John Wojnaroski wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with selective morality - as you
allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties
telling the difference between flying and shooting/killing.
Ooo, I don't think so.
To make
Bill Galbraith wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stefan Seifert
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:38 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
Hi,
This morning's update of fg-cvs fails to compile under MSVC8 with the
following error:
error C2491: 'terminate' : definition of dllimport function not allowed
Flightgear-cvs\source\src\Main\bootstrap.cxx147
The attached patch fixes it (but it may not be the best way of doing it).
On Saturday 12 May 2007 22:01:42 Matthias Boerner wrote:
Hallo Georg,
I have done a fresh checkout of OSG, PLIB, SimGear and FlightGear
today at 3 pm in the afternoon. Everything compiled without a problem.
But I don't realize a drop in frame rates. But in contrast to my last
checkout of
Am Sonntag, den 13.05.2007, 07:02 + schrieb Martin Spott:
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with selective morality - as you
allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties
telling the difference between flying and
I think that was investigated a few months ago. JSBSim FDM took only a
couple percent of the CPU, or course depending on your hardware
and what you were drawing.
BIll
I didn't see that one. In any case, I just made a 200 second scripted test
run, which took 42 seconds on my 2 GHz clunker.
On Sat 12 May 2007 23:01, Matthias Boerner wrote:
Hallo Georg,
I have done a fresh checkout of OSG, PLIB, SimGear and FlightGear
today at 3 pm in the afternoon. Everything compiled without a problem.
But I don't realize a drop in frame rates. But in contrast to my last
checkout of 24th April
Hi,
Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
regards communication between modules of flightgear.
My thoughts are that flightgear divides naturally into four major
sub-system modules:
a) FDM (jsbsim is already standalone)
b) cockpit input and output (ie
Hi Jim,
Jim Campbell wrote:
Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
regards communication between modules of flightgear.
Indeed, the idea of cutting FlightGear into modules is not a new one
and has been floating around way before this nice new arcitecture
paper
Martin Spott wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Campbell wrote:
Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
regards communication between modules of flightgear.
Indeed, the idea of cutting FlightGear into modules is not a new one
and has been floating around way before
Hello Gerard,
Hello Mathias,
Your 10-20 frames more, seems to me very poor regarding the
comparison, i get from 10 to 15 fps with the recent one and a now
with that old one i recover from 60 to 85, which is a huge
difference.
I get an performance increase from about 80/90 fps to 100/110
Martin Spott wrote:
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with selective morality - as you
allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties
telling the difference between flying and shooting/killing.
Ooo,
Harald JOHNSEN schreef:
Martin Spott wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Campbell wrote:
Some discussions have already taken place on JSBsim devel mailing list
regards communication between modules of flightgear.
Indeed, the idea of cutting FlightGear into modules is not a new
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
One should not forget that FG has allready some networking capacity.
This alone has allready allowed ppl to split fdm and rendering on
several machines. Perhaps there is something to reuse here.
Well, we've been driving two 'external' displays on last years LinuxTag
On Sun 13 May 2007 17:41, Matthias Boerner wrote:
Hello Gerard,
Hello Mathias,
Your 10-20 frames more, seems to me very poor regarding the
comparison, i get from 10 to 15 fps with the recent one and a now
with that old one i recover from 60 to 85, which is a huge
difference.
I get
Hi all!
Im currently working on a 3D-Cockpit for the Antonov AN-225;
if someone else does, please tell me for not having two people work on
the same thing!
I havent found much information about the AN-225 (or the 124),
except photos, so please let me know, when you have some knowledge
about this
On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
Now if the server is doing the
FDM computation it's obvious that there is no need to do that 120 times
per second because the data can not be send at that rate.
How many loops does the mp server need to do per second ? 10 ? 20 ? At
that
Martin Spott schreef:
Well, we've been driving two 'external' displays on last years LinuxTag
exhibition using the 'generic' protocol. We were surprised to encounter
a significant performance hit on the master machine serving two clients
at 20 Hz. Throttling the thing down to 10 Hz made the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Martin Spott wrote:
Personally I think some thing like distributed shared memory might fill
the gap. I've been doing some literature research on this topic several
years ago, the idea looks pretty promising and different OpenSource
Hello Gerard,
The Computer which run FG is:
With LInux fedora core 5
ok, I have fedora core 6
Cpu AMD Athlon XP3200 (32 bit)
Memory 3 GB DDR dual channel 3200
CPU AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (no dual core)
Memory 2 GB ECC DDR dual channel 3200
GPU NVIDIA 7800GS 500MZ Memory 512 Mo DDR3
Harald
Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
Now if the server is doing the
FDM computation it's obvious that there is
Reminds me of Terragen- they use the same heightmap
and he renderig looks the same!
--- Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Norman Vine wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
http://www.howardzzh.com/research/terrain
Hey,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Curtis Olson wrote:
Would you be willing to hack/fixup/modify the original script so that it
produces correct results directly? The issue is that it combines files
with the same cvs log message and commit date, but sometimes a commit spans
a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
That was in the situation where the MP server does the fdm computation
for the client. The 10 hz comes from a ping of 100 ms between the client
and the server.
I think FDM caculations have to be at a certain rate,
On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:52, Martin Spott wrote:
Norman Vine wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
http://www.howardzzh.com/research/terrain
Hey, apparently these guys had quite some fun :-)
The results are impressive !
On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:05, Maik Justus wrote:
Maybe it is easier, that the clients run their own fdm and the
combat-server makes a test of the actual performance of the client
against stored values, which could be generated by a script (maximum
acceleration, turn rate, speed for several sets
Maik Justus wrote:
Does anyone know, which latency between control input and visible
reaction is acceptable (== unnoticeable)?
I'm unable to cite a qualified source from the top of my head. Yet I
remember different people talking and/or writing about not to exceed a
delay of approx. 50 ms. As
Hi Ampere,
yes,
but solving this dogfight-only problem by bringing in a general problem
for every flightgear user is much worse.
Maik
Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb am 13.05.2007 21:25:
On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:05, Maik Justus wrote:
Maybe it is easier, that the clients run their own fdm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Spott
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:17 PM
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
Maik Justus wrote:
Does anyone know,
Well, once again I am working on a new newsletter for JSBSim. I've taken a
sort of rest from that, as I am also producing another newsletter (see:
www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons). If anyone has any suggestions on topics I am
all ears. Better yet, if anyone can contribute, that's really very _much_
Maik,
These are not dogfight-only problems. These are multiplayer problems
which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer
implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer
flight can be choppy as a plane in your view magically disappears from
your right
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Spott
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:01 PM
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
Hi Bill,
Bill Galbraith wrote:
coupled closely to provide integrated sensory
cues 6 These systems shall respond to abrupt
pitch, roll and yaw inputs at the pilot's position
within 150/300 milliseconds of the time, but not
before the time, when the airplane would respond
under the same conditions. [...]
Uh, 300 ms
33 matches
Mail list logo
