On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:45:38 +0100
James Turner wrote:
The Autopilot menu change does make sense (although there may possibly be a
case for keeping such a flight-critical menu rapidly accessed at the top level?)
- potentially rename 'Environment' to 'World'
If most of the AI stuff moves to
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:16:35 +0100
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
This is now checked into git, with the non-GPL sounds removed.
Possible candidate for default aircraft for V3.0?
I hope the sounds can be reinstated or replaced at a later date, as the
non-default sounds add so much to the experience.
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:35:19 +
Renk Thorsten wrote:
But okay, I asked for feedback and I got it - point taken, feature not
considered interesting from the modeller side.
My modelling activity is in extended limbo at the moment so I was reluctant to
comment, but the lack of texturing on
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:34:36 +
James Turner wrote:
1) - I'd like it to replace, not scroll (so maximum of one message) but I
didn't figure out the Nasal for that yet
Dumb question from me... why have the message at all? What was wrong with the
fairly self-explanatory cursors we had
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:24:29 +
James Turner wrote:
My *personal* feeling is that unless it's something the 50% of users use
*each flight*, it shouldn't be a keybinding. So flaps, trim, CDI/HSI heading,
fine, but things to change view distance or FoV seem unnecessary to me.
Just
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:24:29 +
James Turner wrote:
What I'd like to see is the entire 'Ctrl' (Command on Mac) space reserved for
GUI functions, like a normal application - Ctrl-Q for quit, Ctrl-M for map
dialog, Ctrl-A for autopilot dialog, Ctrl-R for replay dialog (or radios
dialog :)
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:38:45 +
James Turner wrote:
Aha, and instantly we get a usability discussion:
Right, you need the keys because you're working around a simulator bug
(frame-rate drops badly) using manual interaction. The correct fix isn't to
make the workaround-UI easier, it's
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:20:58 +0200
Adrian Musceac wrote:
My suggestion is to include this feature, leave it off, and let anyone
interested turn it on.
I can't comment on the actual code, but from the repeated detailed descriptions
of what it actually does, I think it would be a very great
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:48:27 +0100
Durk Talsma wrote:
On a more general note, the latter argument makes it really difficult to
convince these people that FlightGear might be worth considering. I've also
gotten a few questions about whether there would be commercial add-ons for
FlightGear,
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:53:06 +0200
ThorstenB wrote:
Initially, they are both 0 (no voltage output, hence the gyro isn't
spinning). When full thrust is applied, voltage output goes to 115.0016
and the gyro starts spinning (voltage seems a bit high, but the code
isn't simulating overvoltage
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:59:18 +0100
Alan Teeder wrote:
The second problem is that the HSI spins continuously until the “Push Source”
button at the bottom of the instrument is pressed. Pressing this button
twice results in rotation once again.
Hi Alan,
I've made a few minor changes to the
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:47:54 +0100
James Turner wrote:
The correct solution is to have multiple mono sources (which all sound are,
in reality) and appropriate source locations. That will accurately give the
positional cues, wherever the listener is located - inside or out, looking at
the
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:59:18 +0100
Alan Teeder wrote:
Just a heads-up.
A couple of faults with the current CVS have recently surfaced.
The most irritating is a break-up of the engine sound once they have been
started.
There are also warnings about the use of a stereo file
English Electric Lightning:
Nothing wrong with it, but if anyone would like to add a new splash screen
picture, I have a nice series from the top of a ballistic arc at around
65.000 ft with nice aerial views of Nevada. Just let me know.
Hi Thorsten,
Glad to hear it still works (I don't
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:18:36 +0200
HB-GRAL flightg...@sablonier.ch wrote:
Hi Core (and the rest of the entire organism of course)
Why not splitting up the Aircraft folder into hangars as collection of
aircrafts as plug-ins, collection of big teams or small but heavy
industries ?
IMHO that
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:10:29 +0200
ThorstenB bre...@gmail.com wrote:
We are really sorry for any inconvenience and misunderstandings this
further change may cause. But now, as we have everybody's attention on
the subject, we're looking forward to many people testing the proposed
changes.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:50:18 -0500
Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, telling cmake you would like a release build seems to improve the
performance of the executable dramatically. I suppose it is good to ask
dumb questions once in a while so this basic information can get in the
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:28:42 +0100
Vivian Meazza vivian.mea...@lineone.net wrote:
Further research indicates that the F1A, modeled here was NOT capable of
M2.0 at 36000ft. M1.9 seem more likely. Moreover, due to structural and
stability problems the F1A was operationally limited to M1.7 or
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:39:55 +0100
Vivian Meazza wrote:
* English Electric Lightning: I believe the plane should be able to reach
Mach 2 around 36.000 ft in level flight - even in a descending pattern, I
was never able to reach above Mach 1.7 - is there a problem with the FDM?
The author
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 00:39:52 +0200
Torsten Dreyer wrote:
156MB!? Isn't that a bit - huge?
Maybe... but it looks like a fantastic model. If only I had the time to
actually work out how to fly it :-) Really impressive work though.
--
commit 83f7c1cd57dfbe8301fce93314ab5d2e7d685ad1
Author: Frederic Bouvier
Date: Wed Feb 16 09:48:58 2011 +0100
Fix issue #252
http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=252 by Lauri
Peltonen
Thanks for that Lauri and Fred - for the first time in years the Lightning
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, AJ MacLeod wrote:
Just ignore him, he's clearly an illiterate imbecile ;-)
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it alone.
*sigh* People will always read bad motives
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:57:41 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Enough already, AJ
I refuse to make public the contents of the off-list message you wrote
to me addressed Dear Adversory
This whole tongue in cheek business seems to be acceptable one direction,
doesn't it? As I said,
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:43:43 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
On an OT philisophical note..
Is , or rather, was the introduction of NASAL scripting a Good Thing
or can it be considered as the hugest abomination to ever befall the FG
World
I really can't see how anyone with any
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:26:51 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Actually, thinking back to my original question, I would like to
question your authority to make such a disgusting suggestion as to
question the sanity of a profesional who dares to contradict your views.
Curt's somewhat
On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 09:49:25 -0600
Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net wrote:
I seem to vaguely recall some issue with resetting (with JSBSim). I had
thought that the most recent JSBSim code fixed that, though.
Yes, there was a problem with JSBSim a/c, FG crashed on reset... this is a
On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:32:24 +0100
henri orange wrote:
You may refer to these link
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3139100group_id=19399atid=119399
Am I alone in seeing flightgear hanging every time after doing a reset? My
SG/FG/Data are all current, though I haven't built OSG in a while...
AJ
--
--
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:21:07 +0200 (EET)
thorsten.i.renk wrote:
I've just completed a sweep through all available aircraft in GIT, and I
thought a list of the non-functional ones might be useful for some people.
lightning
In what way was the Lightning non-functional? I've certainly not had
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:50:06 -
Alan Teeder wrote:
The current GIT is finding an error in the Lightning AvonMk210.xml file.
All that seems to be missing is 0.0 at the end of the last three lines of
the AugThrust table.
Thanks for investigating that - I've not had time to work on or use
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 09:25:37 Martin Spott wrote:
Dense forests are possible by tweaking the 'tree-density' parameter in
'materials.xml' and nice grass textures, well, need someone to care for
the textures. It's as simple as that.
Nice looking grass textures are surprisingly difficult
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 19:08:39 Ron Jensen wrote:
A few weeks ago I fixed a bug in genapts that was only texturing half
the runway length. Is this the oddity you are referring to?
Hi Ron - that sounds very much like what I was seeing I think... it would have
been probably about two
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 04:09:15 J. Holden wrote:
I don't know if we've gone final with everything yet, but if we haven't,
would it be possible for somebody here to: * double-check to see if the
mushroom water-towers still exist under the town definition in
materials.xml; and, if so, *
On Sunday 18 October 2009 20:33:39 Vadym Kukhtin wrote:
So I downloaded dozen of photos, extract from them clouds and made some
retouch. Here you can see what I got:
http://valeo.flightgear.ru/sshot/clouds/
Those are definitely the best looking clouds I've seen in FG screenshots yet,
nice
On Monday 05 October 2009 22:34:01 Thomas Betka wrote:
I really didn't hear many
people even mention the IFR training opportunity that is being missed
with FG; shoot, most people I talked to 1-2 years ago (when I was
trying to learn how to modify the 2D panel in the 172) couldn't
understand
On Saturday 26 September 2009 21:50:30 Olaf Flebbe wrote:
* The real thing would be FlightGear data!
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has been happily using the mapserver git
repo for FG data for quite some time now (on Linux)...
Cheers,
AJ
On Friday 18 September 2009 14:56:12 Curtis Olson wrote:
Github wrote us back saying: Git doesn't work very well with large amounts
of binary assets. They didn't offer further explanation to where the
problems might be? Maybe they were just putting the brakes on and didn't
want to offer to
On Wednesday 02 September 2009 22:44:56 Tom P wrote:
Yes, I agree, a distributed system is overkill for the data portion.
I would disagree...
1) data is handled well by a lightweight client-server model (either CVS
or SVN) that:
- allows users and developers to synchronize their local data
On Saturday 08 August 2009 11:26:00 Tim Moore wrote:
I've committed a version of Till Busch's terrain effects, as seen at
LinuxTag. I know that he hasn't finished tuning them, and I've changed his
landmass effect to use the base terrain texture, which he's not entirely in
agreement with :)
On Saturday 08 August 2009 19:39:26 Victhor Foster wrote:
I'm also suffering from the same problem. I can get nearly 25 fps
without the new shaders/rain/snow.
I would just like to clarify that I'm perfectly content with the drop in fps
that I'm seeing - I think it's entirely commensurate with
On Saturday 08 August 2009 19:55:19 Curtis Olson wrote:
Hi AJ,
Under a scenario with these shaders (and/or rainsnow), fly up into the 3d
cloud lyaer so you are punching through the puffy clouds. Are you still
getting 20 fps?
I don't see much difference between flying above the puffy clouds
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 19:54:23 Torsten Dreyer wrote:
I am currently playing with the input subsystem. This was triggered because
I have two devices that currently do not work with FlightGear, neither
Linux nor Windows.
My idea is to extend the FGInput class so it can use the devices
On Sunday 19 April 2009 17:51:13 Patrice Poly wrote:
I have just received a mail from Ian Forster-Lewis , the author of the
original ridge lift ground sampling algorithm, in which he agrees for
inclusion of his work into FG, provided that his name and link is included
in the code.
You can
On Monday 20 April 2009 13:12:27 Ian Lewis wrote:
I'll see if I can help a bit with the FG ridgelift implementation.
Fantastic! This is something that we've been missing for a long time in FG.
Which glider has the best flight model and instruments? Ridgelift only
really pays off when you have
On Monday 01 December 2008 08:32:40 James Sleeman wrote:
Don't know about the Camel, ... having engine throttle is really not
realistic etc...
I'd suggest that you do a bit more research on that issue...
Cheers,
AJ
-
On Monday 01 December 2008 08:59:19 James Sleeman wrote:
I admit I am not a Camel expert :-)
Nor me, though Vivian and I did an awful lot of reading at the time...
I guess I always think of a Camel as having a Gnome in front, which has
no throttle at all as I recall and as such blipping was
On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:38:48 KcKpers Ltd wrote:
As per the selling it under a different name, well I am actually in the
process of compiling the game etc under this new name (basically
re-branding this which I understand is also within the terms of the GPL)
This part is probably one
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 15:53:47 Ralf Gerlich wrote:
Erm, these are FlightGear pictures? Seems like I have missed a lot. The
ambient occlusion effect is obvious, but when did we get reflections
(see the windshield in the last picture)?
Only a few years ago ;-) It's another application of
Hi all,
I have recently discovered that FG is unable to properly support controllers
with more than 32 buttons. That may seem like a very minor limitation, but
in fact it hits not only current consumer-level joysticks like the Saitek X52
Pro but also many hobbyist USB HID boards (like this
Hi all (aircraft developers in particular),
As you might have noticed from the commits list, there was a wrapper
function added to controls.nas last night for braking chutes.
As things stand, it is practically impossible to asssign braking chute
functions to a joystick or other controller
On Wednesday 08 October 2008 10:16:28 gerard robin wrote:
Hello AJ
Thanks
What about SpeedBrake, which could be used instead of it with some
particular Aircraft (BlackBird) won't it be better to have a wrapper too ?
Hi Gerard,
Yes, definitely; actually I had a simple one in my own
On Wednesday 08 October 2008 10:06:38 James Turner wrote:
What about multiplayer (claim one of the network shared properties?),
and re-setting the chute for the next take off? Does chuteDeploy(0)
specify a reset?
I deliberately didn't include a reset in the spec, because AFAIK that's not
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 12:02:26 Nicolas wrote:
Hi,
I have written a little script in ZSH to enable the auto-completion
about the commande fgfs...
It seems to work very nicely indeed - thanks for this! Could it be uploaded
to the scripts dir in CVS alongside the existing bash
On Friday 26 September 2008 01:00:32 Syd wrote:
VFR flying in these BC mountains is pretty unrealistic , atmosphere wise
, which is why I want to attempt this . You can clear a ridge at 50 feet
if you want , without the danger involved I.ve been on a few rides
where cresting a ridge and
On Monday 22 September 2008 12:16:13 gerard robin wrote:
Again on that topic, i was wrong about 64 bit , which has nothing to do
with the stutter/jitter within FG.
That's true (since we've seen the same stuttering on 32 bit machines as well).
However, even though in your case disabling fancy
On Friday 05 September 2008 10:23:05 Erik Hofman wrote:
Let me know if someone still got strange sound effects.
Hi Erik,
I still get broken sound, most notably with the F-16. I captured a sample so
you could hear it;
http://www.adeptopensource.co.uk/personal/fg/f16brokensound.wav
My set up
On Friday 05 September 2008 12:07:16 Erik Hofman wrote:
Thanks for this file, now I know what to look for :)
Too bad I had to revert the whole move to the FGFX class to solve it.
I can confirm that the sound is now back to normal.
At least until I find out why it doesn't work that way.
I hope
On Monday 01 September 2008 06:32:19 Manfred Janßen wrote:
Hi,
I tried this:
import the marker.ac into blender and changed the alpha and exported it
as an ac-file..
In blender the view looks like I expected, but when using it in
FlightGear, I saw nothing.
I saw that the ac I created with
On Friday 15 August 2008 09:52:38 Erik Hofman wrote:
I have been busy updating the F-16 flight computer lately which turned
out the have quite some problems. After extensive (and many, many hours
of) work I'm pleased to announce it is finished now. I know others have
been using this FDM to
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 10:48:23 Erik Hofman wrote:
* I don't have 3d clouds and shrub/tree cover anymore.
Is this based on shaders these days?
I've completely forgotten how they work, but we do have (much improved, IMO)
tree coverage. As Vivian mentioned, no 3d clouds or shadows at the
Hi Curt,
I see we haven't had any CVS commit messages via email since the 11th of this
month... is there any chance of getting them back soon?
Cheers,
AJ
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move
On Monday 21 July 2008 22:29:47 Curtis Olson wrote:
Hmmm, looks like the queue got bottled up some how ... I'll see if I can
unstick it ...
Yeah, that looks much better, thanks. I miss not being able to easily see
what goodies are getting into CVS :-)
Cheers,
AJ
On Thursday 10 April 2008 09:19:04 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Without wanting to put words into his mouth, I assume that is Melchior's
(and others) main concern, rather than the size of our CVS repository
itself.
My main concern would rather be the infliction of low poly, blurry textured,
largely
On Thursday 10 April 2008 09:36:36 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Mea culpa. I screwed up and should have posted before committing. My
apologies to all. This idea was a lot more contentious than I expected at
the time...
Hey, we needed something to argue about to resuscitate the list ;-)
Cheers,
AJ
On Friday 14 March 2008 04:44:08 John Wojnaroski wrote:
My thanks to Mathias Boerner for some sample config files, I will pass
those on to you attached via private email
Did these files ever make it to the wiki as promised? (I couldn't find them
the last time I looked)
It just seems a bit
On Thursday 21 February 2008 22:06:02 Melchior FRANZ wrote:
And, of course, nobody is supposed to use JPEG in cases where
compression artifacts disturb. But for some textures JPEG may
be acceptable (with higher quality setting if necessary)
Agreed... I've used JPEG in the past when working on
Hi all,
Now that our data has been properly branched, I would like to move to using
PNG (or, where suitable, JPEG) textures in my models. I've seen no drawbacks
in my testing so far, only considerable benefits...
In disk space:
2.5M 2008-02-18 20:50 throttle_panel.rgb
981K 2008-02-18 20:50
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:41:26 Daniyar Atadjanov wrote:
This patch contains bugfixes from my previous patch
(i made mistakes when using diff utility last time):
I gave this a (very) quick test this morning, and was pleased with how it
worked.. didn't have any problems with the patches,
On Monday 28 January 2008 11:02:11 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
The current patch is a bit better for memory usage IIRC, but it is still
quite hefty - a side-effect of generating all the trees at once for the
tile.
By all means we should be careful about needless memory usage / wastage (and
On Saturday 19 January 2008 12:59:00 Daniyar Atadjanov wrote:
i'm newbie in FG development (just subscribed to this mailing list) and in
C/C++ programming, but i'm interested in making FG's ATC more usefull and
realistic.
Hi Daniyar,
I'll leave the C++ experts to consider your patch, but in
On Saturday 29 December 2007 15:47:24 Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* while I'm not aware of any particular aircraft that depends
on the trimming controls wrappers yet, it would be better to
use those, too
Indeed. The Lightning has its own controls.rudderTrim, though setting the
properties
Hi all,
It seems that several people are now suffering almost immediate segfaults on
startup when using --enable-osgviewer.
With today's OSG SVN, SG FG CVS, I get a segfault every time, looking
something like this:
Error: Not able to create requested visual.
Program received signal SIGSEGV,
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 want
On Friday 21 December 2007 15:28:00 Shad Young wrote:
Has anybody attempted to implement TrackIR 4 Pro in FG yet? Looking over
their website, FG is not mentioned as supported.
If you have a search for flightgear trackir you should find some relevant
stuff, particularly this;
On Friday 21 December 2007 15:57:58 Shad Young wrote:
Thanks AJ, I should have done this step first before posting. My list
etiquette is a bit rusty. :)
Well, I won't disagree ;-) But I had the distinct advantage of knowing that
there was definitely something to be found :) I haven't used
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 22:15:24 Curtis Olson wrote:
Here is a prototype for the v1.0 Gallery:
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/tmp/v1.0/
Well, I'd buy it :-) I'm amazed at the range and volume of models that we
have (and the rate that they seem to be accumulating), many of them very
On Saturday 15 December 2007 13:50:54 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Ah ... the good ol' days. :-)
I like the 50fps - as I recall, with MSFS4 on an 8086 based PC it was much
closer to 1 frame / 5 seconds :-)
Cheers,
AJ
-
SF.Net
On Saturday 15 December 2007 14:34:19 gerard robin wrote:
This could give an idea for an other snapshot.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Noratlas-Para.jpg
Nice dramatic shot (the sky especially) - pity about the sharp flat top to the
3d clouds to the right :-\
Cheers,
AJ
On Saturday 15 December 2007 17:15:30 Curtis Olson wrote:
I thought the yasim model worked pretty well, and the UIUC folks are not
actively maintaining their FDM within flightgear these days, but feel free
to use whichever one you want.
Aside from the fact that it looks like UIUC is pretty
On Saturday 15 December 2007 20:27:26 AnMaster wrote:
Both me and AJ had that problem.
Yes, but it's dealt with in CVS now - Camel is good to go now, in my view.
Cheers,
AJ
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the
On Saturday 15 December 2007 21:13:44 gerard robin wrote:
An other one , without the sharp flat top to the clouds , and with
parachutes more realistic.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Noratlas-Para_1.jpg
Very nice indeed!
There are a few of the Camel here - not as impressive as that, by any
On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:53:33 Heiko Schulz wrote:
here comes my site with pics.
http://www.hoerbird.net/page-0003.htm
This one has to be a very strong contender - if only it wasn't for that FPS
display in the bottom corner :-(
The EC135 is definitely very good screenshot material...
On Saturday 08 December 2007 18:28:35 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
One question, though, for these aircraft which will not be included for the
next release, where should official copies be updated?
They're all included in the release in that they all go onto the aircraft
download page
On Saturday 08 December 2007 18:30:53 Durk Talsma wrote:
I also like the 737, and with a 3D cockpit, I'd almost certainly decided to
keep it, but as it stands, the 2D cockpit stands out in a selction of
almost exclusively 3D cockpits.
Of course we're by no means ditching the 737 (or any other
On Saturday 08 December 2007 09:04:18 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
Finally I found the cause of DList stack overflow and off-carrier
aircraft problem.
Now, off-carrier aircraft and DList stack overflow are not feature
anymore.
If it works on some platforms, then I'll ask Durk to apply it.
I'd
On Friday 07 December 2007 14:40:34 gerard robin wrote:
Making the 3D model shape is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less 24
hours of work, but very complicated shape)
There is a lot of stuff to do:
=the cockpit must completed (versus the A10, Alexy has spent so many time
to do it)
On Thursday 06 December 2007 08:30:42 Durk Talsma wrote:
Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested
adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a
really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested
doing named
On Thursday 06 December 2007 18:27:06 John Denker wrote:
It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature.
Then the base package can be quite small, containing just the
name, thumbnail, and short description for each aircraft, plus
the full model for a verrry small number of
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:05:35 AnMaster wrote:
However I find it hard to belive we could get this done in time for the
release.
I don't think anyone was suggesting (or would suggest) that goal! For one
thing, nobody has actually said they would write the code, and such a feature
would
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:19:55 Curtis Olson wrote:
Supposedly, OSG has a feature (or add on?) that will transparently download
a model and it's subparts from a remote web site if it can't be found
locally. I don't know if that's been incorporated into OSG, but at one
point Don Burns
On Thursday 06 December 2007 20:05:47 Curtis Olson wrote:
Honestly, this is a weak point. An application has a lot of power and can
do a lot of things over the network, to the local file system, to your
personal files, etc.
Which is why I suggest being cautious about monitoring the
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 06:15:49 SydSandy wrote:
Can we add a /controls/gear/gear-lever-lock to prevent accidental
raising
gear while on the ground , on aircraft that have this feature ? The key
bindings can be over ridden , but there's also joystick configurations to
consider
On Monday 03 December 2007 12:04:36 gerard robin wrote:
Will that message remain permanently, ? to save time, would be nice.
We could avoid to modify the .ac model and the .xml file.
I would agree that to prevent unnecessary pain for modellers (and to optimise
their free time to allow them to
On Saturday 01 December 2007 17:23:41 Tim Moore wrote:
This is the best idea yet in this thread.
Though I like it in many respects, from a practical point of view it does make
it very difficult to keep track of which version comes where in release
order... with other software that uses this
On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz wrote:
There are some things I noticed and two suggestion:
-If I check show fps - it does not appear.
I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to
reset FGF for viewing the fps
Are you sure you're using the exact --geometry setting you
On Thursday 29 November 2007 21:54:05 Curtis Olson wrote:
But then most people seem to also follow that up with very strongly held
opinions about what the version number should be. As we've seen from just
a few postings in this thread, there is a variety incompatible, yet
strongly held
On Saturday 24 November 2007 19:09:03 Melchior FRANZ wrote:
IMHO, we should have a standardized property or a command line
option for that, and additionally a menu entry to select it.
As just mentioned on IRC, I fully agree - it's got to the stage now where
fgfs --show-aircraft is pretty much
On Saturday 17 November 2007 16:12:04 Durk Talsma wrote:
Folks,
I created a new page at the WIKI,
http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=FlightGear_pre-r
elease_changelog_summary
Did you not like the existing one? ;-)
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 Tuesday 06 November 2007 10:30:29 Yurik V. Nikiforoff wrote:
Now, second animation not work at all. But some times ago (around half of
year), such code work properly - object has control of last animation .
I don't know - may be, rules of multiply animations of one objects was
changed.
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
