Hi John,
John Denker wrote:
There are a few aircraft functions that need to be bound to
a single key for immediate access. The vast majority, however,
can be bound to a multi-key sequence without causing a problem.
I definitely don't need a single key for engaging the starter
or setting
On Monday 12 November 2007 06:31:26 John Denker wrote:
Agreed! I've thought for ages that a top-to-bottom reorg
would be helpful.
The starting point for me was the realization that there
are far more aircraft functions that need to be controlled
than there are keys on the keyboard
Which is
On Monday 12 November 2007 12:08:34 AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Monday 12 November 2007 06:31:26 John Denker wrote:
Agreed! I've thought for ages that a top-to-bottom reorg
would be helpful.
The starting point for me was the realization that there
are far more aircraft functions that need to be
AJ MacLeod wrote
Sent: 12 November 2007 12:09
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Keyboard reorg
On Monday 12 November 2007 06:31:26 John Denker wrote:
Agreed! I've thought for ages that a top-to-bottom reorg would be
helpful. The starting point
Willie Fleming wrote:
Oh and I'd like NOT to have any functions on the keyboard (such as the
time-warp) that will screw up the flight if Im clumsy with the typing.
Although dropping the flaps, airbrakes or gear while at cruise speed
isn't going to do your flight much good :-)
Richard
On Monday 12 November 2007 13:55:13 Richard Bytheway wrote:
Willie Fleming wrote:
Oh and I'd like NOT to have any functions on the keyboard (such as the
time-warp) that will screw up the flight if Im clumsy with the typing.
Although dropping the flaps, airbrakes or gear while at cruise
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far. Just to get back on
track, we have to start by seeing if we can come up with a short,
priority list of stuff that's (a) applicable to most aircraft, and (b)
important enough to have a key assignment. We can decide exactly what
those key assignments
On lun 12 novembre 2007, David Megginson wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far. Just to get back on
track, we have to start by seeing if we can come up with a short,
priority list of stuff that's (a) applicable to most aircraft, and (b)
important enough to have a key
I'm probably going to get tared and feathered (or tasered?) for this, but
can
we please get an optional keyboard mapping for Microsoft Flight simulator
converts ? This is to lower the barrier of entry for those who know nothing
else but FS004/FSX and would like to check out FlightGear.
My first
On 11/12/2007 05:52 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
That's a really interesting idea, and I like your proposed language.
:-)
1) I'm pretty sure that implementing this will require quite a change
to the input code, as we'll need a proper input parser rather than
the simple keyboard mapping we
On lun 12 novembre 2007, David Megginson wrote:
On 12/11/2007, gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to say first which mains features will not have an
official KEY dedicated ?
I think it's shorter to decide which ones *will* have an official key
dedicated -- that's
Hello all,
When I try prepare the vmap0 data with the following command -
tgvpf --chunk=w080n40 --work-dir=LandMass --area=Default /vmaplv0-location/
noamer bnd polbnda
It returns the following error -
processing failed with VPF exception: failed to open VPF table file
Hi Will!
It's been a long time since I've been working with VMAP0 in VPF. Have
you checked whether the file exists at all and whether you can access it
directly (permissions)?
I can find two places in the sourcecode where a VPF table file named
fbr is opened. In both cases it should have a
Hi Christian!
Christian Buchner wrote:
This code loads the largest (non-airport) BTG file from the World
scenery disk 1 (mounted on drive S: on Windows) and tries to save it back.
I don't have that disk, but I downloaded the respective chunk from the
FlightGear scenery download site to try and
2007/11/12, Ralf Gerlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Christian!
Christian Buchner wrote:
This code loads the largest (non-airport) BTG file from the World
scenery disk 1 (mounted on drive S: on Windows) and tries to save it
back.
I don't have that disk, but I downloaded the respective chunk
I haven't thought much about the whole matter, but here are
some of my thoughts anyway. :-)
(1) A complete reorganization shouldn't be done before the
0.9.11 release, but I don't assume that anyone aimed for
that.
(2) I'd say that we want to keep the power of XML defined
bindings
Hi gérard,
Great helicopter. Nice addon to flightgear.
By the way: Watching the HUP I got aware, that there is a problem with
the animation of the flapping angle of the blades. The problem is the
missing documentation of the output of the the rotor simulation in the
property tree. If
Hi!
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
(2) I'd say that we want to keep the power of XML defined
bindings (with embedded Nasal where appropriate.) But
one could think about not having those automatically
triggered, but read them into a map, and let the
keys trigger such bindings by name.
On 12/11/2007, gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean wait and see ?
No, just that it makes sense to decide *what* functions need
keybindings before we decide *where* to bind them. Have you had a
chance to edit the wiki page yet?
All the best,
David
On lun 12 novembre 2007, David Megginson wrote:
On 12/11/2007, gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean wait and see ?
No, just that it makes sense to decide *what* functions need
keybindings before we decide *where* to bind them.
Oh, right ,
probably i misunderstood the rule,
On lun 12 novembre 2007, Maik Justus wrote:
Hi gérard,
Great helicopter. Nice addon to flightgear.
By the way: Watching the HUP I got aware, that there is a problem with
the animation of the flapping angle of the blades. The problem is the
missing documentation of the output of the the rotor
Hello Gerard,
it's generic. I need to check, which helicopters are doing it correct
and which helicopters are doing it as one would expect (0 deg =
forward) and which helicopters do not depend on this flapping angle (you
can use cone-deg, roll-deg and cone-deg instead). Maybe it is easier to
On mar 13 novembre 2007, Maik Justus wrote:
Hello Gerard,
it's generic. I need to check, which helicopters are doing it correct
and which helicopters are doing it as one would expect (0 deg =
forward) and which helicopters do not depend on this flapping angle (you
can use cone-deg, roll-deg
Hi Maik,
now as we have several tandem-rotor helicopters I would like to ask
wheather the yaw-axis treatment of the helo flightmodel is satisfying or
has to be polished up a little. Or if this is just up to the creator of
such a helo how to implement better.
As for the nice HUP I can get some
On mar 13 novembre 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
Hi Maik,
now as we have several tandem-rotor helicopters I would like to ask
wheather the yaw-axis treatment of the helo flightmodel is satisfying or
has to be polished up a little. Or if this is just up to the creator of
such a helo how to
gerard robin schrieb:
Hello Georg,
You are right and probably, Maik could give us some better tuning.
However when doing the H-21 FDM i could notice that we get some diff about
the
yaw reaction, according to the values and position of the ballast (with
respect in any case of the CG
* Ralf Gerlich -- Monday 12 November 2007:
Hm, wouldn't that - in UNIX manner - call for an external configuration
tool to edit the XML bindings?
Yes. And we call this tool editor. ;-)
It's not unreasonable to assume that such a solution would require more
effort than modifying the
27 matches
Mail list logo
