Hi All!
It seems, there is error in heading_indicator.cxx, OSG around month ago
line 84 :
===
dt -= dt * (0.25/60); // 360 deg/day
===
But, IMHO, it's should be
===
double current_lat = getDoubleValue(/* here latitude property */)
dt -= dt * (0.25/60) * sin( current_lat ); // time-based precessio
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:49:19 + (GMT)
Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > > > Hi all...
> > > > Just had another thought ...
> > > > Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:29:15 -0800
Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:49:19 + (GMT)
> Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > > > > Hi all...
> > > > > Just
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:49:19 + (GMT)
Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > > > Hi all...
> > > > Just had another thought ...
> > > > Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:49:19 + (GMT)
Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > > > Hi all...
> > > > Just had another thought ...
> > > > Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config
--- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > > Hi all...
> > > Just had another thought ...
> > > Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config/field-of-view
> > > property added to the autosave function ? This way it could be set per
> > >
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:19:30 +0100
gerard robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> > Hi all...
> > Just had another thought ...
> > Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config/field-of-view
> > property added to the autosave function ? This wa
On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> Hi all...
> Just had another thought ...
> Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config/field-of-view
> property added to the autosave function ? This way it could be set per
> aircraft
> but that still means editing the properties in th
On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:38:22 +0100
>
> Maik Justus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Syd,
> >
> > what's about an algorithm, which checks the ratio of the screen and sets
> > fow to 55 for 4:3 screens and 70 for 16:9 screens? (55 / 70 = (4/3) /
> > (16/9
Hi all...
Just had another thought ...
Maybe a simpler idea would be to have the sim/view/config/field-of-view
property added to the autosave function ?
This way it could be set per aircraft
but that still means editing the properties in the property browser ...
just thinking out loud :)
Che
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:38:22 +0100
Maik Justus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Syd,
>
> what's about an algorithm, which checks the ratio of the screen and sets
> fow to 55 for 4:3 screens and 70 for 16:9 screens? (55 / 70 = (4/3) /
> (16/9) )
>
> Maik
> P.S.:
> for non-physicists:
> (55 / 73
Hi Syd,
what's about an algorithm, which checks the ratio of the screen and sets
fow to 55 for 4:3 screens and 70 for 16:9 screens? (55 / 70 = (4/3) /
(16/9) )
Maik
P.S.:
for non-physicists:
(55 / 73,333 = (4/3) / (16/9) )
Syd&Sandy schrieb am 26.12.2007 06:25
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:50:26 +0100
alexis bory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gerard robin wrote:
>
> > We have the "x" and "X" key to tune it
>
> Yes, but I (and probably others) use often view.resetView(), which is
> triggered by a button on my joystick, to recenter the view and in this
> ca
Hi,
Shad Young schrieb am 26.12.2007 10:00:
> GWMobile wrote:
>
>> You are really missing the point.
>> What I am saying is no one interested in reality is going to land on
>> water in the first place so the people who would expect a crash
>> indication won't be doing the landing anyway.
>>
>>
On Dec 26, 2007, at 1:00 AM, Shad Young wrote:
> GWMobile wrote:
>> You are really missing the point.
>> What I am saying is no one interested in reality is going to land on
>> water in the first place so the people who would expect a crash
>> indication won't be doing the landing anyway.
>>
>
>
Lol - perhaps I am missing the point - is it just that you would
like a --no-crash option, and you'd like it to be the default?
If it wasn't for the fact that I know you've been on the FG lists
for a very long time I'd think this was a troll.
Oh well - I didn't get where I am today by not missi
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 10:21, Detlef Faber wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 25.12.2007, 22:24 +0100 schrieb R. van
Steenbergen:
> > gerard robin schreef:
> > > With an aircraft which has gears retractable , the
> > > "landing" on sea can be done smoothly on the belly.
> > > TableData "drag" (
gerard robin wrote:
> We have the "x" and "X" key to tune it
Yes, but I (and probably others) use often view.resetView(), which is
triggered by a button on my joystick, to recenter the view and in this
case using x/X to change the FoV is not sufficient.
Also, I'd like to add a question: shou
GW--
Sure, coffeemakers are a good idea. But what about the cement trucks and
bulldozers used to build an airport: should those be included just in
case someone wants to build an airport in their backyard? Perhaps we can
get a large group of people to post links to photos of those backyards
s
Hi All
I would Agree and like to suggest that the View Distance also have an edit
field to type in the number.
Trying to move the dials is far to excessive for a minute change.
Thanks
Barry
gerard robin wrote:
> On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
>> Hi everyone , and merry christmas...
>
On mer 26 décembre 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> And IIRC Boeing engine pylons are designed to detach if they are subject to
> rearward forces.
>
> I'm quite happy with the appearance of a water "landing" for the Seahawk:
> it sinks nicely by about the right amount. Of course we haven't modelled
Detlef Faber wrote
> Sent: 26 December 2007 10:21
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] RE water crashes or landing -
> a changein design principle and default is suggested
>
>
> Am Dienstag, den 25.12.2007, 22:24 +0100 schrieb R. van Steenbergen:
> > gerard r
On mer 26 décembre 2007, Syd&Sandy wrote:
> Hi everyone , and merry christmas...
> I'm busy playing with my new 1440x900 flat - panel monitor ...wow what a
> difference in FG ! Which gave me an idea maybe others would appreciate
> too
> Before this , a default field 0f view of 55 was about righ
Sounds very smart.
I haven't gotten my giant flatscreen yet.
:-)
> Rather than modifying my set files and possibly ruining someone else's
> setup ... maybe a field-of-view slider in the view options would be an
> idea ?
> Im poking around in view.xml now but might take a bit to figure it out
>
LOL :-)
Maybe flight gear should make coffee...
Don't airliners all have galley coffee makers?
Obviously it is as important to realism as a crash indicator which
doesn't use physics to be triggered and ignores the in flight desires of
its users who may not WANT entertainment water crashes or coff
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 13:57:10 GWMobile wrote:
> 1. Anyone who lands on water in a flight sim knows they are doing it. It
> is highly likely they WANT to do it - ie have a float plane or want to
> ditch.
> Setting a crash default is silly. It forces people to not be able to do
> what they wan
Am Dienstag, den 25.12.2007, 22:24 +0100 schrieb R. van Steenbergen:
> gerard robin schreef:
> > With an aircraft which has gears retractable , the "landing" on sea can be
> > done smoothly on the belly.
> > TableData "drag" (and "lift") can be given with the best values according
> > to the
GWMobile wrote:
> You are really missing the point.
> What I am saying is no one interested in reality is going to land on
> water in the first place so the people who would expect a crash
> indication won't be doing the landing anyway.
>
Well, maybe so, then again... maybe not...
http://ca.you
28 matches
Mail list logo
