* Syd -- Friday 02 May 2008:
I see some commited from Melchior that suggest he might be working
on a solution, just not sure what that is yet :)
Sorry, no. I'm not working on anything like that. Just fixed the
missing-unit-suffix bug. (Though the distance should really be
in meters internally,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Curtis Olson wrote:
| On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Benoît Laniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| First, let me thank you all for the great work you've done with FG.
|
| I started cross-compiling FG using the great
The simplest solution would be to allow defining an offset that's
by default 0, and let fgfs add that to the reference point for
positioning.
m.
Since the existing preset/offset seems not to be designed for that, I
strongly suggest to follow syds proposal to change the value to -30 as
it
I wouldn't want a helicopter placed
30 m away from the edge of a helipad.
Ah, I forgot about the helipads, how could I ;)
What's wrong with using a property that defaults to 5, and that
aircraft developers can set to whatever they feel like?
I guess nothing, that sounds good to
Markus Zojer wrote:
I wouldn't want a helicopter placed
30 m away from the edge of a helipad.
Ah, I forgot about the helipads, how could I ;)
What's wrong with using a property that defaults to 5, and that
aircraft developers can set to whatever they feel like?
I
On Friday 02 May 2008 08:50, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Syd -- Friday 02 May 2008:
I see some commited from Melchior that suggest he might be
working on a solution, just not sure what that is yet :)
Sorry, no. I'm not working on anything like that. Just fixed the
missing-unit-suffix bug.
On Friday 02 May 2008 13:07, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Durk Talsma -- Friday 02 May 2008:
Melchior is suggesting I should have used a different method for
parsing the traffic files. :-)
I'm stating that, not just suggesting. :-P
The refusal to use the standard ways is IMHO bad for
* LeeE -- Friday 02 May 2008:
I am curious about why using the tail location as the visual
reference point is abusing the FDM's internal reference
system but using the nose is not.
That's a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that one place is OK,
and another is an abuse. What I meant to say is
* Durk Talsma -- Friday 02 May 2008:
You make it seem as if I deliberately refused to comply with a
standard. However, that has never been an issue, because the
groundnet parser predates most of the more advanced UFO based
editing facilities.
No, I didn't make it seem like you intentionally
Just testing the
airport
runways
start-offset-m10/start-offset-m
/runways
/airport
works great thanks m :)
Syd
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
10 matches
Mail list logo
