Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> I've released FlightGear 1.9.1 for Mac OS X.
Oh, nice - one day I should buy a Mac which is capable of running FG
much more smoothly than my current Mac mini :-)
Thanks,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
-
Hey Tat
On Sunday 01 February 2009 20:32:31 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've released FlightGear 1.9.1 for Mac OS X.
>
Thanks a lot!
D.
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceFor
Hi there,
I've released FlightGear 1.9.1 for Mac OS X.
You can download it from:
http://macflightgear.sourceforge.net
For users:
This release is a bug-fix version of 1.9.0, therefore only binaries are
updated. The data package is the same as 1.9.0.
The GUI launcher and terrasync - on-the-fly do
Csaba Halász a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> I thought one of the reasons for keeping the data package unchanged
> was to have a small upgrade download available, with only the
> executables inside.
> I don't see it on the web page, has this idea been abandoned?
> Not that I am personally interested in it, of
Hi!
I thought one of the reasons for keeping the data package unchanged
was to have a small upgrade download available, with only the
executables inside.
I don't see it on the web page, has this idea been abandoned?
Not that I am personally interested in it, of course.
--
Csaba/Jester
-
Csaba Halász
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Ron Jensen wrote:
> >
> > A simple onespeed supercharger example is shown below:
> > 1
> > 8.15
> > 1900
> > 2600
> > 0
>
> >From an xml standpoint, all those 1s look horrible (I mean
> ratedboost1, ratedpower1, etc).
Hi Erik,
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Alright, I've updated JSBSim now, including a number of engine files.
> The following files might need some attention though, since they are not
> in JSBSim CVS:
Mmmmh, did you make a plan to take care for those models whose authors
don't regularly read this list
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 04:07 +0100, Csaba Halász wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Ron Jensen wrote:
> >
> > A simple onespeed supercharger example is shown below:
> > 1
> > 8.15
> > 1900
> > 2600
> > 0
>
> >From an xml standpoint, all those 1s look horrible (I m
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Ron Jensen wrote:
>
> A simple onespeed supercharger example is shown below:
> 1
> 8.15
> 1900
> 2600
> 0
>From an xml standpoint, all those 1s look horrible (I mean
ratedboost1, ratedpower1, etc).
Is it too late to do away with them?
I
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 21:40 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Given that we are taking this route now, FlightGear CVS is, I guess,
> > cleared
> > again for major and somewhat more risky commits (JSBSim sync, etc etc).
>
> Alright, I've updated JSBSim now, including a number of
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Given that we are taking this route now, FlightGear CVS is, I guess, cleared
> again for major and somewhat more risky commits (JSBSim sync, etc etc).
Alright, I've updated JSBSim now, including a number of engine files.
The following files might need some attention though,
Durk Talsma wrote:
> On Saturday 24 January 2009 00:10:16 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> Would you mind adding this commit to the VC7.1 directory :
>> Fri Jan 16 07:31:01 2009 UTC : Update MSVC 7.1 project
>>
>> Otherwise I managed to get it with git and build it. I am just waiting
>> instructions ;-)
On dimanche 25 janvier 2009, Durk Talsma wrote:
> On Sunday 25 January 2009 21:49:21 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > I would hope that synching JSBSim would be seamless by now. Of course, it
> > doesn't usually work like that. :-)
>
> The part we considered "risky" was that possibly quite a few aircraft
>
Hi Durk,
- "Durk Talsma" a écrit :
> Just to keep everybody in the loop, I have just build the source
> packages for what is likely going to be FlightGear 1.9.1 and put
> them on my website. I have informed have informed the people
> involved in building the windows and mac versions, as well
On Sunday 25 January 2009 21:49:21 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
>
> I would hope that synching JSBSim would be seamless by now. Of course, it
> doesn't usually work like that. :-)
>
The part we considered "risky" was that possibly quite a few aircraft needed
an update to their configuration files, in ord
* Durk Talsma -- Sunday 25 January 2009:
> Notice that this bugfix release is based on a subset of commits
> (bugfixes only)
Note that there's still the very annoying "Warning:: Picked up
error in TriangleIntersect" bug. Unfortunately, I can't offer
a fix. :-/
m.
--
> Given that we are taking this route now, FlightGear CVS is, I guess,
cleared
> again for major and somewhat more risky commits (JSBSim sync, etc etc).
>
> Cheers,
> Durk
I would hope that synching JSBSim would be seamless by now. Of course, it
doesn't usually work like that. :-)
Jon
---
On Saturday 24 January 2009 00:10:16 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> Would you mind adding this commit to the VC7.1 directory :
> Fri Jan 16 07:31:01 2009 UTC : Update MSVC 7.1 project
>
> Otherwise I managed to get it with git and build it. I am just waiting
> instructions ;-)
>
Just to keep everybod
Tim Moore a écrit :
> Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>>
>
>
>> Would you mind adding this commit to the VC7.1 directory :
>> Fri Jan 16 07:31:01 2009 UTC : Update MSVC 7.1 project
>>
>> Otherwise I managed to get it with git and build it. I am just waiting
>> instructions ;-)
>
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Would you mind adding this commit to the VC7.1 directory :
> Fri Jan 16 07:31:01 2009 UTC : Update MSVC 7.1 project
>
> Otherwise I managed to get it with git and build it. I am just waiting
> instructions ;-)
>
> -Fred
>
It's already there. Remember, "m
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Friday 23 January 2009 23:40:47 Timothy Moore wrote:
>> Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> How is this going? I've checked in a couple of fixes to the flightgear and
>> simgear maint branches since 18 January.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
> I think we're pretty much ready. I built a b
On 01/23/2009 11:03 PM, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Date: Wed Jan 14 22:13:12 2009 +0100
>
> as the latest commit for simgear.
In which branch? I see that as the latest commit on the "master" branch,
but there is newer stuff on the "maint" branch.
> Also, to test whether this was just me, I did a n
On Saturday 24 January 2009 07:03:33 Durk Talsma wrote:
>
> commit b5840650706bd21a44c0bcdad4621adafa8b2bc6
> Author: Tim Moore
> Date: Wed Jan 14 22:13:12 2009 +0100
>
Oh, I;d been planning to obfuscate you email addresses. Too early / not enough
coffee yet... Sorry about that.
D.
Hi Tim,
On Friday 23 January 2009 23:40:47 Timothy Moore wrote:
> Durk Talsma wrote:
> How is this going? I've checked in a couple of fixes to the flightgear and
> simgear maint branches since 18 January.
>
> Tim
>
I think we're pretty much ready. I built a binary from the git repositories,
and
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Sunday 11 January 2009 21:07:25 Tim Moore wrote:
>> I propose that the 1.9.1 release be made from these "maint" branches. This
>> would let progress continue in CVS while hopefully achieving some stability
>> in a maintenance release. If current committers would
Hi Tim,
- "Tim Moore" a écrit :
> Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > On Sunday 11 January 2009 21:07:25 Tim Moore wrote:
> >> I propose that the 1.9.1 release be made from these "maint"
> branches. This
> >> would let progress continue in CVS while hopefully achieving some
> stability
>
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Sunday 11 January 2009 21:07:25 Tim Moore wrote:
>> I propose that the 1.9.1 release be made from these "maint" branches. This
>> would let progress continue in CVS while hopefully achieving some stability
>> in a maintenance release. If current committers would
Hi Tim,
On Sunday 11 January 2009 21:07:25 Tim Moore wrote:
>
> I propose that the 1.9.1 release be made from these "maint" branches. This
> would let progress continue in CVS while hopefully achieving some stability
> in a maintenance release. If current committers would like write access to
> th
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Hi Yon,
>
> I saw that but also saw that the osgViewer::Renderer has its own minimum
> time that is not settable by environment variable, and the resulting time is
> the minimum of the two values, one from the pager and the other fro
On 11 Jan 2009, at 20:07, Tim Moore wrote:
> I propose that the 1.9.1 release be made from these "maint"
> branches. This would
> let progress continue in CVS while hopefully achieving some
> stability in a
> maintenance release. If current committers would like write access
> to these
> re
On 12 Jan 2009, at 11:19, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> It also seems that large framerate ( more than 200 fps during
> splashscreen display, I even saw 600 at FSFO ) make the scenery load
> a bit longer. Curiouly, I see better loading time under Linux with
> an AMD Athlon XP 2400 and a NV FX58
Hi Yon,
I saw that but also saw that the osgViewer::Renderer has its own minimum time
that is not settable by environment variable, and the resulting time is the
minimum of the two values, one from the pager and the other from the Renderer (
both initially set to 0.001 ).
In my test build I se
Alexis wrote
9.1
>
> Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> > I'm seeing segfaults from time to time with Windows and CVS/Head
> > trying to start when mp is running. Csaba Halász reports the same.
> > It's most frustrating to try to track this one down, because it is
> > not reliably repeatable. Assuming
On Monday, 12. January 2009, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote:
> Also, using gdb prevents this segfault to appear. It looks like having
> a timming issue in the different processes.
When it's not reproducible with gdb, you can enable core dumps with "ulimit -c
unlimited" before running FG. If it crashes
Hi Fred,
saw your message asking for some testing. I decided to post a new thread
asking
for more user testing:
http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2812
grep -r getenv OpenSceneGraph, possibly relevant env vars, some of them are
changed in my patches:
F:\c\OSG\OpenSceneGraph\src\
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> I'm seeing segfaults from time to time with Windows and CVS/Head
> trying to start when mp is running. Csaba Halász reports the same.
> It's most frustrating to try to track this one down, because it is
> not reliably repeatable. Assuming that we are not the only ones
>
Hi,
all that can be set with environment variables. Best way would be to post
on the
forum asking for some testing.
hth, regrads,
yon
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> - "James Turner" a écrit :
>
> > On 11 Jan 2009, at 17:18, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> >
> > >
Fred
>
> Durk Talsma a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a quick question. As far as I'm concerned, we'll be doing a 1.9.1
> bug fix
> > release soon. I would just like to get an impression how our progress is
> on
> > the various problems that have been reported. I know that the "black
> box"
> > pro
- "James Turner" a écrit :
> On 11 Jan 2009, at 17:18, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> > My findings on that is that the pager thread needs to compile
> display
> > list in the main loop, and this process is framerate dependent. At
>
> > that
> > time of the initialisation, there is only the s
On 11 Jan 2009, at 17:18, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> My findings on that is that the pager thread needs to compile display
> list in the main loop, and this process is framerate dependent. At
> that
> time of the initialisation, there is only the splashscreen on screen,
> but its refresh rate sl
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Durk Talsma -- Sunday 11 January 2009:
>> As far as I'm concerned, we'll be doing a 1.9.1 bug fix release soon.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
>> I would indeed recommend that major updates to important system are
>> held off until we have released 1.9.1.
>
I've established git re
* Durk Talsma -- Sunday 11 January 2009:
> As far as I'm concerned, we'll be doing a 1.9.1 bug fix release soon.
Agreed.
> I would indeed recommend that major updates to important system are
> held off until we have released 1.9.1.
While I consider resizable dialogs a major feature (at least w
Durk Talsma a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick question. As far as I'm concerned, we'll be doing a 1.9.1 bug
> fix
> release soon. I would just like to get an impression how our progress is on
> the various problems that have been reported. I know that the "black box"
> problem is fixed now, but
On dimanche 11 janvier 2009, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick question. As far as I'm concerned, we'll be doing a 1.9.1 bug
> fix release soon. I would just like to get an impression how our progress
> is on the various problems that have been reported. I know that the "black
> box" proble
Hi,
Just a quick question. As far as I'm concerned, we'll be doing a 1.9.1 bug fix
release soon. I would just like to get an impression how our progress is on
the various problems that have been reported. I know that the "black box"
problem is fixed now, but how are we doing on the other issues
45 matches
Mail list logo
