Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear

2011-07-29 Thread thorsten . i . renk
It's a dead end time when someone who had asked for changes leaves before that changes comes because it not comes too long and that makes some issue area related development impossible. (...) If that dead end will come seventy years after now then for sure I had missed the point. If not then

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lat Lon vs. Deg Min

2011-07-29 Thread Durk Talsma
Hi, On 29 Jul 2011, at 02:54, HB-GRAL wrote: Hi Geos Can someone explain me why we use lat=N37 42.807 lon=W122 12.963 in parking.xml and groundnet.xml This is mainly for historic reasons. I started out using an example ground network file that was made using an editing

Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear

2011-07-29 Thread Jon S. Berndt
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:] I think it's grossly unfair to mix these issues: Spaceflight requires to essentially write a space simulator. One of my first statements in the forum was: Orbital flights opens a whole new can of worms besides the need for different rendering -

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lat Lon vs. Deg Min

2011-07-29 Thread HB-GRAL
Am 29.07.11 12:15, schrieb Durk Talsma: Hi, On 29 Jul 2011, at 02:54, HB-GRAL wrote: Hi Geos Can someone explain me why we use lat=N37 42.807 lon=W122 12.963 in parking.xml and groundnet.xml This is mainly for historic reasons. I started out using an example ground

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Future Weather System

2011-07-29 Thread Stuart Buchanan
2011/7/14 Mathias Fröhlich wrote: While being able to do a croase ground query on such a kind of regular grid might be beneficial for the weather module. I would prefer the ai module just using the already available bounding volume tree that is used for the main aircrafts elevation queries.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] Improved forests

2011-07-29 Thread ThorstenB
On 28.07.2011 00:30, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On my machine I don't see any performance impact, despite the fact that more trees are displayed. I'd appreciate it if those with more graphics-constrained systems than my own would test this and let me know if they think the frame-rate hit is

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] Improved forests

2011-07-29 Thread Stuart Buchanan
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM, ThorstenB wrote: On 28.07.2011 00:30, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On my machine I don't see any performance impact, despite the fact that more trees are displayed. I'd appreciate it if those with more graphics-constrained systems than my own would test this and let

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 63, Issue 14

2011-07-29 Thread BARANGER Emmanuel
Le 29/07/2011 09:26, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit : -- Message: 13 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:20:06 +0400 From: Slavutinsky Victor vitos...@mail.ru Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear To:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [patch] Improved forests

2011-07-29 Thread Torsten Dreyer
However, I don't think my change will have affected this. While the number of trees displayed is increased, the total number of trees in the scenery is unaffected, it's just that more of those trees are visible at any given time. I'm also not sure if the tree model is shared in this way.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lat Lon vs. Deg Min

2011-07-29 Thread HB-GRAL
Am 29.07.11 15:18, schrieb HB-GRAL: Am 29.07.11 12:15, schrieb Durk Talsma: Hi, On 29 Jul 2011, at 02:54, HB-GRAL wrote: Hi Geos Can someone explain me why we use lat=N37 42.807 lon=W122 12.963 in parking.xml and groundnet.xml This is mainly for historic reasons. I