lots
David Luff writes:
As for 1.0, although its just a number, I personally think its a
pretty significant number, and probably worth a bit of work
polishing bugs , user interface, and installation problems out as
much as possible before
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Building a 3D cockpit for a transport jet will be quite an adventure
-- in terms of runtime GPU overhead, it will be equivalent to having,
perhaps, 10-15 3D 172 cockpits on the screen at once. Of course, by
the time we finish one, that probably won't be a
Gene Buckle writes:
No. Some of the 2D instruments, like basic gauges, are OK projected
onto a 3D surface, but levers and knobs just look silly. The
background texture won't be used in 3D either, and I'll bet that
Martin ends up putting a lot of his effort into that.
Instrument
Curtis L. Olson writes:
2) There seems to be a principle at work that very few people download
and test development and pre-releases. Mostly it's a few
developers who already know all the tricks, already have all the
prerequisites on their systems, etc. This means that the big
Gene Buckle writes:
No. Some of the 2D instruments, like basic gauges, are OK projected
onto a 3D surface, but levers and knobs just look silly. The
background texture won't be used in 3D either, and I'll bet that
Martin ends up putting a lot of his effort into that.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
Megginson
Even so, we probably need a prolonged 1.0beta period -- perhaps two
months -- with a complete feature freeze. When we all get bored not
being able to create new features, we might actually start swatting
bugs. I agree that we need a
On 1/14/03 at 4:10 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David Luff writes:
and I'd have thought that displaced thesholds and the arrows
pointing to them would have to be pretty high on the list of
features that would be expected to make it in.
Do we actually have these in our airport data? If so (or if
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, David Luff wrote:
Got it. The Dafif has separate landing and takeoff distances for each
direction of each runway, and on the airports/runways I've looked at (in
the UK) these seem to correspond to the displaced thresholds. To be quite
honest I never realised one could
2) There seems to be a principle at work that very few people download
and test development and pre-releases. Mostly it's a few
developers who already know all the tricks, [...]
I'd be happy if we would have some more time between pre-releases and final.
During development cycles I'm
Michael Basler writes:
Wouldn't we require to have at least one airport (KFSO?) rendered with
reasonable 3D objects etc. (buildings, trees, taxi ways, gates...) at least
as a proof of concept we can do it?
That's not a bad idea. Everything is in place for it, including
animated windsocks.
David Luff writes:
David Luff writes:
and I'd have thought that displaced thesholds and the arrows
pointing to them would have to be pretty high on the list of
features that would be expected to make it in.
Do we actually have these in our airport data? If so (or if the data
Jon Stockill writes:
I can import and export the xplane database, and have some code which
parses the DAFIFT data, and compares it with the existing database,
however:
1. Not all airfields in the xplane database are in DAFIF
2. Not all DAFIF airfields are in xplane
therefore
3.
David,
David Megginson writes:
Michael Basler writes:
Wouldn't we require to have at least one airport (KFSO?) rendered with
reasonable 3D objects etc. (buildings, trees, taxi ways,
gates...) at least
as a proof of concept we can do it?
That's not a bad idea. Everything is in place
On 1/15/03 at 12:39 AM Jon Stockill wrote:
On the subject of runways - I've been working on the database today.
I can import and export the xplane database, and have some code which
parses the DAFIFT data, and compares it with the existing database,
however:
1. Not all airfields in the xplane
David Luff writes:
Yep, here's my stats from the program I ran to compare the databases when I
imported the atis data:
*** STATS ***
9873 airports in DAFIF
16937 airports in default.apt
1384 airports had K added to match default.apt
Also note that the Alaska and Hawaii airports
On 1/14/03 at 8:11 PM David Megginson wrote:
For now, let's just get all the airports in. The way that X-Plane
implements taxiways is just horrible -- aprons are just wide taxiways,
for example, and taxiways are always rectangles run together. Perhaps
we'll be able to think of a better system.
David Luff writes:
I believe his intention/achievement
is to allow the editing of scenery superimposed over calibrated maps or
ariel photos, which would ease the task of getting the aprons/taxiways etc
in the right place.
I can heartily reccomend two OpenSource packages for doing this
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:10:08 -0600,
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
3) Expectations are somewhat different for us than many other
open-source applications like autoconf/automake. Those guys
just wrap up a tarball and release it and are done.
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 14:23, David Megginson wrote:
...snip
You can already do some of that with the new XML GUI support, but it
needs to be integrated with the drop-down menus and with an expanded
scripting manager. Most of the building blocks are there now.
Can you elaborate on the
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 01:45:30 +
David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... FWIW I'm currently writing a
program to allow the laying out of a logical taxiway and parking place
network for AI planes to follow over an image of Flightgear's rendered taxi
and runways by clicking on it
Guys!
We can't achive MSFS2002 quality without multitexture support
so First task we have to work on is multitexture support
Steve Baker said that he wait until shader languages become popular and
OpenGL2.0 come out
so or we wait OpenGL2.0 or implement multitexure
I start work on it
my primary
46 matches
Mail list logo
