I was reminded [off list] that as of 2008, you can get by
without ADF in the US but not necessarily elsewhere.
Therefore I retract my half-suggestion that the ADF could
be removed entirely. Item 22 now reads:
22:: c172p: No GPS? Is it realistic to fly without a GPS these days?
Suggestion: Re
Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 13:09 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jon Stockill wrote:
>> Curtis Olson wrote:
>> > There's no reason the chooser can't be made to run on any of
>> our
>> > supported platforms. It's wr
On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 13:09 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jon Stockill wrote:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
> > There's no reason the chooser can't be made to run on any of
> our
> > supported platforms. It's written in fltk I believe and
>
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jon Stockill wrote:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
> > There's no reason the chooser can't be made to run on any of our
> > supported platforms. It's written in fltk I believe and I've had it
> > running in Linux in the past. The only reason it might seem like it's a
> >
Curtis Olson wrote:
> There's no reason the chooser can't be made to run on any of our
> supported platforms. It's written in fltk I believe and I've had it
> running in Linux in the past. The only reason it might seem like it's a
> win32 only app is that Frederic is really the only one who ha
There's no reason the chooser can't be made to run on any of our supported
platforms. It's written in fltk I believe and I've had it running in Linux
in the past. The only reason it might seem like it's a win32 only app is
that Frederic is really the only one who has taken the time to bundle it
w
> Well, and what about using a graphical aircraft chooser. I know a good
> one ;-)
>
> -Fred
>
> PS: fgrun if you didn't get it.
>
>
Its great for Windows users , but I dont use such things :)
--
__
* Frederic Bouvier -- Saturday 20 December 2008:
> Well, and what about using a graphical aircraft chooser.
> I know a good one ;-)
... or a shell completion script if you want it "pure"
(-> ./scripts/completion/).
Adding code for guessing what a user's bad input could
have meant is a rather bad
John Denker a écrit :
> On 12/20/2008 01:59 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
>
>> Syd wrote:
>>
>>> John Denker wrote:
>>>
46:: Capitalization: Example: As of rc2, on the command line, when
specifying --aircraft=dhc2W, the "dhc" must not be capitalized, while
the "W" must be c
On 12/20/2008 01:59 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
>
> Syd wrote:
>> John Denker wrote:
>>> 46:: Capitalization: Example: As of rc2, on the command line, when
>>> specifying --aircraft=dhc2W, the "dhc" must not be capitalized, while
>>> the "W" must be capitalized. This does not seem user-friendly. Fr
Syd wrote:
> John Denker wrote:
>> 46:: Capitalization: Example: As of rc2, on the command line, when
>> specifying --aircraft=dhc2W, the "dhc" must not be capitalized, while
>> the "W" must be capitalized. This does not seem user-friendly. From
>> the user's point of view, this does not mak
John Denker wrote:
> 46:: Capitalization: Example: As of rc2, on the command line, when
> specifying --aircraft=dhc2W, the "dhc" must not be capitalized, while
> the "W" must be capitalized. This does not seem user-friendly. From
> the user's point of view, this does not make any sense.
>
>
>
46:: Capitalization: Example: As of rc2, on the command line, when
specifying --aircraft=dhc2W, the "dhc" must not be capitalized, while
the "W" must be capitalized. This does not seem user-friendly. From
the user's point of view, this does not make any sense.
--
45:: Mr. Freeze: Early in the flight, the first time the "v" key is
used to switch to a new view, the display freezes for several
seconds. The machine appears to be CPU-bound during this time;
usually no disk access is observed.
The controls are frozen also, but sim-time appears to pass afte
Hi,
Thanks for the report.
Please send me the crash logs.
I need to take a look at these.
I'll also update OSX tomorrow and see what's going on.
-
Tatsuhiro Nishioka
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Richard Hornby
wrote:
I have just run 1.9.RC2 from your dowload site for the first tim
I have just run 1.9.RC2 from your dowload site for the first time.
First, continued thanks for your work in making this distro.
I am getting 'consistent' crashes with all the non-yasim A/C. To
put it another way, only the Yasim A/C are working.
Attached are the first few lines of th
- "Bohnert Paul" a écrit :
> All,
>
> I spent a couple of hours installing all the latest updates.
> According to the Mirosoft Update site I'm up to date.
>
> I loaded FlightGear-1.99.5-RC2 on my Windows XP Pro. SP3 box.
>
> FlightGear will not start. Missing MSVCR71.dll not found error.
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 23:04:28 John Denker wrote:
> A couple more six-legged crawly things:
>
> 42:: Instrument: KAP-140: As of rc2, as installed in the c172p and
> presumably others, on initial startup the display of the Sim World
> KAP-140 is blank. This is already a bug, because the d
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Martin - I'll assume you are happy to generate the manual for the release and
> check it in.
Definitely yet I didn't recieve any updates for The Manual from
John D., though ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its frien
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Okay, of the people who responded, the vote was unanimously against this
> idea.
> If it's up to me, I vote for going back to our original consensus, and
> releasing this version as 1.9.0. As far as I can tell, this number has the
> majority vote, and although not Curt's p
* Durk Talsma -- Thursday 18 December 2008:
> I vote for going back to our original consensus, and
> releasing this version as 1.9.0.
Sounds good to me. With the subtitle: "technology preview;
test it, fire up your editors and fix all the bugs". :-)
1.95 would also have worked for me, but 1.99.
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 22:18:15 I wrote:
> Just to make a blunt suggestion, although not completely of my own
> imagination: would it be an idea to release this version as 2.0?.
> Initially, we wanted to do a 1.9.0 release, because we felt that the OSG
> transition wasn't quite there yet. Si
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/17/2008 08:04 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
>
> > I assume you are not using sync-to-vblank or fps throttle.
>
> That's a correct assumption. Forsooth, I've never heard of
> sync-to-vblank or fps throttle in this context. The names
> sound nice, but
> -- They are not men
On 12/17/2008 08:04 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
> I assume you are not using sync-to-vblank or fps throttle.
That's a correct assumption. Forsooth, I've never heard of
sync-to-vblank or fps throttle in this context. The names
sound nice, but
-- They are not mentioned in --help --verbose
-- They
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 3:04 AM, John Denker wrote:
>
> 43:: CPU hog: When the sim is paused, it eats CPU cycles. It will
> happily use 99+% of the CPU if there is no competition. I don't
> understand why any appreciable CPU cycles are needed during pause.
I assume you are not using sync-to-v
43:: CPU hog: When the sim is paused, it eats CPU cycles. It will
happily use 99+% of the CPU if there is no competition. I don't
understand why any appreciable CPU cycles are needed during pause.
44:: Memory hog: When the sim is paused, if you leave it alone for 15
minutes or so, it starts
On mercredi 17 décembre 2008, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> - "gerard robin" a écrit :
> > On mercredi 17 décembre 2008, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > > - "gerard robin" a écrit :
> > > > On mardi 16 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > > > > Hi Fred,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday 13 December
Ok, this might be a silly question but here it goes, Will the final 1.99
release be on the main flightgear website and replace 1.0 on the site?
Thanks
--
Michael Smith (mdsmith2)
--
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 17 December 2008:
> [...] 0.95 (or something like that)
Err ... 1.95
> Before we drop the 0.9* idea, [...]
and 1.9*. But I guess you got the idea. :-)
m.
--
SF.Net email is Sponsored by
* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 17 December 2008:
> would it be an idea to release this version as 2.0?.
I'm against that. fgfs is in acceptable shape for a minor
release, but it would be an embarrassment for a major release.
Curt says he doesn't care about version numbers, but the
"community" certainl
A couple more six-legged crawly things:
41:: c172p: As of rc2, if the pilot is tall or if the pilot's seat is
cranked up high, a weird artifact appears in the field of view. To
demonstrate this, use the property viewer to set
/sim/current-view/y-offset-m to 0.4 (instead of the default value of
>
> There are still problems with the clouds (the draw order
> problem with
> particles), and Tim has already mentioned his intention to
> start
> committing the code required for shadows after this
> release. I believe
> that code also makes landing lights a possibility. I'd
> be tempted to
Durk Talsma wrote:
> Just to make a blunt suggestion, although not completely of my own
> imagination: would it be an idea to release this version as 2.0?. Initially,
> we wanted to do a 1.9.0 release, because we felt that the OSG transition
> wasn't quite there yet. Since then, enormous progre
Hi Tat et al.,
On Tuesday 16 December 2008 18:16:29 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> >> Personally, I think a big build up to an oddball version number like
> >> 1.99.5 is a little strange, but again, I'm not so hung up on version
> >> numbers as long as they keep increasing. It would also
- "gerard robin" a écrit :
> On mercredi 17 décembre 2008, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > - "gerard robin" a écrit :
> > > On mardi 16 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > > > Hi Fred,
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:50:51 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > > > > I replied that the
Hi Gerard,
> Hello, Durk
>
> How do you schedule the period test with OSG 2.8 before rolling up the
> release ?
> OR do you avoid any test with it ?
>
> Cheers
As Fred mentioned, I'm routinely building and testing FlightGear against
OSG/SVN. I haven't noticed any problems. I have the impressi
On mercredi 17 décembre 2008, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> - "gerard robin" a écrit :
> > On mardi 16 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > > Hi Fred,
> > >
> > > On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:50:51 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > > > I replied that the target is next Friday. After that I may have
>
- "gerard robin" a écrit :
> On mardi 16 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Hi Fred,
> >
> > On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:50:51 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > > I replied that the target is next Friday. After that I may have
> > > difficulties to build a binary from where I will be.
> > >
On mardi 16 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Fred,
>
> On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:50:51 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> > I replied that the target is next Friday. After that I may have
> > difficulties to build a binary from where I will be.
> >
> > -Fred
>
> How would your availability be af
On 12/16/2008 06:38 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
>> 1:: c172p: As of rc2, the model makes weird, unrealistic
>> noises that
>> are presumably supposed to be engine noise, but do not
>> vary in pitch
>> or amplitude in the appropriate way. Real pilots are very
>> sensitive
>> to engine noise.
>
> r
Hi,
So we three are all busy around the release date :-)
I'm OK if it will be either Friday or Saturday, or even after that. I
need to make some tests before the release, but this time it can be
slow since my spare time for FG is very limited in a given time frame.
So the Mac version will b
A few more opportunities for improvement:
37:: Documentation: As of rc2, data/Docs/FGShortRef.pdf is in dire
need of an update. It bears a 2005 date, and internally refers to
version 0.8.0. For example, it thinks the "space" key (not the "s"
key) runs the starter.
38:: Documentation: As of rc
Martin Spott wrote:
> [...] If you like, find the appropriate
> instructions for pulling the LaTeX source here:
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/cvs/getstart-cvs.html
or here (via GIT):
http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl?p=getstart
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly
John Denker wrote:
> 37:: Documentation: As of rc2, data/Docs/FGShortRef.pdf is in dire
> need of an update. It bears a 2005 date, and internally refers to
> version 0.8.0. For example, it thinks the "space" key (not the "s"
> key) runs the starter.
>
> 38:: Documentation: As of rc2, I'm pret
Hi Fred,
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:50:51 Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> I replied that the target is next Friday. After that I may have
> difficulties to build a binary from where I will be.
>
> -Fred
How would your availability be after Friday. As it turns out, I have a
Christmas dinner thi
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/16/2008 10:20 AM, James Turner wrote:
>
>> The problem is, what happened a couple of years is irrelevant, in the
>> strictest sense of the word: it has zero relation to the present.
>
> Except that the problem continues into the present. Very
> recently I submitted a
On 16 Dec 2008, at 17:25, John Denker wrote:
>
> I don't think a "base position" is needed. A notion of
> "current position" sufficies. As for the CLI, it is useful
> to process the positioning items _in order_ so that going
> to --airport=KJFK and then to --vor=SAV will reliably get
> you to S
On 12/16/2008 10:20 AM, James Turner wrote:
> The problem is, what happened a couple of years is irrelevant, in the
> strictest sense of the word: it has zero relation to the present.
Except that the problem continues into the present. Very
recently I submitted a patch. The guy who specifical
John Denker wrote:
> 2) You can't make bugs go away by shouting "there are no bugs!"
>
> 3) There are some people on this list who are quick to turn
> anything and everything into a personal attack, but it
> doesn't need to be that way.
John, you should be aware that your understanding of a 'f
On 12/16/2008 03:05 AM, James Turner wrote:
> The dialog box behaviour, is that it explicitly clears out the current
> lat/lon before doing the navaid/fix search, so we get the same
> behaviour from the GUI - at least it's consistent.
>
> My proposed fix is to add a 'base position' or similar
(echoing Melchior slightly)
On 16 Dec 2008, at 16:29, John Denker wrote:
> 3) There are some people on this list who are quick to turn
> anything and everything into a personal attack, but it
> doesn't need to be that way. There are plenty of other
> lists in the world where that doesn't happen.
Hi guys,
>> Personally, I think a big build up to an oddball version number like
>> 1.99.5 is a little strange, but again, I'm not so hung up on version
>> numbers as long as they keep increasing. It would also be odd to
>> backtrack since the point of version numbers is to distinguish
>> releases
* John Denker -- Tuesday 16 December 2008:
> I submitted patches to correct many of the "old bugs"
> recently mentioned. Dozens of them. I submitted them
> a couple of years ago. Nobody even looked at them.
I'm pretty sure that I looked at every single of them.
But either I wasn't competent to
On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma asked for bug reports.
So on 12/15/2008 11:20 PM, I sent in some bug reports.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
On 12/16/2008 06:38 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote in part:
> Oh- did I mention that the aircraft is still WIP? Did I? No?
Actually on 12/02/2008 05:14 AM
On 16 Dec 2008, at 15:42, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Anyway, shorter release cycle can give flightgear a chance to get more
> attension, so I like that idea. If quarterly releasing cycle is a bit
> too often, then semiannual is fine for me.
>
> What do you guys think?
Quarter annual at least, i
- "Curtis Olson" a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Tatsuhiro Nishioka <
> tat.fgmac...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> I guess Tim means 1.9.0, not 2.0.
>
> Actually 1.99.5 is just a temporal number for fgfs/cvs and (I believe)
> we're heading to 1.9.0. Curt told us that he put 1.99
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Tatsuhiro Nishioka
wrote:
> I guess Tim means 1.9.0, not 2.0.
>
> Actually 1.99.5 is just a temporal number for fgfs/cvs and (I believe)
> we're heading to 1.9.0. Curt told us that he put 1.99.5 since he had
> missed the discussion on this list about the version nu
>
> >> Heh, I was wondering about this - I'm hopeful
> that Tim means what he
> >> wrote, but that 2.0 will also be along soon, maybe
> even Q1 2009. And
> >> then 2.1, 2.2 and so on...
> > I meant that I would start checking this stuff in
> after the 1.99.5
> > release.
>
> Ah, even better.
>
Hi,
On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:54 PM, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>>> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
>>> make, among other things, local light sources practical. I'm not
>>> sure if the best way to do cockpit lightin
On 16 Dec 2008, at 15:20, Tim Moore wrote:
>> Heh, I was wondering about this - I'm hopeful that Tim means what he
>> wrote, but that 2.0 will also be along soon, maybe even Q1 2009. And
>> then 2.1, 2.2 and so on...
> I meant that I would start checking this stuff in after the 1.99.5
> release
James Turner wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>>> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
>>> make, among other things, local light sources practical. I'm not
>>> sure if the best way to do cockpit lighting is to have a light
>>> source in th
> It'd be lovely if bug reports were accompanied by some
> analysis (like
> my Bravo/GPWS investigation) of this rather than just the
> user-level
> feedback. Obviously that's much more time consuming,
> but *someone* has
> to do that work, ultimately.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
That's the po
On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:38, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> @John again: Sorry, but I'm not happy with your type of criticism. I
> coulden't see anything comitting to FGFS from you yet, so I wonder
> if I should really take you seriously!
> It was about 3 months ago when I finally decide to update the 3d
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, This time I really think I should make my works commercial- or
> if you want to have all this give ma a lot of money.
>
> I'm aware that we want to make it right, like our overall concept on
> flightgear.org says. But this is also dependant of time and (!)
>
On 16 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
>> make, among other things, local light sources practical. I'm not
>> sure if the best way to do cockpit lighting is to have a light
>> source in the cockpit or to simply turn
>
>
> 22:: c172p: No GPS? Is it realistic to fly without a GPS these days?
> Suggestion: Remove the ADF and DME from the main radio stack and use
> the space for a transponder and GPS. The ADF and DME can be
> relocated far to starboard or discarded entirely.
>
I have a few dozens of hours fl
- "Tim Moore" a écrit :
> > 3:: c172p: As of rc2, the aircraft's landing and taxi lights are
> > not effective at illuminating the runway or other surfaces. This
> > is an issue for night operations.
> ...
> After 2.0 I'll start merging in my Effects framework code that will
> make, among
Hi,
Well, This time I really think I should make my works commercial- or if you
want to have all this give ma a lot of money.
I'm aware that we want to make it right, like our overall concept on
flightgear.org says.
But this is also dependant of time and (!) information the model authos have.
John Denker wrote:
> On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> If all goes well, I would like to prepare the final release version next
>> Friday.
>
> Wow.
>
>> Until that time please hold back on committing anything risky, and
>> give these prereleases a decent workout. Let's try to m
On 16 Dec 2008, at 08:25, James Turner wrote:
>> 32:: Dialog: As of rc2, if you sit at KSFO and try to relocate to the
>> SAV VOR, it will take you to Savannakhet, Laos (SAV) ... even though
>> the pilot probably wanted to go to Savannah, GA (SAV). In case of
>> ambiguity, the rule should be to
On 16 Dec 2008, at 06:20, John Denker wrote:
> 22:: c172p: No GPS? Is it realistic to fly without a GPS these days?
> Suggestion: Remove the ADF and DME from the main radio stack and use
> the space for a transponder and GPS. The ADF and DME can be
> relocated far to starboard or discarded enti
On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
> If all goes well, I would like to prepare the final release version next
> Friday.
Wow.
> Until that time please hold back on committing anything risky, and
> give these prereleases a decent workout. Let's try to make this the best
> FlightGear r
Timothy Moore a écrit :
>>> If all goes well, I would like to prepare the final release version next
>>> Friday. Until that time please hold back on committing anything risky, and
>>> give these prereleases a decent workout. Let's try to make this the best
>>> FlightGear release yet. :-)
>>>
>>> C
On samedi 13 décembre 2008, John Denker wrote:
> On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Please find FlightGear 1.99.5-RC2 ready for download. In order to relieve
> > my humble server, John Wojnaroski has kindly provided some space on his
> > server to host the source and base package. Pleas
On 12/13/2008 02:29 AM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> You need at least OSG 2.7.3
OK.
And the OSG site seems to be back up.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in RC2 we have the following
README.OSG file;
>> [This file is mirrored in both the FlightGear and SimGear packages.]
>>
>> You *must* have Open
- "John Denker" a écrit :
> The other machine is a dual-core Pentium @ 3 GHz apiece, with an
> Intel graphics processor and the xorg driver.
>
> Both are using OSG 2.6.1 and the rc2 package.
This has already been discussed. You need at least OSG 2.7.3
-Fred
--
Frédéric Bouvier
http://my.
John Denker wrote:
> Here's a bug report. I have two machines that exhibit the same
> behavior, namely invisible aircraft. No error messages, no warnings,
> just no aircraft.
..
> Both are using OSG 2.6.1 and the rc2 package.
>
> One odd observation: Not only is the aircraft invisible, but
On 12/12/2008 09:36 AM, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Please find FlightGear 1.99.5-RC2 ready for download. In order to relieve my
> humble server, John Wojnaroski has kindly provided some space on his server
> to
> host the source and base package. Please find the relevant files here:
>
> http://www.l
gerard robin wrote:
> On vendredi 12 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
>> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>>
>> Please find FlightGear 1.99.5-RC2 ready for download. In order to relieve
>> my humble server, John Wojnaroski has kindly provided some space on his
>> server to host the source and base package. P
On vendredi 12 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> Please find FlightGear 1.99.5-RC2 ready for download. In order to relieve
> my humble server, John Wojnaroski has kindly provided some space on his
> server to host the source and base package. Please find the relevant fil
80 matches
Mail list logo
