On Saturday 08 December 2007 23:13, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Thanks AJ!
>
> Durk, could you apply my patch to CVS?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tat
>
Looks like Melchior already beat me... :-)
Thanks for looking into this.
Cheers,
Durk
Haha, quick work.
Thanks a lot!
On Dec 9, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Tatsuhiro Nishioka -- Saturday 08 December 2007:
>> Durk, could you apply my patch to CVS?
>
> Too late! Already committed. Thanks. :-)
>
> m.
-
* Tatsuhiro Nishioka -- Saturday 08 December 2007:
> Durk, could you apply my patch to CVS?
Too late! Already committed. Thanks. :-)
m.
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the
Thanks AJ!
Durk, could you apply my patch to CVS?
Thanks,
Tat
On Dec 9, 2007, at 6:48 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> On Saturday 08 December 2007 09:04:18 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
>> Finally I found the cause of DList stack overflow and off-carrier
>> aircraft problem.
>> Now, off-carrier aircraft a
On Saturday 08 December 2007 09:04:18 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Finally I found the cause of DList stack overflow and off-carrier
> aircraft problem.
> Now, off-carrier aircraft and DList stack overflow are not "feature"
> anymore.
> If it works on some platforms, then I'll ask Durk to apply it.
Tatsuhiro Nishioka schrieb:
> Hi Georg,
>
> Of course it should be rejected since you applied it to too new code.
>
> The patch is for 0.9.11-pre2 release, not for CVS head.
> Check out source files using -r RELEASE_0_9_11_pre2 option and apply
> it again.
>
> Best,
>
> Tat
>
>
Hello Tat,
than
Hi Georg,
Of course it should be rejected since you applied it to too new code.
The patch is for 0.9.11-pre2 release, not for CVS head.
Check out source files using -r RELEASE_0_9_11_pre2 option and apply
it again.
Best,
Tat
On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> Hi Tat,
>
> I
Tatsuhiro Nishioka schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I found kind of a hint of the cause of DList stack overflow.
>
> After reset, the number of ssgTransform increases a lot.
> so maybe this has something to do with the cause of the problem since
> ssgTransform::cull calls _ssgPushMatrix and _ssgPopMatrix. these
Hi guys,
Finally I found the cause of DList stack overflow and off-carrier
aircraft problem.
The cause of the first one is that aip.ssgTransform of AICarrier are
unexpectedly registered on every reset in AIBase::init().
The second one is caused by ssgEntry related code in AICarrier::init()
Hi,
I found kind of a hint of the cause of DList stack overflow.
After reset, the number of ssgTransform increases a lot.
so maybe this has something to do with the cause of the problem since
ssgTransform::cull calls _ssgPushMatrix and _ssgPopMatrix. these two
show "DList stack overflow" error.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I want to know if the bugs that I reported before are Mac OS specific
> or not.
> So I want you guys to check if the following bugs occur on your
> platform(s).
>
> 1. DList stack overflow
> When I rese
Georg Vollnhals
> Sent: 07 December 2007 16:10
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear prerelease
>
... Snip ...
>
> > 2. Aircraft shows up under a carrier on reset
> > This happens when I reset FlightGear (Shift-ESC) on Ni
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
> Goorg, and Melchir,
>
> Thanks for your report and opinion.
>
> On Dec 8, 2007, at 1:09 AM, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> > Hi Tat,
> > tested this on OpenSUSE 10.2 86_64 with FG 9.11 Prerelease
> > S76 Helicopter
> >
> >> 1. DList stack overflow
>
> (
Goorg, and Melchir,
Thanks for your report and opinion.
On Dec 8, 2007, at 1:09 AM, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> Hi Tat,
> tested this on OpenSUSE 10.2 86_64 with FG 9.11 Prerelease
> S76 Helicopter
>> 1. DList stack overflow
>>
(snip)
> NEGATIVE
> Yes, my fingers are aching ... pressed more than 30
* Tatsuhiro Nishioka -- Friday 07 December 2007:
> 1. DList stack overflow
I've seen them on other occasions in fg/plib. Haven't tried with
Shift-Esc, but I think that's a plib problem. Don't think that's
something we can fix before the release. It's definitely not one
of bugs that people usually
Tatsuhiro Nishioka schrieb:
> Hi there,
>
> I want to know if the bugs that I reported before are Mac OS specific
> or not.
> So I want you guys to check if the following bugs occur on your
> platform(s).
>
Hi Tat,
tested this on OpenSUSE 10.2 86_64 with FG 9.11 Prerelease
S76 Helicopter
>
Hi there,
I want to know if the bugs that I reported before are Mac OS specific
or not.
So I want you guys to check if the following bugs occur on your
platform(s).
1. DList stack overflow
When I reset fgfs by pressing Shift-ESC for several times (maybe 10
times), DList stack overflow occur
I can confirm the f16 is pretty much unflyable after a few minutes - a shame
cos its fun for a bit
---
Best Regards
Willie Fleming
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 13:25:52 Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > * Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> > > If the F16 is broken now it
> * Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> > If the F16 is broken now it should not be included.
>
> It shouldn't be hard for someone with some JSBSim insight to
> fix it. When I told Dave about the problem, he suggested to
> replace the elevator FCS part by the one of the 737, and this
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> my js has the centering spring deactivated. [...]
Of course, I expect now someone to point out that most people
don't have their springs removed, so we can ship the f16 as is.
And I can't even disagree ... strongly. :-)
m.
--
On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> > I wonder if it is a platform-specific issue?
>
> Extremely unlikely.
>
> But this could play a role: my js has the centering spring
> deactivated. So, when I have the f16 parked, this is often
> with
* Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> I wonder if it is a platform-specific issue?
Extremely unlikely.
But this could play a role: my js has the centering spring
deactivated. So, when I have the f16 parked, this is often
with elevator and ailerons fully applied in one direction.
This w
* Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> If the F16 is broken now it should not be included.
It shouldn't be hard for someone with some JSBSim insight to
fix it. When I told Dave about the problem, he suggested to
replace the elevator FCS part by the one of the 737, and this
did indeed wo
> >
> About f16-3d I just tried again it, flying with it 15 minutes over the
> Mediterranean sea from LFTH, i did not notice the problems you have.
> I confirm that it is a nice Model to fly, probably easier than the
> real one.
>
> Does it mean that the computer configuration is involved ? the F
On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * gerard robin -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> > On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > You mean, we have to ship FlightGear v1.0 with as many broken aircraft
> > > as working ones, for "balancing reasons"? :-}
> >
> > Broken ???
> > I
> Yes, the selection should be "balanced". A representative of
> every class that the users would be interested in, especially
> well done ones (with 3D cockpit) that don't consume excessive
> disk space, but more importantly: download volume. And they
> should be flyable, too.
>
> I couldn't care
* gerard robin -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > You mean, we have to ship FlightGear v1.0 with as many broken aircraft
> > as working ones, for "balancing reasons"? :-}
> Broken ???
> I don't understand, these aircraft are not broken.
That was ju
On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * gerard robin -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> > Don't we have to take care, and to keep a balance like it was before ?
>
> You mean, we have to ship FlightGear v1.0 with as many broken aircraft
> as working ones, for "balancing reasons"? :-}
>
> m.
* gerard robin -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> Don't we have to take care, and to keep a balance like it was before ?
You mean, we have to ship FlightGear v1.0 with as many broken aircraft
as working ones, for "balancing reasons"? :-}
m.
On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> > I believe recent enhancements and fixes in JSBSim may have
> > fixed the F-16, but I'm not sure.
>
> Well, not in FlightGear's CVS, though it may have improved
> a bit. BTW: I reported that problem a
* Detlef Faber -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2007, 22:46 +0100 schrieb Melchior FRANZ:
> > Hmm ... it's well done and all, but I think it's "too realistic",
> > read: too hard to take off/land due to the very narrow gear.
>
> Well, that's how an aircraft with 1700 hp and
* Jon S. Berndt -- Wednesday 05 December 2007:
> I believe recent enhancements and fixes in JSBSim may have
> fixed the F-16, but I'm not sure.
Well, not in FlightGear's CVS, though it may have improved
a bit. BTW: I reported that problem a least twice to Erik and
once to Dave.
m.
-
Let's see...
Durk Talsma wrote:
> data/Aircraft/c172 \ data/Aircraft/c172p \
Definitely to be kept, as it is probably _the_ basic plane used in
tutorials, also due to it being a pretty well-behaved single piston craft.
> data/Aircraft/c310 \
> data/Aircraft/c310u3a \
Can't remember having tried
Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2007, 22:46 +0100 schrieb Melchior FRANZ:
> * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
>
> > data/Aircraft/737-300 \
>
> Yes, I'd swap that with the 787. A flat panel that disappears
> when you look left/right is hard to bear. (Though I miss a VOR
> display
--- Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Finally, for those of us who have been developing exclusively on OSG for
> windows,
> it would be very useful to have a set of binaries available so we can test our
> aircraft on plib before the data tarball is created, and the 175 aircraft are
> uploaded to the websit
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:59:11 -0600
Robert Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > The Bravo's Primus 1000 system is a bit of a mess right now ... I'd feel
> > better if it wasn't included with the release . Thanks
>
> How about the B1900 ? Any issues. It is know as having one of the best
I'd like to see the 737 stay. Also, I believe recent enhancements and fixes
in JSBSim may have fixed the F-16, but I'm not sure.
Jon
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. Fro
I agree with the pa24-250 or other complex single, whether it replaces
pa24 (which I also like but I agree c172p should stay in) or another.
On Dec 4, 2007 3:15 PM, Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Another question: we always have a limited number of aircra
> Hi,
> The Bravo's Primus 1000 system is a bit of a mess right now ... I'd feel
> better if it wasn't included with the release . Thanks
How about the B1900 ? Any issues. It is know as having one of the best
panels. It would fill the commercial twin prop slot.
On mar 4 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
> > data/Aircraft/737-300 \
>
> Yes, I'd swap that with the 787. A flat panel that disappears
> when you look left/right is hard to bear. (Though I miss a VOR
> display on the 787. Need to sea
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:57:00 +0100
Durk Talsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 November 2007 07:36, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > This is a quick note to everybody: I'm planning to build an "official"
> > FlightGear pre-release tonight. I did a full dress rehearsal last sunday
> > and that all
Hi,
Durk Talsma schrieb am 04.12.2007 21:57:
> FWIW, we currently have the following selection of
> aircraft (Taken from Makefile.am):
>
> data/Aircraft/Generic \
> data/Aircraft/Instruments \
> data/Aircraft/Instruments-3d \
> data/Ai
Stuart wrote:
>
> Sent: 04 December 2007 22:16
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear prerelease
>
>
>
> --- Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Another question: we always have a limited number of
> aircraft that are
>
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 23:27, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> $ du -sh bo105 V22-Osprey A-10 787 an2
> 3.2Mbo105 (actually smaller; I have some devel files there)
> 8.8MV22-Osprey
> 20M A-10
> 20M 787
> 47M an2<-- whoops
>
Oh, yes that's a bit on the heavy s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> --- Durk Talsma wrote:
>> Another question: we always have a limited number of aircraft that are
>> in the
>> distribution, with the rest being available as separate downloads. We
>> like to
>> keep the number of aircraft c
--- Durk Talsma wrote:
> To follow up on this: It seems like the initial testing round went pretty
> well, with mostly minor problems being reported, and many of them being fixed
> already. I'm hoping to roll up the tar files for the release itself this
> weekend.
Is this just the final tarbal
* Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
> What about swapping this with the "Legendary Russian AN2"?
> I discovered that aircraft at FSWeekend, and got instantly
> hooked. It seems fairly complete to me and it would be a nice
> aircraft for the "historical" aircraft section.
Yes, but ...
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 22:46, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
>
> > data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \
>
> Waste of disk space. Everyone tries it once or twice, and never
> again, because it's just *boring*.
>
In general I agree with your suggestions. What about swapping this with
the "L
* dave perry -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
> 2. Removes the redundant "sense" from FGPropellers.cpp.
> Jon, you indicated #2 should be done. how hard is porting #1 from
> JSBSim cvs?
That's already committed.
> 2. de Havilland Beaver - Floats (shows the on-water progress this
> release and
--- Durk Talsma wrote:
> Another question: we always have a limited number of aircraft that are
> in the
> distribution, with the rest being available as separate downloads. We
> like to
> keep the number of aircraft constant, and representative of the many
> types of
> aircraft supported by Fl
Durk Talsma wrote:
> On Thursday 22 November 2007 07:36, Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>> This is a quick note to everybody: I'm planning to build an "official"
>> FlightGear pre-release tonight. I did a full dress rehearsal last sunday
>> and that all seemed to work well, but I still needed Curt's okay
* Melchior FRANZ -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
> > data/Aircraft/c172 \
> > data/Aircraft/c172p \
>
> use pa24 instead?
I take that back. It has tutorials, and is often used as an
example in the manual, with screenshots, etc.
A second helicopter would be nice, but
--- Durk Talsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Thursday 22 November 2007 07:36, Durk Talsma
> wrote:
> > This is a quick note to everybody: I'm planning to
> build an "official"
> > FlightGear pre-release tonight. I did a full dress
> rehearsal last sunday
> > and that all seemed to work well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I would suggest including the lightning instead of f16, lightning is really good
quality and both are fighters.
Regards,
Arvid Norlander
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
>
>> data/Aircraft/737-300
* Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 04 December 2007:
> data/Aircraft/737-300 \
Yes, I'd swap that with the 787. A flat panel that disappears
when you look left/right is hard to bear. (Though I miss a VOR
display on the 787. Need to search for that ...)
> data/Aircraft/A-1
On Thursday 22 November 2007 07:36, Durk Talsma wrote:
> This is a quick note to everybody: I'm planning to build an "official"
> FlightGear pre-release tonight. I did a full dress rehearsal last sunday
> and that all seemed to work well, but I still needed Curt's okay for a few
> remaining issues.
On Thursday 29 November 2007 16:34, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 14:44 schrieb Hans Fugal:
> > Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
> > version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
> > and set it to the lowest valid v
*To:* FlightGear developers discussions
*Subject:* Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11
some testresults
How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone
can just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than
filling my in box with
Anything other than 0.9.11 means both the terrorists and the tunnel vision of
the USAians have triumphed.
And BTW as far as most of Europe is concerned a serious terrorist outrage
occured 11-9-2001 and 9-11 is just a set of numbers.
This is not the place for politics however (which I am happy to
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee
Duke
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:14 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some
testresults
How about 0.x.y where x and y can be variables and
How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone can
just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than filling my
in box with discussions of which number comes after/ z/.
Lee
P.S. The correct answer is /z + 1/.
Richard Bytheway wrote:
It seems to me that we are dis
On Nov 30, 2007 7:11 AM, AnMaster <> wrote:
> As timore said on IRC:
> "If we skip 0.9.11, then the terrorists have won"
Wow, I didn't realize the terrorists had such strong feelings about our next
version number! :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text: 2f58
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote:
>
>> The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
>> make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
>> will contain etc. All we go
> It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are
in danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a
vote? We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the
rest of the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is
worth fighting.
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis
Olson
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:52 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some
testresults
I'm just a little surpised that the ve
On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote:
> The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
> make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
> will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek,
> instead of an "I will make the
* Curtis Olson -- Friday 30 November 2007:
[...]
> So if you have a problem, please state it clearly
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tong
Hi Durk,
looking over my logs, there was quite a bit of traffic downloading the
pre-release version of FG and the base files. Glad I could help. Do you
want to continue with this arrangement or has Curt had a chance to setup
the ftp server for you?
If not I can give you ftp access and perhaps
On Thursday 29 November 2007 23:25, Curtis Olson wrote:
[snip...]
> How about I say it this way ... our version number system has become
> too tedious and ponderous. And are you suggesting that a 10 year old
> mature software product can't be allowed a v1.0 version number? It's
> never going to b
Georg Vollnhals schrieb:
> Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
>
>> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
>>
>>
>>> First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set
>>> the wind with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Then I tried to make it easier from the
>>> startup and switch
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
>
> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
>
>> First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set
>> the wind with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Then I tried to make it easier from the
>> startup and switch the property on with
>> "--prop:sim/render
On Nov 29, 2007 4:13 PM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote:
> No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was
> clear that people consider a sane version number more important
> than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of the incident.
I think your message at least confirms my point that
On Thursday 29 November 2007 21:54:05 Curtis Olson wrote:
> But then most people seem to also follow that up with very strongly held
> opinions about what the version number should be. As we've seen from just
> a few postings in this thread, there is a variety incompatible, yet
> strongly held opi
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> gerard robin schrieb:
> > It is not Autopilot, however it is an help to pilot, it could
> > be in the autopilot item
Yes, maybe.
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine i
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> > Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are
> an arbitrary
> > set of numbers [...]
>
> No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread
> it was
> clear that people consider a sane version
gerard robin schrieb:
> On jeu 29 novembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
>
>> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
>>
>>> Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the
>>> upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or
>>> something like tha
* Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are an arbitrary
> set of numbers [...]
No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was
clear that people consider a sane version number more important
than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 beca
On Nov 29, 2007 2:56 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> I would strongly disagree with that - with every respect for those who
> were
> affected by the events you mention, it's only a set of numbers (not even a
> date, in any recognisable format), and since 0.9.11 comes right after
> 0.9.10,
> it's only logi
On jeu 29 novembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> > Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the
> > upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or
> > something like that?
>
> Better fix the problems that ca
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the
> upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named "gstunnel.nas.off" or
> something like that?
Better fix the problems that can be fixed and put it as regular file. :-)
I made the scri
--- AJ MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
schrieb:
> On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz
> wrote:
> > There are some things I noticed and two
> suggestion:
> > -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear.
> > I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or
> to
> > reset FGF for viewing
I did not use any shadows- still haveing a to weak pc
I remember something heard about that the cause lies
into the collision detect for the ground
Hopefully Tim well be soon ready- can't wait to see
it! :-)
regards
HHS
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Heiko Schulz --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
>> - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting
>> up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli
>> is in the air the stutters disappear [...]
>
> Sounds like th
AnMaster wrote:
> No comments but I think that would be silly, it depends on your date order
> anyway... With the Swedish format for date (dd/mm -) it is the other way
> around... No one would comment on a possible future 0.11.9 I bet...
I pretty much hope we're at 1.x before it comes to that
* Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> - stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting
> up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli
> is in the air the stutters disappear [...]
Sounds like the effect that volumetric shadows have, on any
complex aircraft near ground, not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are some things I noticed and two suggestion:
>
> -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear.
> I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to
> reset FGF for viewing the fps
FPS counter show nice here but
On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz wrote:
> There are some things I noticed and two suggestion:
> -If I check "show fps" - it does not appear.
> I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to
> reset FGF for viewing the fps
Are you sure you're using the exact --geometry setting
Hi,
There are some things I noticed and two suggestion:
-If I check "show fps" - it does not appear.
I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to
reset FGF for viewing the fps
- stepping clouds at certain weather
-3D-clouds crashing - I hope we will get the sugested
solution
- stutters
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
> * Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
>
>> That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it
>> has some problems:
>>
>
> Oh, and it doesn't respect the true glide slope angle. It always
> uses 3 degree, although some have 3.5. (But then aga
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it
> has some problems:
Oh, and it doesn't respect the true glide slope angle. It always
uses 3 degree, although some have 3.5. (But then again, I'm not
sure if fgfs makes a difference, s
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
> 3. Winter textures (partially) broken (same for OSG version)
That was IIRC caused by Erik's texture cache, which saved several
megabytes formerly wasted texture memory, which is an important
improvement. He knows about the breakage of his season fe
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 14:44 schrieb Hans Fugal:
> Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
> version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
> and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a
> simple fix, and that there's
Hans Fugal schrieb:
>>
>
> Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
> version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
> and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a
> simple fix, and that there's really no excuse not to do i
On Nov 29, 2007 4:35 AM, Anders Gidenstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>
> > 4. 3D clouds crash
> > Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after
> > closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not
> > run.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
[...]
> 2. Triangle distorted sky also with Anthrax GUI
> Although using the Anthrax-GUI, the sky gets "triangulated" when using a
> submenu with (orange???) input-fields. This "triangle" distortion
> disappears immediatly afte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>
>> 4. 3D clouds crash
>> Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after
>> closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not
>> run.
>
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> 4. 3D clouds crash
> Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after
> closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not
> run.
> Do I remember right that this is an older problem and depending on the
> video-d
2007/11/27, Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So it's only missing #include which should
> > be in the code. See the attachments.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > #include
> > +#include
> > +#include
>
> Surely that should be , no? It's just a style thing, but if
> you're modifying code that is already
> So it's only missing #include which should
> be in the code. See the attachments.
>
> [...]
>
> #include
> +#include
> +#include
Surely that should be , no? It's just a style thing, but if
you're modifying code that is already using ANSI C headers, and not
Standard C++ headers, you should s
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:22, Ladislav Michnovič wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have yet another two patches to get FlightGear and Simgear
> compiling with new gcc 4.3, which is stricter about missing
> declarations of functions. So it's only missing #include which should
> be in the code. See the attach
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
