Hello,
after reading this thread I also want to drop some words:
First I thaught dogfight would be nice. Ok, there will ever be cheaters
and people who cannot differentiate between simple "fun" playing and the
real world. But I think this is not the problem of FlightGear.
In _my_ opinion (neverth
There is a way which satisfied everybody : make an official "add-on" with full
weapons capabilities (not me, i'm not please to have this in default code,
just because my children play with it). People who doesn't like weapons,
doesn't install the add-on.
Le Friday 11 May 2007 07:51:51 Ampere K
On Thursday 10 May 2007 10:58, James Palmer wrote:
> Suggested Solution #1 - DFMP is server driven and server coordinated:
> The dogfighting MP (DFMP) should be server driven (thanks to Lethe for the
> insight into this direction) and server coordinated. Clients should send
> user input informatio
On Thursday 10 May 2007 18:52, Curtis Olson wrote:
> There are some people involved in the FG project that do not enthusiasticly
> embrace weapons and are not excited about combat functionality.
>
> I think the goal here should be to tread cautiously, respect people's views
> and opinions on the ma
On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:40:44 +0200
Maik Justus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Vivian Meazza schrieb am 11.05.2007 00:18:
> > That is illogical - if the next release is soonish, it is likely that osg
> > will still not be fixed. So plib improvements are contingent on osg
> > improvements.
> >
On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:22:32 + (UTC)
Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bill Galbraith" wrote:
>
> > Wasn't FlightGear designed with the idea of NOT doing dogfighting?
>
> Well, I just tried to express my concerns very politely :-)
>
> Martin.
> --
> Unix _IS_ user friendly
On 5/10/07, Maik Justus wrote:
what's about using separate server(s) (not connected to the "classical"
servers) for the dogfight mode? If you log on a "classical" server, you
would have no dogfight capability.
Yes, combat, if it is pursued, should be done in a way so that at least the
multipl
Hi,
Vivian Meazza schrieb am 11.05.2007 00:18:
> That is illogical - if the next release is soonish, it is likely that osg
> will still not be fixed. So plib improvements are contingent on osg
> improvements.
>
> Oh, and the improved radar can be applied to osg, it's just disabled, as is
> the cur
"Bill Galbraith" wrote:
> Wasn't FlightGear designed with the idea of NOT doing dogfighting?
Well, I just tried to express my concerns very politely :-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
---
Martin Spott
>
>
> Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> > Martin Spott wrote:
> > >"Vivian Meazza" wrote:
>
> > >>I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very
> reluctant
> > >>to include it because it is plib only.
>
> > >Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one,
>
> > The next fg ve
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Martin Spott
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:04 PM
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
>
> James,
>
> "James Palmer" wrote:
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
> >"Vivian Meazza" wrote:
> >>I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to
> >>include it because it is plib only.
> >Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one,
> The next fg version is a version based on plib and will be
James,
"James Palmer" wrote:
> Dogfight On/Off Option: (Thanks to Vivian)
> -I will include an option for turning off dogfighting and still allowing
> multi player. As someone pointed out we don't want some kid shooting down
> everyone over San Fransisco while everyone else is doing serious fly
Martin Spott wrote:
>"Vivian Meazza" wrote:
>
>
>
>>I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to
>>include it because it is plib only.
>>
>>
>
>Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one,
> Martin.
>
>
The next fg version is a version based on plib and w
Martin
>
>
> "Vivian Meazza" wrote:
>
> > I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very
> reluctant to
> > include it because it is plib only.
>
> Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one,
> Martin.
Well, there you go then, you won't get it in the next release. And I
Hi,
what's about using separate server(s) (not connected to the "classical"
servers) for the dogfight mode? If you log on a "classical" server, you
would have no dogfight capability.
Maik
James Palmer schrieb am 10.05.2007 16:58:
I have a better idea on what is involved now for adding dogfi
"Vivian Meazza" wrote:
> I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to
> include it because it is plib only.
Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
>>The other thing I didn't notice mention of is the superb improvement in
>>ground
>>type representation in YASim which finally gives us water (with
>>waves/swell)
>>for seaplane operations and of course correct behaviour on other
>>surfaces for
>>other types of aircraft.
>>
>>
>
>I'm sure
Hi,
Endlich: new (and simpler) nasal script for the A-10 canopy. Thanks M.
The diff file, A-10-20070410b.diff is attached.
Alexis
Index: Nasal/canopy.nas
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/A-10/Nasal/canopy.nas,v
Nick Warne wrote
>
>
> On Thursday 10 May 2007 00:23:01 gh.robin wrote:
> > On Mon 7 May 2007 17:05, Nick Warne wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > There seems to be an issue, reported by a few in IRC.
> > >
> > > Latest build from SVN/CVS makes FG unusable. Frame rates
> are (for
> > > me) at l
Martin
>
> "gh.robin" wrote:
>
> > Their is a radar improvement, which has been developed recently by
> > Vivian.
> [...]
> > That update has not been released into CVS.
>
> Any pointer ? Why don't you simply post a follow-up to his
> announcement, so people don't have to start searching,
On Thursday 10 May 2007 00:23:01 gh.robin wrote:
> On Mon 7 May 2007 17:05, Nick Warne wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There seems to be an issue, reported by a few in IRC.
> >
> > Latest build from SVN/CVS makes FG unusable. Frame rates are (for me) at
> > least 60% worse.
> >
> > E.g. pc7 at FHAW - b
"gh.robin" wrote:
> Their is a radar improvement, which has been developed recently by Vivian.
[...]
> That update has not been released into CVS.
Any pointer ? Why don't you simply post a follow-up to his
announcement, so people don't have to start searching,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ u
Hi,
Clean some more 3D models, remove *almost all remaining*
unnecessary transparency on RGB files.
(Still more A-10 patches to follow).
The modified files are here:
http://croo.murgl.org/fgfs/A-10/A-10-modified-files-20070510.tgz
Thanks,
Alexis
I recall reading a document some time ago about re-structuring FG into a
more robust client / server architecture:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/images/1/1e/New_FG_architecture.p
df
You might want to give that a read. it's fairly similar to your "Suggested
Solution #1" I think. Th
Hello everybody,
Their is a radar improvement, which has been developed recently by Vivian.
That improvement is working perfectly.
Many thanks to Vivian.
That update has not been released into CVS.
Is their any reason ?
Regards
--
Gérard
--
Simulador wrote:
>Hi Stewart,
>
>I am sorry for the delay, I posted this email 2 weeks ago and I thought
>I had answered you.
>
>I am working on a Full Flight Simulator that was manufactured in 1976,
>it is a Boeing 707-341.
>
>The HOST computer was a R2000, it was a 24 bit machine with 64 K wor
On 5/10/07, gh.robin wrote:
Which FG do you intend to implement,
FG with OSG libraries or FG with Plib libraries only ?
You know some of us are getting trouble with the OSG version.
Right, the OSG branch still has some issues so any release done in the near
term will have to be based on pli
Martin Spott a e'crit :
> alexis bory wrote:
>
> > Update for the A-10: New splash screen image.
>
> Done. While you're at it and if you have some spare cycles, you could
> have a closer look at the model itself. I see several messages of
> this type (FlightGear/OSG):
>
> osgDB ac3d reader: de
I have a better idea on what is involved now for adding dogfighting to FG.
Thanks to all who have given me input,.. Keep it coming.
After talking with alot of you, here are the additional and more finely
tuned ideas that I have.
Dogfight On/Off Option: (Thanks to Vivian)
-I will include an opti
alexis bory wrote:
> Update for the A-10: New splash screen image.
Done. While you're at it and if you have some spare cycles, you could
have a closer look at the model itself. I see several messages of this
type (FlightGear/OSG):
osgDB ac3d reader: detected surface with less than 3 vertices!
Hello Curt,
Only one question:
Which FG do you intend to implement,
FG with OSG libraries or FG with Plib libraries only ?
You know some of us are getting trouble with the OSG version.
Regards
--
Gérard
-
This SF.n
Hi,
Update for the A-10: New splash screen image.
Available at:
http://croo.murgl.org/fgfs/A-10/A-10-splash.rgb
Thanks for commiting,
Alexis
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FR
--- AJ MacLeod wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> I think the gliding bit could be made clearer - no point in being shy
> about
> our new features ;-)
>
> > Improved gliding, with towing (both on the ground and by MP aircraft)
>
> I think I would say
>
> with winch launching and aerotowing (by either A
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> Maybe the changelog should be on the wiki for fixes/extensions?
An excellent use of the wiki - done. I've merged the data and simgear logs
together here along with the feedback I've seen so far:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=Changes_since_0
Hi Stuart,
I think the gliding bit could be made clearer - no point in being shy about
our new features ;-)
> Improved gliding, with towing (both on the ground and by MP aircraft)
I think I would say
with winch launching and aerotowing (by either AI or MP pilots).
The other thing I didn't no
James Palmer wrote:
> I am seriously interested in adding dogfighting capability to FG.
>
> I've been reading through the source for the past couple of days. (I've
only just stumbled > upon FG.)
>
> As I see it, the following changes would need to be implemented to have a
rudimentary dogfight.
37 matches
Mail list logo
