Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear on Softpedia
How do you want to do interactive placement without interaction? ;-)I think there's no way other than gimp, if the placement of the watermark must be adjusted for every single image...ThomasThere is PHP library GD which is used to to all kind of stuff with images.If is someone interested to do such a script in PHP for FG site there is a tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/watermark-images-php.If no one will do it. I'l try it, but it depends on my verry limited free time. IS ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Weekly CVS Changelog Summary: FlightGear data
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2006-06-04_15:47:21 (curt) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/CanberraBI8/thumbnail.jpg Add a pict for the web site. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2006-06-04_18:00:51 (mfranz) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Attic/OV10.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Attic/OV10_USAFE-set.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Attic/submodels.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Attic/thumbnail.jpg /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Engines/Attic/T76.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Engines/Attic/direct.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/OV10.xml Dave CULP, Jean PIERRU, Ron JENSEN: merged into OV10/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2006-06-04_18:00:52 (mfranz) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/OV10_NATO.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_0.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_1.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_2.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_3.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_4.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_5.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_6.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/ov10_8.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/panel-hotspots.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Attic/transparent.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AI/Attic/AI.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AI/Attic/AI.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AI/Attic/ai_face.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AI/Attic/ball.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AS/Attic/AS.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AS/Attic/airspeed.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/AS/Attic/airspeed.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Alt/Attic/Altimeter.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Alt/Attic/altimeter.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Alt/Attic/altimeter.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/EGT/Attic/EGT.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/EGT/Attic/EGT_1.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/EGT/Attic/EGT_2.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/EGT/Attic/egt.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Flaps/Attic/flaps.ac Dave CULP, Jean PIERRU, Ron JENSEN: merged into OV10/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2006-06-04_18:00:53 (mfranz) /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Flaps/Attic/flaps.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Flaps/Attic/flaps.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Fuel/Attic/fuel.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Fuel/Attic/fuel.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Fuel/Attic/fuel.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/GMeter/Attic/gmeter.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/GMeter/Attic/gmeter.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/GMeter/Attic/gmeter.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Gunsight/Attic/gunsight.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Gunsight/Attic/gunsight.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Gunsight/Attic/piper.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Gunsight/Attic/power.rgb /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Gunsight/Attic/switch.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/Gunsight/Attic/switch.xml /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/IVSI/Attic/IVSI.ac /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/OV10_USAFE/Models/USAFE/Instruments/IVSI/Attic/IVSI.xml
Re: [Flightgear-devel] collision avoidance
Hi, On Sunday 11 June 2006 06:53, Mick - wrote: I've managed to get Mathias' suggestion of using get_elevation_m but with strange AGL values. I used calc_gc_lon_lat from simgear/math/polar3d.hxx for getting the latitude/longitude from x-meters away, then feeding the resulting lat/lon values into get_elevation_m, but it seems this might not be correct (result is not wgs84?). When flying over the ocean, I get an varying AGL value of 10-20ft. With this said, could you suggest an alternative? I have tried that out. That what you describe works here. The ocean surface is not exactly at 0m elevation. It varies between 0m elevation and about -1m. That is normal since the vertices are at exactly 0m, the triangle surfaces must be beond that somewhere in the middle. May be our maximum altitude value bites you. You may need to set that to something similar than the aircrafts altitude. The problem is that the down direction for the lookup is not perpandicular to the geodetic earths surface but directed towards the earths center ... Additionally, could you please suggest how I could use the bounding box method? Well, that depends on what you need. Hierarchical bounding boxes is something different than I suggest. It helps for a different problem. If you need that, I have not understood what you need. Collision avoidance can be meant with not hitting the ground. I expect that you need that. Collisions can also happen with other aircraft/whatever in 3D. If this is what you need than, the elevation value is not aprioriate for you. For that problem it is best to use hierarchical bounding boxes. The scenegraph already has some (poor) hierarchical bounding box structure in it. If you need that it might be a good starting point to reuse that. If you have further problems, feel free to ask. Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Impact of texturing objects on performance?
On Friday 09 June 2006 21:50, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..Roberto _ is_ stretching understatement as concept, last years AirVenture put over 10 000 planes on KOSH. My initial idea was paint parked planes with copies of one texture. Textures is what we see out the window in FG and it works on my old junk. ..you're saying using 20 different a few hundred times each is gonna work better than textures??? Bring it on! 8o) Textures would work if all those planes are of one type and have the same livery, which is an unrealistic scenario. A more realistic scene that a user would see (hopefully) in FG is a dozen different types of planes belonging to a dozen different airlines. Using textures for details would require huge textures per aircraft-type per airline, and would result in performance cost going through the roof; and that's excluding the textures that would be already presented in the airports. Performance would still degrade if all those aircraft and buildings have high geometric details, but geometries wouldn't eat up memory as quick as textures would. Beside, one could always turn off a portion of the geometries when they aren't needed. Anyway, I think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. FlightGear starts to struggle/struggles with merely 10 aircraft on the scene. I don't think users would be able to see 100 planes in the same scene anytime soon. :P Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tower patch
2006/6/10, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * Olaf Flebbe -- Monday 29 May 2006 23:14: latest workarounds in tower are not quite correct. Please apply. And what about the new ones ...? #1 0x080c4ada in FGTower::CheckCircuitList (this=0xed37920, dt=0.30004) at src/ATC/tower.cxx:905 Is tower.cxx:905 in your source code this line? t-landingType = t-planePtr-GetLandingOption(); That's crazy, since the line before is t-pos = t-planePtr-GetPos(); I am asking myself what can crash in line 905 since t-planePtr is dereferenced in 904, too. landingType is a simple enum and GetLandingOption is not too complicated. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tower patch
* Olaf Flebbe -- Sunday 11 June 2006 21:03: Is tower.cxx:905 in your source code this line? t-landingType = t-planePtr-GetLandingOption(); Yes. And there was no commit since this crash happened, so the line can't have moved. Sorry, I didn't investigate, because I have ATC always turned off because of the flakiness, and I just returned to that mode. I thought Dave would soon come up with a fixed/rewritten version, anyway. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tower patch
On Sunday 11 June 2006 21:09, Melchior FRANZ wrote: Yes. And there was no commit since this crash happened, so the line can't have moved. Sorry, I didn't investigate, because I have ATC always turned off because of the flakiness, and I just returned to that mode. I thought Dave would soon come up with a fixed/rewritten version, anyway. :-) True? Is he working on that? Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tower patch
* Mathias Fröhlich -- Sunday 11 June 2006 21:31: On Sunday 11 June 2006 21:09, Melchior FRANZ wrote: I thought Dave would soon come up with a fixed/rewritten version, anyway. :-) True? Is he working on that? He said so. We just need to release 1.0 next week, and ... :-) * David Luff -- Thursday 20 April 2006 00:04: | But tower.cxx is the only thing I'm working on at the moment - I want | it fixed and stable before 1.0 as much as you guys, because otherwise in | retropect there wouldn't have been much point in writing it to start with. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tower patch
On Sunday 11 June 2006 21:36, Melchior FRANZ wrote: He said so. We just need to release 1.0 next week, and ... :-) * David Luff -- Thursday 20 April 2006 00:04: | But tower.cxx is the only thing I'm working on at the moment - I want | it fixed and stable before 1.0 as much as you guys, because otherwise in | retropect there wouldn't have been much point in writing it to start | with. Ah, ok. Thanks ... Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] UAV Heli and Matlab
Hello,After lots of exams, and almost infinite tasks at university, and before some more to come, I'd like to ask for a few things I'd like to do in the quiet sunny summer days.I'd like to mix FlightGear with Matlab through the aerospace toolbox. Weeks ago I asked for the 0.9.8a versions, which was kindly linked so I could download, but I could work on it, and I have some questions.So, Question #1: To practice with the helicopter, what key do I have to press to activate the engine? I've tried anything I found on the help without success. Question #2: How can I setup the joystick? I'd like to exchange some of the axis function.Question #3: Does anybody have a 3D model for a R/C-like helicopter? Something like a 1 meter thing. Question #4: Has anybody tried the Matlab-FlightGear connection without perishing on the try? If so, is there any documentation? Your 'question #1' might be: Is that fool a newbee?My answer: absolutely.Thanks for your help. Any advice will be gratefully accepted.David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] UAV Heli and Matlab
Hi Hello, After lots of exams, and almost infinite tasks at university, and before some more to come, I'd like to ask for a few things I'd like to do in the quiet sunny summer days. I'd like to mix FlightGear with Matlab through the aerospace toolbox. Weeks ago I asked for the 0.9.8a versions, which was kindly linked so I could download, but I could work on it, and I have some questions. So, Question #1: To practice with the helicopter, what key do I have to press to activate the engine? I've tried anything I found on the help without success. What helicopter are you using? my experience with a helicopter (Bo105 Rule #1 Turn autocoordination OFF Rule #2 see rule #1 ;-) Rule #3 The throttle works reverse to fixed wing aircraft. Rule #4 Using the keyboard rudder (tail rotor) control is almost impossible. Rule #5 Until you can hover indefinitely over the same point on the ground and and climb and descend without moving from that point, don't try anything fancier...ie practice hovering. Rule #6 When you can hover, practice pulling up from level flight to a stationary hover. Rule #7 When you can hover and pull up to a hover with 100% success try other things. Question #2: How can I setup the joystick? I'd like to exchange some of the axis function. See above rules .. they may help Question #3: Does anybody have a 3D model for a R/C-like helicopter? Something like a 1 meter thing. Question #4: Has anybody tried the Matlab-FlightGear connection without perishing on the try? If so, is there any documentation? Your 'question #1' might be: Is that fool a newbee? My answer: absolutely. Thanks for your help. Any advice will be gratefully accepted. David :-D ene ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel _ Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals http://xtramsn.match.com/match/mt.cfm?pg=channeltcid=200731 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] UAV Heli and Matlab
Correu PelDavid wrote: Hello, After lots of exams, and almost infinite tasks at university, and before some more to come, I'd like to ask for a few things I'd like to do in the quiet sunny summer days. I'd like to mix FlightGear with Matlab through the aerospace toolbox. Weeks ago I asked for the 0.9.8a versions, which was kindly linked so I could download, but I could work on it, and I have some questions. So, Question #1: To practice with the helicopter, what key do I have to press to activate the engine? I've tried anything I found on the help without success. Question #2: How can I setup the joystick? I'd like to exchange some of the axis function. Question #3: Does anybody have a 3D model for a R/C-like helicopter? Something like a 1 meter thing. Question #4: Has anybody tried the Matlab-FlightGear connection without perishing on the try? If so, is there any documentation? Your 'question #1' might be: Is that fool a newbee? My answer: absolutely. Thanks for your help. Any advice will be gratefully accepted. David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel The helicopter simulation that YASim does is very primitive. Really the only working model is of the bo105, and is suffers from the lack of fidelity in the FDM. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat changes ?
On Saturday 10 June 2006 13:15, Tony Pelton wrote: heck, even taking the records, and stuffing those records, as they are now, into XML would be a start. Already in XML format... http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/export_cyyz.svg http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/export_eddf.svg http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/export_eddh.svg http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/export_etou.svg http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/export_ksfo.svg Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] New JSBSim document posted
I have posted an initial (but still useful) article I am writing on the process of creating a JSBSim aircraft model. You can read it here: http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/CreatingJSBSimAircraft.pdf If you have any comments on what is unclear, or where more detail needs to be added, please let me know. This is an ongoing process, and obviously more still needs to be done. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] collision avoidance
Before continuing, I thought I'd verify a few points with those in the know. Through observation, I found that my calculated agl value (as discussed in my previous post) was close to that of /position/ground-elev-ft when using the current lat/lon values instead of those from Point3D calc_gc_lon_lat( const Point3D orig, double course, double dist ). I did this in an attempt to compare against the /position/ground-elev-ft value. The resulting value was close but not the same. Having converted between feet and meters, and degrees and radians for the purpose of the calculations, would this have resulted in the slight difference in value? With my limited avionics knowledge, I assumed that: (altitude-ft - ground-elev-ft) = altitude-agl-ft. Again, this is something I want to verify instead of assuming. So is it (somewhat) correct to assume that subtracting the current altitude from my calculated agl would give me the the altitude-agl-ft? thanks, Michael. From: Mathias Fröhlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] collision avoidance Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:21:23 +0200 Hi, On Sunday 11 June 2006 06:53, Mick - wrote: I've managed to get Mathias' suggestion of using get_elevation_m but with strange AGL values. I used calc_gc_lon_lat from simgear/math/polar3d.hxx for getting the latitude/longitude from x-meters away, then feeding the resulting lat/lon values into get_elevation_m, but it seems this might not be correct (result is not wgs84?). When flying over the ocean, I get an varying AGL value of 10-20ft. With this said, could you suggest an alternative? I have tried that out. That what you describe works here. The ocean surface is not exactly at 0m elevation. It varies between 0m elevation and about -1m. That is normal since the vertices are at exactly 0m, the triangle surfaces must be beond that somewhere in the middle. May be our maximum altitude value bites you. You may need to set that to something similar than the aircrafts altitude. The problem is that the down direction for the lookup is not perpandicular to the geodetic earths surface but directed towards the earths center ... Additionally, could you please suggest how I could use the bounding box method? Well, that depends on what you need. Hierarchical bounding boxes is something different than I suggest. It helps for a different problem. If you need that, I have not understood what you need. Collision avoidance can be meant with not hitting the ground. I expect that you need that. Collisions can also happen with other aircraft/whatever in 3D. If this is what you need than, the elevation value is not aprioriate for you. For that problem it is best to use hierarchical bounding boxes. The scenegraph already has some (poor) hierarchical bounding box structure in it. If you need that it might be a good starting point to reuse that. If you have further problems, feel free to ask. Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
