I did something not mentioned right - I'm will be not
happy with the Ec635 if someone make them "shootable"
with craters etc. Not because he will make a Ec635 -
sorry, had a abd day at work.
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Heiko Schulz -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> > Of course it
Hi,
better I stop the discussion from my side here, I
don't want to flame or something. But you get the
answers on your question.
FGFS is very strong - we have a lot of people with
knowledge. But the last weeks I saw the the flame war
- it looked for me a little bit chaotic. But you know
maybe th
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
I'm not involved into the project but here are my 2 cents :
A "civilian" simulator means nothing to me. The simulator itself handles
physics, graphics, communicati
This whole idea could be leveraged to a time state as well.
This would allow people who want to do period of time simming to share
the same servers.
You could declare your period of time of exitence and your software
would render only other objects identifing themselves in a similiar
window of
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
I'm not involved into the project but here are my 2 cents :
A "civilian" simulator means nothing to me. The simulator itself handles
physics, graphics, communicati
For people not interested in combat they could just declare themselves
invulnerable and turn off visibilty of combat vehicles operating in
their area.
Meanwhile combat vehicles could contnue to straff them invisbly as human
piloted drones.
You just need a turn off vehicles indentying themselve
* Heiko Schulz -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> Of course it is open for all and everyone can do what
> he want. But with this way we loose a lot of abilities
> to develop.
Which abilities do or did we lose exactly? And how?
> It looks very chaotic for me - and that's
> one point which maybe scares o
* Heiko Schulz -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
> seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
> etc...
FDMs are already separated. You have to restart fgfs to change
the mode. (Unfortunately!)
> I can really remember, that one of you said, th
Hi,
well I think, it should be discussed which way FGFS
should go in the future.
There was so much developements in the last time -
FGFS isn't the FGFS which was it at the beginning.
Of course it is open for all and everyone can do what
he want. But with this way we loose a lot of abilities
to d
On 7/13/07, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
etc...
I can really remember, that one of you said, that the
aim is to become a civilian simulator - so I'm
mistaken?
Clearly the primary purpose and a
Personally I would love to see online free dogfighting with guns or
"lasertag".
Its great fun and a great test of your ability as a pilot. It is also
the best way to really understand about momentum and drag and lift and
thrust and forces of turning etc.
Remember guys even if modeled realistic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
> seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
> etc...
I don't think that would be a too good idea, after all it would be quite fun
if they all could share one
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
etc...
I can really remember, that one of you said, that the
aim is to become a civilian simulator - so I'm
mistaken?
HHS
--- GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Flight gear was origin
Flight gear was originally proposed by myself and others to be a sim
that wnet where people wrote code for it.
If there are people who want to write code for combat then it should be
included.
The same is true for ships and cars.
I would love it if flightgear also became a good driving simulato
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:47:32 +0100
leee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it absolutely be part of flight simulation software. The main reason I
> made the Canberra B(I)8 was so that I had an appropriate aircraft to
> investigate LABS/toss-bombing scenarios and techniques. This wasn't because
Hi,
That's right, it's an OpenSource-Project, everyone can
implement what he wants.
But we don't have to forget that the aim is to have a
civil simulation.
I'm not against to see military aircrafts here in the
sim, but where is the limit? Showing only bombs? The
resultats? Or dogfighting?
At le
Yes, it absolutely be part of flight simulation software. The main reason I
made the Canberra B(I)8 was so that I had an appropriate aircraft to
investigate LABS/toss-bombing scenarios and techniques. This wasn't because
I wanted to pretend to vapourise lots of people but because the aerial
m
--- Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> should this really be part of a flight simulation software? If yes, what
> will
> be the next step?
> - Should the demolition of buildings be modeled?
> - What about humans in the scenery?
> - Any sound for this?
>
> My personal vote is "please do not commit".
Am Freitag, den 13.07.2007, 10:27 +0200 schrieb Heiko Schulz:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Torsten - FGFS is a civil simulator - not
> a war simulator.
>
first of all FG is an open source simulator, so the author of an
airplane, or contributor of code can implement any (legal) feature he
wishes.
Gre
Hi,
I agree with Torsten - FGFS is a civil simulator - not
a war simulator.
--- Torsten Dreyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> should this really be part of a flight simulation
> software? If yes, what will
> be the next step?
> - Should the demolition of buildings be modeled?
> - Wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> should this really be part of a flight simulation software? If yes, what will
> be the next step?
I think should be part of the simulation, also what about impact craters when
the airplane crashes?
> - Should the dem
Hi,
should this really be part of a flight simulation software? If yes, what will
be the next step?
- Should the demolition of buildings be modeled?
- What about humans in the scenery?
- Any sound for this?
My personal vote is "please do not commit". I do not like it!
Greetings,
Torsten
Am
22 matches
Mail list logo
