On 24 Jan 2003 21:17:49 -0500,
Luke Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<1043461068.18791.23.camel@dhcp-61-13>:
> On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 20:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > > ...so it _is_ possible to take a quick little hop to Bagdad.
> > > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Huh?
> >
> > ..my bad, I read
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 20:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > ...so it _is_ possible to take a quick little hop to Bagdad. ;-)
> >
> > Huh?
>
> ..my bad, I read "silos" as launch tubing for IBCM's. ;-D
I'd forgotten about that kind of silo - oops!
I see a lot more of the "food for cows" kind :-)
On 24 Jan 2003 15:41:02 -0500,
Luke Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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
I've been very impressed with the scenery. Even the private grass
strips are in the database.
I drove by New Castle Glider Club's field three or four times in my
car. I never knew it was there until someone (successfully) tried to
get me hooked on gliders. I almost fell out of my chair when I s
Blacksburg, VA (KBCB) to Roanoke, VA (KROA) is actually a very nice
and scenic flight in FlightGear (as I imagine it would be in real
life.)
Curt.
Luke Scharf writes:
> On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 14:14, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2003 11:53:28 -0500,
> > Luke Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
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?
> > > (
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 t
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 approac
> > (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? (RooPA
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
> Most things can be accurately scaled to a 32bit integer without
> distorting human perception (a latitude, for example, is accurate to
> centimeters when expressed in 32bits). The devil is in the details, and
> fixed point calculations are exceedingly sensitive to programming
> errors, and using
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 whol
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 t
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 ar
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 p
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.
For
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 the
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, som
On 1/15/03 at 6:20 PM Bernie Bright wrote:
>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 Fli
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
p
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 woul
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. T
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.
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 w
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
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]
__
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 task
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
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 th
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 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:
> 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 airpo
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 xp
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 i
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
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
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 windsock
> 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
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 cou
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 s
> [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 nee
> 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 tha
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 b
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.
> >
>
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
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 bef
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
> [...] 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 fr
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
> 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 u
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 development
branch, and no one that I can re
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 versi
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 vers
53 matches
Mail list logo