I agree with Tim here. There are many secondary benefits of
time-boxed releases. Getting bugfixes and mindshare improves
interactions with the user community and attracts users which
ultimately attracts new developers.
Of course there is a percentage effort cost to ensure broad stability
- but
One nice value-add would be to include sufficient details to allow end
users to reproduce the conditions for screenshots.
Regards... Matthew
On 12/22/08, Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de wrote:
Hi,
Here are some of my screenies for the gallery! Feel free to take one or more
of them.
Hi,
The discussion seems to have died down somewhat on this issue.
As of CVS fg/sg yesterday, I do not get the near camera drawn.
I would assume that not everyone is seeing this which implies an OSG or
driver specific issue.
Any ideas or information that needs to be gathered?
Regards,
I agree. The initial offering from flightgear is fundamentally only
for Windows - the expectation under Linux is that the packages will be
rolled into distributions.
For the aircraft, I would suggest something akin to -base, -realistic,
-fun. That would appeal to the different classes of user.
I haven't applied the patch yet, so I can't give full specs. With CVS
as of a few days ago, I did notice that OSG attributed almost double
the 'update' time with 3D clouds on.
I assume that Tim can comment on what The 'update' time is. I assume
this means that (at least prior to your patch) the
Hi,
Recently, I discovered that there seem to be almost the double cameras
that there were previously. This is in the event/update/cull/draw
page of the statistics page.
Is this expected?
I also notice that each camera seems to be 'paired' with another
camera - as in the 2nd camera will not
Comments within
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Total Cameras in statistics view
From: Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions
flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: 26/11/08 09:57 AM
Matthew Tippett wrote:
Yes. In order
Hi,
I have been wrestling with this for a few weeks now. As some of you are
aware, I am slowly preparing a new multi-head demo with around 8 GPUs in
it (so up to 16 heads).
The new camera support is great, but there are some problems with the
way the frustums work.
My understanding is that
too well at the moment -
I'll send some photos later.
Regards... Matthew
On 11/26/08, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Tippett wrote:
Hi,
I have been wrestling with this for a few weeks now. As some of you are
aware, I am slowly preparing a new multi-head demo with around 8 GPUs
I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the
licenses on the images in the gallery. I would suggest however that
there be a requirement for the uploader to explicitly state the
license that they want.
It is a quagmire if you start placing restrictions beyond the standard
unauthorized.
Thanks,
Ron
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:02 -0500, Matthew Tippett wrote:
I am suggesting nothing more complex than a requirement for the
description to include a license. No license information - no upload.
Forcing a single license for something that is individual and clearly
divisble
It looks like the near clip plane is out too far. CVS fg and sg from yesterday.
Regards... Matthew
On 11/22/08, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Hi Tim,
With the new code, I have a zNear problem shown in this screenshot :
] wrote:
On samedi 22 novembre 2008, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
In this screenshot :
http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs_near_problem_4.jpg
I am seated in the c172. Yes, really ;-)
-Fred
Matthew Tippett a écrit :
It looks like the near clip plane is out too far. CVS fg and sg from
To add to this, when in 'Fly By' view, a fast moving aircraft will be
visible on the approach, will disappear as it passes through the clip
plane, the camera will pan and the aircraft will appear to emerge from
the clip-plane.
Regards... Matthew
On 11/22/08, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED
Okay.
So, let's look at what actions should be taken. Given that I am not a
copyright owner, I have nothing at stake beyond community membership.
Regarding the images. We now sufficient information for individuals to
assert their copyright on the individual using them.
Regarding flightgear, I
A quick review of the site doesn't indicate they are doing anything
fundamentally wrong. The acknowledge that it is derived from Flight
Gear and that FG is an Open Source project.
I am not saying that the way they are presenting it is a nice way to
do it. But it is not fundamentally different
One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some
absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is
honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that
the FG community can do to prevent it happening.
The GPL enshrines those rights to the
As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a
set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be
an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package
that can be made broadly compatible.
If people are interested in a recommended approach
-past and cut-paste things.
On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has
some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this
company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL
Sure. It is involved and complex, so I didn't want to bother people
unless they wanted the information.
First, get a compiler built via crosstool -
http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/ That allows you to low-bar the
baseline glibc and gcc (and hence libstdc++).
Then build the out-of-distro packages
Comments within. (I am personally uncomfortable including the GPL
violations people until we have a clear direction from the leadership of the
flightgear project as to the direction the project would like to go).
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
...
..
As an aside, the xml loader seems to be sub-optimal - loading the same
file multiple times (for each camera?). Are there any hints on that
behaviour?
Regards... Matthew
On 11/6/08, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Tippett wrote:
Comments within.
Original Message
My suggestion was along these lines, however I was focusing more on
the inter-organization issues than technical.
The technical details in my email was matching yours, that is the
FG-MP server accepts a connection from *any* trusted MP flight
environment. A secure wrapper using public key
Note the subtle suggestion of the discussion here.
To avoid exposing/causing concern with the GPL, keeping it completely
internal and not distributing it from IVAO seems like a good idea.
However, this appears to need FG to expand/revise it's MP interface to
allow secure connection of external
I think the key thread passing through each posting is mentioning that
the two networks should be bridged.
I don't believe the FG developer/user responses indicate a desire to
have FG act as a IVAO client, bypassing the existing MP network. Most
of the terms used imply a bridging of the two
Hi,
I would like to know who to work with to push for some improvements to
the statistics overlay.
My two issues are
1) It appears as if environment loading is added to 'draw' statistic.
2) There are blank periods in the graph that doesn't get attributed
to event, update, cull or draw..
For
Comments within.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Statistics overlay accuracy.
From: Csaba Halász [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions
flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: 05/11/08 06:11 PM
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Matthew
For comparison, can anyone show some screenshots of MS FSX or X-Plane clouds?
Regards... Matthew
On 10/27/08, gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On mardi 28 octobre 2008, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
gerard robin schrieb:
I did not notice any difference with my graphic card.
(7800 GS )
Out of interest, what do the clouds look like in wireframe?
FWIW, if people want to know where to aim..
http://www.sundog-soft.com/
Has some very nice soft, fluffy clouds :).
For the modellers/OSG people out there, here is a page that probably
gives some interesting clues.
Regards,
Matthew
My suggestion would be a pre-recorded flight contest.
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Suggested_Prerecorded_Flights
Rationale is as follows
1) Will provide great demo-fodder
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Presentation_Recipe
2) Will provide a nice basis for improving
Hi,
I am trying to determine if the CVS tips are broken relative to *
x86_64 system, or if I have a bad build/installation.
The build is from CVS tips of fg/source, fg/data and sg.
The symptoms are
1) Flight data playback doesn't work (complains about no binary input)
2) No key commands
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to determine if the CVS tips are broken relative to *
x86_64 system, or if I have a bad build/installation.
The build is from CVS tips of fg/source, fg/data and sg
The package needed would be libsvn-dev or similar. This is unlikely
to be installed as part of the installation of svn, however libsvn
(the runtime library) will be. And the dev package is usually just a
suffix.
Regards... Matthew
On 10/19/08, James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Oct
$10k a year for our
hardware maintenance contract.)
Regards,
Curt.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Erwan MAS wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 04:01:55PM -0400, Matthew Tippett wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if Tim has documented the OSG Camera work that he
has
First up, some arbitrary definitions. Multi-instance means multiple
instances of flightgear running (on one machine or many).
Multi-camera is using what Tim is describing here.
I don't believe that multi-camera is exclusive of multi-instance. But
for most users, a multi-camera setup will be
Hi,
I don't know if Tim has documented the OSG Camera work that he has done.
it removes most of the requirements for multiple instances and runs
very well on modest hardware. Of course it depends on what you are
doing for the mode of operation.
Regards,
Matthew
Original Message
Hi,
Although I would still love to see a snapshot as soon as possible...
It would be great to push visibly to a 1.9 release. You have a nice
list formed below of items to be mentioned in release notes. But do we
have a burn down list of items that need to be completed.
In general, I see
Can you define 'excellent server/network infrastructure'?
Is SVN what they are offering, are they open to alternate architectures?
Regards... Matthew
On 10/6/08, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
we have recieved an offer to use an excellent server/network
infrastructure for the
This is sounding like a 'base' and a 'full' or 'extras' release packages.
The base release should contain what is suggested here - a collection
of best of breed aircraft for particular classes that people are
interested in.
The 'full' provides a collection of 'complete' aircraft, but may
:
Matthew Tippett wrote:
Likewise with scenery. The default location and whatever demo
locations should ship with reasonably detailed scenery + other common
locations. The 'full' brings in other common scenery, and 'extras'
brings in everything else. (Integrating terragear as a thread within
as a bad download
too.
If enabled by default in a thread in fgfs, there would be many options
for evaluation since feedback would be trivial to obtain.
Regards... Matthew
On 10/5/08, Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Tippett wrote:
Yes. Terrasync.
With the intent being the terrasync
Hi,
I would like to raise the question of a flightgear CVS snapshot being
made and hosted.
There was a video recently posted of a demonstration of (what I believe
is) Tim Moore's OSG based camera system (8 displays connected to one PC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brG3-yyvv9Q
this was
As a new person to flightgear, but an OSS participant for the last
decade and a half, and a development manager by trade I would strongly
suggest the 1.9 stream numbering. The rationale for this is as
follows.
1) Realistically there are bugs that exist, having a 1.8 or 1.9 is
industry practice
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] CVS Snapshot for publicity?
From: Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions
flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: 29/09/08 11:34 PM
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote
I would be pleased to get something formal released.
A snapshot would mean publicity through Phoronix - to the Linux crowd,
inclusion in the Phoronix Test Suite (for multi-display testing), and
finally AMD would squeeze out a few videos of Tim Moore's great multi
camera at least 12 heads (16 if I
/08 09:51 AM
On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:48, Matthew Tippett wrote:
Speaking of which, another call out for multithreading... The GPU
isn't the limiting factor in our tests, the CPU is. Even mid-low end
systems have 2-4 cores these days, and with the multi-display demo we
are continually capped
Hi,
I would like to raise the question of a flightgear CVS snapshot being
made and hosted.
There was a video recently posted of a demonstration of (what I believe
is) Tim Moore's OSG based camera system (8 displays connected to one PC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brG3-yyvv9Q
this was
47 matches
Mail list logo
