On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 14 Dec 2012, at 17:27, James Turner wrote:
>
>> As I said to Adrian offline, I know there's plenty of code already checked
>> in, of a similar quality / design / pattern to his submission, but I'd like
>> to set a higher standard for new code than
On 14 Dec 2012, at 17:27, James Turner wrote:
> As I said to Adrian offline, I know there's plenty of code already checked
> in, of a similar quality / design / pattern to his submission, but I'd like
> to set a higher standard for new code than what we had previously.
And it case it wasn't cl
On 14 Dec 2012, at 16:09, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> As I do not have the time to proof you wrong, you deserve the chance to
> proof me wrong! I'll shut up now and stop objecting against merging your
> code. I won't be able to merge it myself before we enter the feature
> freeze but probably some
On Friday, December 14, 2012 18:09:04 Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> you are doing an excellent job at marketing your product ;-)
>
> As I do not have the time to proof you wrong, you deserve the chance to
> proof me wrong! I'll shut up now and stop objecting against merging your
> code.
Am 13.12.2012 16:28, schrieb geneb:
> Um, no he's not. He just happens to be a contributor like the rest of us.
> :) There is no herder for the Free Range Cats that make up the FlightGear
> project. :)
How disappointing ;-)
>
> Frankly, I think your addition to FlightGear is fantastic and a neede
Hi Adrian,
you are doing an excellent job at marketing your product ;-)
As I do not have the time to proof you wrong, you deserve the chance to
proof me wrong! I'll shut up now and stop objecting against merging your
code. I won't be able to merge it myself before we enter the feature
freeze b
On Friday, December 14, 2012 13:09:54 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> I haven't looked at your code, and I'm sure you've already taken care
> of this, but:
>
> The use of the SG_NODEMASK_TERRAIN_BIT by the random trees and buildings
> is probably due to my ignorance when writing the code,
Hi Adrian,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Adrian Musceac wrote:
> As most of you know, the main performance issues come from having to
> repeatedly sample terrain elevation for a large number of points.
> This is done though and osg::NodeVisitor, which traverses all nodes within the
> scenegrap
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44:00 Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi
> - Performance
> The most important limiting factor for radio propagation on VHF and up
> is question "line of sight" or "obscured by terrain".
Hi again Torsten,
Apologising for keeping this subject up, but I rather enjoy technic
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:29:49 +0200, Adrian wrote in message
<201212131629.50248.kanto...@gmail.com>:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 15:04:16 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> >
> > Somewhat related to the above - *if* the radio propagation model
> > could be shown to be more realistic - what framerate
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:03:45 -, Vivian wrote in message
<001201cdd8bc$f5eb6b30$e1c24190$@lineone.net>:
> Don't we need radar altitude for buildings etc. for radar
> altimeters, but probably not trees?
..at some stage, tree canopies will be dense enough to mask
the ground, or give "double r
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Adrian Musceac wrote:
>
>>
>> Please forgive my my clear words - it's not my intention to offend anybody.
>
> No offence taken. I understand your pain/gain argument and we agree to
> disagree on that. The pain is now taken care of, the gain is present.
> You are one of the p
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 15:04:16 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> Somewhat related to the above - *if* the radio propagation model could be
> shown to be more realistic - what framerate loss would this be worth as
> compared to a faster, less realistic model? And does this question matter
> at all
> In some cases, the used algorithm is plain wrong as we
> know by definition (ICAO rules) the propagation of the radio signal.
Um... I would like to understand this statement. The algorithm has a physics
model in. I am no expert in radio propagation, but after doing a bit of
reading, by usual F
Hi Torsten,
Regardless of the fact that you support or not the inclusion of this new radio
code, I have to clear up some statements which are wrong. See below.
> I spent an hour or two reviewing your code and I still think your
> implementation should not be merged into the code base. Let me e
Hi
replying to multiple posts here, I'll try to collect and answer to some
arguments.
First: I totally agree that our current nav/comm radio implementation is
far from being realistic w.r.t. propagation of the radio signal close to
or on the ground. This should be improved.
I spent an hour or
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 01:03:45 Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Don't we need radar altitude for buildings etc. for radar altimeters, but
> probably not trees?
>
> A radar altimeter needs to sample both the terrain and "hard" objects on
> it.
>
> However, I watch this work with interest: I think
Adrian wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: Musceac [mailto:kanto...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 12 December 2012 22:12
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Real-Time Radio Propagation
>
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 09:16:50 Renk Thor
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 09:16:50 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> >> My suggestion is to include this feature, leave it off, and let anyone
> >> interested turn it on.
>
> +1
>
> There may be many reasons to reject code, but they roughly fall into two
> categories: 1) the idea itself which is coded
>> My suggestion is to include this feature, leave it off, and let anyone
>> interested turn it on.
+1
There may be many reasons to reject code, but they roughly fall into two
categories: 1) the idea itself which is coded is not acceptable or 2) the
actual implementation is not acceptable (unst
I'm not a developer here, I just maintain one of the mirror sites.
I would like to comment here a bit.
Over the years I've seen several folks who contributed lots to the
project leave after disputes over one thing or another.
I'd hate to see this lead to something like that!
I personally agre
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:20:58 +0200
Adrian Musceac wrote:
> My suggestion is to include this feature, leave it off, and let anyone
> interested turn it on.
I can't comment on the actual code, but from the repeated detailed descriptions
of what it actually does, I think it would be a very great p
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 00:40:16 Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> let me chime in here with a personal note, hoping it's not offending
> anybody.
Hi Torsten, and thanks for your detailed message. Let me explain below why
realistic radio propagation should be inside Flightgear, and aleviate
Hi,
let me chime in here with a personal note, hoping it's not offending
anybody.
Although I like having accurate and detailed computation of our
real-world simulation, I'm not really a friend of the radio propagation
code with the level of detail given. Please let me explain why that is
the
24 matches
Mail list logo
