On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:49, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language
> I know best
>
> : C#
> :
> for mono using GTK#.
>
> I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or
> fgfs directly.
>
> It would be a stand alone pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
After some discussion on IRC (AJ pointed out that plural of aircraft is
aircraft, and andy noted that may be a more fg-style top node), I
suggest that either change the top node to something else, or call it
and go the whole way and make it simgear
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 capabilit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> AnMaster,
>
>> I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best
> : C#
>> for mono using GTK#.
>>
>> I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc
> tly.
>> It
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 Dec 6, 2007 1:38 PM, AnMaster <> wrote:
> I object to transparent download behind your back. As AJ suggested on IRC:
> call it "background sneaky transfer system"
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
AnMaster,
> I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best
: C#
> for mono using GTK#.
>
> I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc
tly.
> It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nas
al
> maybe) +
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 1:04 PM, AJ MacLeod <> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one
>> that
>> belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that
>> having --show-aircraft dis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
AJ MacLeod wrote:
> 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,
Hi there,
> On 12/06/2007 04:22 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature.
I think this is a good idea. I once thought about introducing such feature
to the GUI launcher on Mac OS, but it was not that easy since there's no unifi
ed aircraft package desc
On Dec 6, 2007 1:04 PM, AJ MacLeod <> wrote:
> Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one
> that
> belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that
> having --show-aircraft display non-installed aircraft would be useful, for
> example.
Supposedly, OSG
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
woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Sounds like a great idea. I would suggest using libcurl for the download (if you
don't have a better idea). Some key features needed for making this good:
* Update list of available aircrafts (when new are added to website).
* Find updates for alread
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 12/06/2007 04:22 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> One point which keeps cropping up is "size".
We may be able to have this cake and eat it to; see below.
> While I fully agree that it's
> important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't
> put off downloading FG, I als
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
AJ MacLeod schrieb:
> One point which keeps cropping up is "size". While I fully agree that it's
> important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't
> put off downloading FG, I also think that there's perhaps even a "da
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> --- gerard robin wrote:
>> Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated
>> why ?
>
> Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to
> grips
> with it.
>
> As you
I agree, I think a business jet (or very light jet but we have none to
my knowledge) is an important class, at least compared to adding a
second twin prop.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:14 AM, Fabian Grodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general I agree with Durk.
> The only issue is that if we drop the Citat
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> --- gerard robin wrote:
> > Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly
> > elaborated why ?
>
> Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to
> grips with it.
>
> As you say - it is a very complicated
Hi,
we have the 777-200 ( not in CVS but GPL!)
We have Fred's A320, which is nice to fly and we have
the b1900d, which is really good and an airliner.
But it should be no problem, to fix the 787-autopilot:
there are some people quite good in tuning the
autopilot- that's something should be done
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightGear are more
>interested in smaller aircraft or helicopters than in airliners, at
>least if we count the new developed aircrafts. At least for Germany,
>this might be vice versa. If I check the interests of known
>
--- gerard robin wrote:
> Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated
> why ?
Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to grips
with it.
As you say - it is a very complicated aircraft. Unfortunately that makes it
difficult to get to
* gerard robin -- Thursday 06 December 2007:
> I have red that the choice in between a model A and an other
> model B is to choose the easier to fly.
>
> Do you mean that FlightGear is a game (versus some other FS
> non free). I am feeling that we are loosing the base of the
> values we had when
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Durk Talsma wrote:
> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
> list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me
> based on my general impre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I tested this and found it to be true, the 787's autopilot is broken. However
the 737's cockpit is uggly. Hm can either of those be fixed before release?
/AnMaster
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightG
AnMaster schrieb:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
>> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
>> list based on the various suggestion made
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 "name
In general I agree with Durk.
The only issue is that if we drop the Citation we would end-up with no
bussiness jet class aircraft, which are high performance machines (compared
to props), easier to fly than an airliner (787), and with its
own limitations (as compared to fighters - F16). Also a Very
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:57:04 +0100
AnMaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> > Citation-Bravo -> B1900D
> >
> > This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the
> > Citation has indicated preferring that is is not
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Sent: 06 December 2007 08:31
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
>
>
> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following
> the aircraft
> selection disscussion cl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Durk Talsma wrote:
> I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
> selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
> list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me
I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft
selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new
list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me
based on my general impression of consensus.
737-300 -> 787
32 matches
Mail list logo
