LeeE wrote
Sent: 30 November 2007 00:13
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol
19, Issue 25
On Thursday 29 November 2007 21:55, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Hey,
* BARANGER Emmanuel -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
Also, file
Never ever had this problems
have you look at your hardware?
--- AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot
of odd bugs, most of them
seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard
to
On Friday 30 November 2007 16:29, Curtis Olson wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
[SNIP]
off-thread-note I wish one would get as many replies to technical inquiries
on this list, as what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Christian Mayer wrote:
Curtis Olson schrieb:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll
on what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
The odd/even numbering scheme doesn't really work for us (did
Hi Gérard,
I would like to see all these helicopters in flightgear. Please let me
know, if you need assistance in tuning the FDMs.
Maik
gerard robin schrieb am 30.11.2007 16:31:
On ven 30 novembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
why do you ask?
We need helicopters! :-)
And the
Hi all,
I'm the main developer of Motorsport ( www.motorsport-sim.org ), a
wheeled vehicles simulator (aimed at racing cars, but not necessarily
exclusively focused on that). I'm rewriting the sim from scratch, and
while i'm at it, i'm reconsidering my choices of third party libraries
to
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:45:05 +0100, STenyaK wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(please excuse me if this is not the correct place to ask this)
Hi all,
I'm the main developer of Motorsport ( www.motorsport-sim.org )
..check your site, Bruno. On your Wiki page, I get refs to
Britney sex,
I'm not familiar with the suspension geometry of planes, but i *guess*
it can be modelled as a series of bodies, joints, springs and
dampers, together with the tire model.
Planes tires are pretty big, so they're an important part of the
suspension process in landings too (and braking.. planes
I'm not familiar with the suspension geometry of planes, but i *guess*
it can be modelled as a series of bodies, joints, springs and
dampers, together with the tire model.
Planes tires are pretty big, so they're an important part of the
suspension process in landings too (and braking..
On Nov 30, 2007 10:11 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Some of the engineering sims I use at work (space shuttle) have very
detailed models of landing gear and tire spinup, etc. Of course, we don't
ever see power trains driving the wheels (at least we don't in JSBSim).
There are some simplifications
On 12/1/07, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..check your site, Bruno. On your Wiki page, I get refs to
Britney sex, old man sex, free mature, cheerleaders nude etc,
I'm the one using Links right now browsing your site.
I know, but thanks anyway. With the remake of Motorsport, I'm also
Hi Torsten,
very nice you created a lot of tutorials which really increases the
value of your Seneca II as more and more interested people can learn
how to do it right.
I just want to inform you that I recognized a technical problem with
your engine-start(???) tutorial. It is asked to put the
(please excuse me if this is not the correct place to ask this)
Hi all,
I'm the main developer of Motorsport ( www.motorsport-sim.org ), a
wheeled vehicles simulator (aimed at racing cars, but not necessarily
exclusively focused on that). I'm rewriting the sim from scratch, and
while i'm at it,
We already have a 0.9.11-pre1 release, so I don't see a problem with
going with 0.9.11. At the same time, I imagine to some people 0.9.12
*might* also make sense.
To those unfortunate ones, I imagine just by looking at a plane or a
flight sim might be hard enough. I seriously think a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Curtis Olson schrieb:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll
on what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
The odd/even numbering scheme doesn't really work for us (did anyone
ever backport
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I agree, 0.9.11 or 0.9.90 may be acceptable.
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
For me the following solutions are acceptable:
0.9.11 ... as the logical successor
0.9.90 ... making clear that we are now really close to 1.0
and that
On Nov 30, 2007 2:09 PM, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That can't be the latest fg/plib source. This error appeared
after Martin had committed a brand new set of nav/apt/etc.
databases several weeks ago. I fixed the respective loaders,
so this shouldn't still happen.
Hmmm, cvs
* Curtis Olson -- Friday 30 November 2007:
Unknown line(#867) in file: 00 12835 SALT LAKE CNTR
This is running with the latest cvs data branch.
That can't be the latest fg/plib source. This error appeared
after Martin had committed a brand new set of nav/apt/etc.
databases several weeks ago.
On 11/30/2007 02:36 PM, Durk Talsma wrote:
off-thread-note I wish one would get as many replies to technical inquiries
on this list, as what I'm seeing right here /off-thread-note
Henry Kissinger said that academic debates are particularly
vicious because there is so little at stake.
Could
Ok, someone tell me what I'm doing that's stupid.
I just compiled the latest plib based simgear and flightgear from cvs. When
I run the executable, the splash screen pops up momentarily and FlightGear
exits with the following message:
Unknown line(#867) in file: 00 12835 SALT LAKE CNTR
This is
On Nov 30, 2007 1:36 PM, Durk Talsma wrote:
Having given the issue some thought, I also vote for 1.0. Here's my
reasoning:
The current version is pretty much the culmination of our plib based
development tree. With regard to plib, and in particular SSG, we're
approaching the limits of
I mean your input hardware like joystick, keyboard
--- AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Never ever had this problems
have you look at your hardware?
I had the problems I listed on several computers,
both
Arnt Karlsen writes:
Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way
sometimes!) :-)
..delurking... ;o)
:-)
.. ;o) GPL sea floor map data, anyone?
http://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/mar_topo.html
http://www.shadedrelief.com/cleantopo2/index.html
Recloaking
Norman
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:29:05 -0600, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-)
..delurking... ;o)
inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast
paced development continually adding new
Never ever had this problems
have you look at your hardware?
--- AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot
of odd bugs, most of them
seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard
to
gerard robin schrieb:
Oh, right, i have others which could come,
the Puma AS330
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Puma-img1.jpg
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Puma-img2.jpg
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Puma-img3.jpg
and the Lynx WG13 (Westland)
I must make some snapshots
Am Freitag 30 November 2007 schrieb Curtis Olson:
...[lots of version number discussion]...
I say it's go time. :-)
If it comes down to marketing and a reasonable version number scheme (i.e. one
that correlates with the major feature development), why not skip 1.0
altogether. v1.0 has that
On Nov 30, 2007 9:29 AM, Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll
on what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
I say it's go time. :-)
Curt.
--
When the worst of the 'stuttering' problem was resolved,
12.7.1941 is a good number to avoid as well.
Curtis Olson wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a
poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking.
0.9.11 is the next in
V1.0
Jon
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
Jeez, Bill, 2.718281828459 makes a lot more sense.
Lee
Bill Galbraith wrote:
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf
Of *Lee Duke
*Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 8:14 AM
On ven 30 novembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
why do you ask?
We need helicopters! :-)
And the Alouette III is very common and wrote a big
part of the history of helicopters!
Regards
HHS
Oh, right, i have others which could come,
the Puma AS330
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking.
0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible
unintended
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
I mean your input hardware like joystick, keyboard
They work correct yes and I did check them + they worked in other programs. (Oh
and I used different input devices one the different computers, one was a
laptop)...
Stuart Buchanan a e'crit :
I'd also much rather have the final plib release be v1.0 rather than
the first OSG release.
good point !
- having a 0.9.11 is not such a big deal.
- the lake of lights is a concern but waiting for this for a 1.0 doesn't
have such sense.
I vote v-1.0 because it
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
Technically: 0.9.11 because it's a big step ahead, not a giant leap
Personal feeling: 0.10.0 with respect to 9/11
Marketing: Make it 0.10.0 and strip the leading
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG
release. It'd even make sense to people used
On Nov 30, 2007 3:09 AM, AnMaster wrote:
It seems like terrasync is currently down, it has been like this for at
least a
few days:
The flightgear ftp/rsync server has been having problems over the past few
weeks. I just replaced the motherboard this week with an exact duplicate
and the
It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are
in danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a
vote? We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the
rest of the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is
worth fighting.
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis
Olson
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:52 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some
testresults
I'm just a little surpised that the version
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Considering how unstable terrasync is I decided to offer to provide a mirror for
it, under these conditions:
* I'm not the only mirror, there should be more, on round robin dns or such.
* The server is only 5 mbit (unmetered) but at a datacenter,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
It seems like terrasync is currently down, it has been like this for at least a
few days:
rsync --verbose --archive --delete --perms --owner --group
scenery.flightgear.org::Scenery/Terrain/e000n00/e000n00/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SydSandy wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:05:10 -0500
John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) How 'bout we chip in and buy Curt a magic 8-ball, and
base the decision on that?
I personally think we should skip the 0.9.11 , but I think
For me the following solutions are acceptable:
0.9.11 ... as the logical successor
0.9.90 ... making clear that we are now really close to 1.0
and that there won't be many releases until then,
if any at all (This was done in other projects as well.)
1.0 ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Never ever had this problems
have you look at your hardware?
I had the problems I listed on several computers, both single- and multi-cpu.
/AnMaster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
I think that the juxtaposition of 9.11 and Flight Simulator would be
unfortunate, to say the least. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about that
personally, but I recognise that there are those, particularly the other
side of the pond, who do or might. Why give gratuitous and unnecessary
offence?
Curtis Olson wrote:
I say it's go time. :-)
Curt.
I say go with 0.9.11. And for those worried about that number, work
extra hard updating/improving the code so we can then quickly move to
0.9.12 :-) Or better still, start a new versioning system with OSG.
JW
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
0.9.11 or 0.10, there are too may problems and missing features to call it 1.0
IMO.
Regards
AnMaster
Curtis Olson wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next
Upps...
I meant 0.9.90
--- Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
This release: 0.9.9
Unfortunately we have already done a 0.9.9 release
and a 0.9.10 release.
Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0
Yes, or maybe
Actually, it might be closer to v5.0 by now.
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT
Hi,
why do you ask?
We need helicopters! :-)
And the Alouette III is very common and wrote a big
part of the history of helicopters!
Regards
HHS
--- gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hello,
Looking at the nice new helicopter Alouette-II, lead
me to remember that i had
in my
On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek,
instead of an I will make the next
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a
On Nov 30, 2007 7:11 AM, AnMaster wrote:
As timore said on IRC:
timoore If we skip 0.9.11, then the terrorists have won
Wow, I didn't realize the terrorists had such strong feelings about our next
version number! :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text:
How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone can
just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than filling my
in box with discussions of which number comes after/ z/.
Lee
P.S. The correct answer is /z + 1/.
Richard Bytheway wrote:
It seems to me that we are
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee
Duke
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:14 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some
testresults
How about 0.x.y where x and y can be variables and
Anything other than 0.9.11 means both the terrorists and the tunnel vision of
the USAians have triumphed.
And BTW as far as most of Europe is concerned a serious terrorist outrage
occured 11-9-2001 and 9-11 is just a set of numbers.
This is not the place for politics however (which I am happy
On Friday 30 November 2007 08:17, Vivian Meazza wrote:
[snip...]
I'm pretty sure that the SeaHawk.ac, SeaHawk.3ds
SeaHawkpair.3ds can
be done away with right now.
I think Vivian is doing all his development on WV859 and I'd like
to keep WV908, if only as a placeholder and reminder, as
Hi,
My vote:
This release: 0.9.9
Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0
Regards
HHS
--- Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal
thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next version
number.
I don't intend
On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
This release: 0.9.9
Unfortunately we have already done a 0.9.9 release and a 0.9.10 release.
Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0
Yes, or maybe OSG: 2.0
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text:
--- Curtis Olson wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll
on what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
Let's go with v1.0.
It is a great way to recognise the massive amount of work that has been
done since 0.9.10. We've been talking about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think that the juxtaposition of 9.11 and Flight Simulator would be
unfortunate, to say the least. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about that
personally, but I recognise that there are those, particularly the other
side
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot of odd bugs, most of them
seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard to reproduce. Nothing puts
off users more than unreproducible bugs in my experience.
Some example:
* Sometimes when
On ven 30 novembre 2007, Thomas Förster wrote:
Am Freitag 30 November 2007 schrieb Curtis Olson:
...[lots of version number discussion]...
I say it's go time. :-)
If it comes down to marketing and a reasonable version number scheme (i.e.
one that correlates with the major feature
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:05:10 -0500
John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) How 'bout we chip in and buy Curt a magic 8-ball, and
base the decision on that?
I personally think we should skip the 0.9.11 , but I think the above is the
best suggestion yet :).
Or a pair of dice :)
On Nov 30, 2007 2:18 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
Hmmm, cvs update -A to remove sticky tags seems to revert to the OSG head
version ... oops ... trying cvs update -rPRE_OSG_PLIB_20061029
Ok, I'll double check a few things ...
Ok running cvs update -rPRE_OSG_PLIB_20061029 in both simgear and
On Friday 30 November 2007, Curtis Olson wrote:
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on
what what folks are thinking for the next version number.
1.0
But I allso like the way Ubuntu does it: yy.mm
It's simple, informative, and there is no mind games
67 matches
Mail list logo
