Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Didier Fabert
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. Hardraade, vous avez écrit :
 I am one of those who are not enthusiastic about adding weapons to
 FlightGear. However, if combat capability is added, I think we would need
 to limit its scope.

 In my opinion, putting cannons on to planes is acceptable, but dropping
 bombs on ground is pushing it.  As to missiles and other smart weapons, I
 think they should be banned out right.

 Also, with cannons, a player must get into certain range to another for the
 weapons to be useful.  So, the planes of the naughty ones can be rigged
 to explode if they are on an intercept course and are too close to an unarm
 aircraft.



 Ampere


-- 
Didier Fabert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
KFreeFlight project : A FlightGear GUI-Frontend designed for KDE users
http://kfreeflight.sourceforge.net

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Holger Wirtz
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 (nevertheless if I am a pacifist or not) there are
some more important things an the todo-list than dogfight (e.g. the
wall-of-weather-problem). So why not take the available coding
resources for doing things that will be help to gain the realism of the
project in a peaceful way? If I really want playing dogfights I can use
one of the current available simulators...

Regards, Holger

-- 
#   ##  ##   Holger Wirtz Phone : (+49 30) 884299-40
##  ## ##   ### ##   DFN-Verein   Fax   : (+49 30) 884299-70
##  ##  ##   Stresemannstr. 78E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
##  ## ##   ## ###   10963 Berlin
#  ##   ##  ##   GERMANY  WWW   : http://www.dfn.de
GPG-Fingerprint: ABFA 1F51 DD8D 503C 85DC  0C51 E961 79E2 6685 9BCF

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Vivian Meazza
Holger Wirtz wrote

 
 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 (nevertheless if I am a pacifist or not) 
 there are some more important things an the todo-list than 
 dogfight (e.g. the wall-of-weather-problem). So why not 
 take the available coding resources for doing things that 
 will be help to gain the realism of the project in a peaceful 
 way? If I really want playing dogfights I can use one of the 
 current available simulators...
 

Just a few more points:

As Curt said there are benefits in honing piloting skills if a dogfighting
capability were available, but it could be argued that shooting people down
is not necessary to achieve this.

I would be amazed and pleased if the problem of network latency could be
overcome to allow realistic dogfighting with guns, as opposed to combat
simulation with missiles. There could be benefits to the mainstream MP
facility if this were achieved. 

We should remember that realism is the watchword of FGFS (hey - we haven't
said that for a while - bears repeating). We should guard against adding a
facility which is compromises this.

This is an Open Source project, and if someone wants to put in the effort,
then good. As I said at the start of this thread it must be selectable,
preferable at runtime, and when deselected must have no impact on frame
rates c.f. 3D clouds etc. 

I don't think cheating is much of an issue - don't forget that MP uses
_your_ version of the ac. So the addition of a couple of parameters to the
version _you_ hold should preclude the Mach 2 Camel. It's already the case
that you can't fire more rounds than are available locally (unfortunately,
right now, all instances of an ac expend rounds at the same rate).

Vivian 


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Detlef Faber
Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 23:55 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus:
 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

I'd agree to seperate the combat ready flying from the peaceful
flying. There is no reason why both environments should see each other
at all. 
Nevertheless it should be a matter of choice which environment one
wishes to use. This way nobody can get offended (If I fly in combat mode
I have to be aware someone else could shoot at me).

Adressing the concerns about combat flying, I agree to Curt, that
FlightGear is an Open Source Project. This means anybody is free to work
on whatever topic he/she wishes.
 
Of course this doesn't mean to ignore the valid concerns of the other
participants. I think it is very important that those who do not wish to
use combat functionality can use the Multiplayer feature in the known
way.

Flightgear aims to be realistic, so anyone who likes to play games will
notice, that in Reality combat flying is not as easy as those
commercially available sims pretend. 
Just intercepting an AI Aircraft on a known course is not easy. Most
dubious clientele will get offended by this.

However my Interest in combat flight is a rather technical/historical
interest. My aircraft are most WW2 aircraft, and I've learned a lot by
creating them, digging through books and other historic documents.

For a pilot interested in aircraft of that aera the combat mode is
simply a part of the aircraft history, and should be possible to
explore. That doesn't mean Flightgear will become a shoot em up game.

...off to work,

Greetings

Detlef


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] [BUG] FGplib - Animations - Scale

2007-05-11 Thread Vivian Meazza
The scale animation appears to have a bug when applied to submodels. The
scaling is applied to a group of submodels, then when the first of the
group's life expires, the scale animation is reset and applied to the next
group. The use-personality tag might be expected to resolve this issue,
but doesn't. 

The scale animation in osg works correctly, and gives very nice realistic
results.

I've been unaware of this issue because I was working in osg, but recently
swapped back to plib to work on the improved radar, in the light of the
decision to release at least one more plib version.

Vivian
 



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Vivian Meazza
Detlef Faber

 
 
 Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 23:55 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus:
  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
 
 I'd agree to seperate the combat ready flying from the 
 peaceful flying. There is no reason why both environments 
 should see each other at all. 
 Nevertheless it should be a matter of choice which 
 environment one wishes to use. This way nobody can get 
 offended (If I fly in combat mode I have to be aware someone 
 else could shoot at me).
 
 Adressing the concerns about combat flying, I agree to Curt, 
 that FlightGear is an Open Source Project. This means anybody 
 is free to work on whatever topic he/she wishes.
  
 Of course this doesn't mean to ignore the valid concerns of 
 the other participants. I think it is very important that 
 those who do not wish to use combat functionality can use the 
 Multiplayer feature in the known way.
 
 Flightgear aims to be realistic, so anyone who likes to play 
 games will notice, that in Reality combat flying is not as 
 easy as those commercially available sims pretend. 
 Just intercepting an AI Aircraft on a known course is not 
 easy. Most dubious clientele will get offended by this.
 
 However my Interest in combat flight is a rather 
 technical/historical interest. My aircraft are most WW2 
 aircraft, and I've learned a lot by creating them, digging 
 through books and other historic documents.
 
 For a pilot interested in aircraft of that aera the combat 
 mode is simply a part of the aircraft history, and should be 
 possible to explore. That doesn't mean Flightgear will become 
 a shoot em up game.
 

Hmm - at least for the Brit ac we would need to make the gyro gun sight work
and calculate lead angles. That'll be a challenge! I don't think I'll tackle
that one for a while. Perhaps after I do the RWR with Alexis.

Vivian


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement

2007-05-11 Thread Melchior FRANZ
* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 10 May 2007:
 I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant
 to include it because it is plib only.

Yes, I said that I wouldn't like to commit plib-only features. It's
ok to have new features in fg/osg that aren't backported to fg/plib,
but the other way around is not acceptable.

But if, as you say, the patch works in theory for both branches, and
the only reason why it wouldn't work in fg/osg at the moment is,
because one feature is currently not working there (but eventually
will), then I see no problem. There's just one thing: Mathias should
review the code and decide if it fits in the framework that he's
envisioning.

What we don't want is people moaning about a list of regressions
in the first fg/osg release, or loading yet more work on Mathias,
or dumping stuff into fg/osg that only gets in the way ATM. It's,
of course, not ok to add some new, semi-broken feature and to
expect Mathias or Tim to make it work in fg/osg. (We'll do that
later all the time, but not now! :-)

m.

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread James Palmer

Thanks to all for the input... the collaboration of many is what makes FG so
great in my opinion.

I still plan to eventually add some sort of dogfighting capability,
HOWEVER,... I plan to start in the area detailed by this
documenthttp://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/images/1/1e/New_FG_architecture.pdf.
(thanks to Lorne McIntosh) I believe the changes detailed in the
architecture will benefit all participants of FG by taking advantage of
multi-core systems and future developments in parallelism.  It also brings
me a bit closer to my own goal of dogfighting by giving me the FDM server/
client separation that I need.
For those concerned with non-dogfighting, please rest assured that I will
code a turn off dogfighting option that will make all weapons invisible
and they will have no effect on the player.  (you would still see the
dogfighting planes circling each other, just nothing else).  This option
would be turned off by default.  If you want to participate in a dogfight,
it will take an action on the part of the user to enable that feature.

I encourage more discussion on this topic.  I enjoy and benefit from reading
the opinions and information others have to offer.
If anyone in the FG community has begun work on the architecture changes in
the document above (or would like to) please contact me.

Regards
James

On 5/11/07, Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Detlef Faber



 Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 23:55 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus:
  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

 I'd agree to seperate the combat ready flying from the
 peaceful flying. There is no reason why both environments
 should see each other at all.
 Nevertheless it should be a matter of choice which
 environment one wishes to use. This way nobody can get
 offended (If I fly in combat mode I have to be aware someone
 else could shoot at me).

 Adressing the concerns about combat flying, I agree to Curt,
 that FlightGear is an Open Source Project. This means anybody
 is free to work on whatever topic he/she wishes.

 Of course this doesn't mean to ignore the valid concerns of
 the other participants. I think it is very important that
 those who do not wish to use combat functionality can use the
 Multiplayer feature in the known way.

 Flightgear aims to be realistic, so anyone who likes to play
 games will notice, that in Reality combat flying is not as
 easy as those commercially available sims pretend.
 Just intercepting an AI Aircraft on a known course is not
 easy. Most dubious clientele will get offended by this.

 However my Interest in combat flight is a rather
 technical/historical interest. My aircraft are most WW2
 aircraft, and I've learned a lot by creating them, digging
 through books and other historic documents.

 For a pilot interested in aircraft of that aera the combat
 mode is simply a part of the aircraft history, and should be
 possible to explore. That doesn't mean Flightgear will become
 a shoot em up game.


Hmm - at least for the Brit ac we would need to make the gyro gun sight
work
and calculate lead angles. That'll be a challenge! I don't think I'll
tackle
that one for a while. Perhaps after I do the RWR with Alexis.

Vivian


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel





--
James Palmer
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Bill Galbraith
 



  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Palmer
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:06 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting


Thanks to all for the input... the collaboration of many is what makes FG so
great in my opinion.

I still plan to eventually add some sort of dogfighting capability,
HOWEVER,... I plan to start in the area detailed by this document
http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/images/1/1e/New_FG_architecture.
pdf . (thanks to Lorne McIntosh) I believe the changes detailed in the
architecture will benefit all participants of FG by taking advantage of
multi-core systems and future developments in parallelism.  It also brings
me a bit closer to my own goal of dogfighting by giving me the FDM server/
client separation that I need. 
For those concerned with non-dogfighting, please rest assured that I will
code a turn off dogfighting option that will make all weapons invisible
and they will have no effect on the player.  (you would still see the
dogfighting planes circling each other, just nothing else).  This option
would be turned off by default.  If you want to participate in a dogfight,
it will take an action on the part of the user to enable that feature. 

I encourage more discussion on this topic.  I enjoy and benefit from reading
the opinions and information others have to offer.
If anyone in the FG community has begun work on the architecture changes in
the document above (or would like to) please contact me. 

Regards
James
 

Okay, I'll be flying the heavily armoured Cessna F-172, so beware   ;-}
 
The Black Ace 
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Gene Buckle
 I am one of those who are not enthusiastic about adding weapons to
 FlightGear.  However, if combat capability is added, I think we would
 need to limit its scope.

The only limit that should be in place would be a client control that
would ignore physical effects and would not display visual effects.  The
default of course should be off for the clients.

 In my opinion, putting cannons on to planes is acceptable, but dropping bombs
 on ground is pushing it.  As to missiles and other smart weapons, I think
 they should be banned out right.

Banned?  BANNED?!  Good luck with that.

If this wasn't involving a _simulator_, I might be inclined to agree with
you.  However, it's a bloody _game_.  Things that go *boom* in games are
typically pretty cool.  (unless you're against the unfair exploitation and
destruction of things that don't exist)

The easiest way to solve this is to just have a multi-player server that
caters only to combat ops.  The regular server would just not pass traffic
that involved weaponry.

If you don't care for virtual combat, hey that's fine.  You don't have to
work on combat related systems or use combat aircraft.  However, if you
climb upon your high horse to ban this or that, don't be too shocked to
find yourself flat on your back, staring up at the sky while I warm up my
barbecue to enjoy some recently made horse steaks.

g.


--
I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!

Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable

2007-05-11 Thread Csaba Halász
On 5/10/07, Nick Warne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am surprised nobody using CVS/SVN FG/SG/OSG reports this issue (or replied
 to this) - there was a lot of chatter about it in IRC.

The OSG SVN from last friday works for me as usual (with SG/FG CVS
from the same time). I have given the exact revision in IRC, I can't
tell at the moment.
I heard there were some updates to FG over the weekend, I don't have those yet.

Greets,
Csaba

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Curtis Olson

On 5/11/07, Gene Buckle wrote:


Right. Online combat and Chess have two things in common.  First, they're
both forms of one on one combat and secondly, nobody ever dies from
either.  Actually, online combat would be safer than Chess I think.  You'd
never have to worry about playing some nutjob that just might try to bash
your skull in with the turn clock if you beat him. :)



Your mentioning of chess opens up a window of opportunity for me to post
this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBT2NUkUbjg

And you are right ... it appears like it can get a bit dangerous ...

Curt.
--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Gene Buckle
  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 information to the server and let the server calculate where the
  player is on the earth and inform the player of it. ?The server would also
  be responsible for determining whether a collision has occured. ?This is
  the approach taken by many of todays MP Internet games.

 If the server is capable of providing accurate and timely positioning
 information on aircraft, then the clients can do the collision detection.


The problem is one of network latency.  This has been a major hurdle for
games like Aces High, Air Warrior and WWII Online.  The server should
handle the collision to avoid situations where the shooter client sees a
hit and the shootee client doesn't.

Multi-player air combat can get pretty complex if you plan to support more
than a few clients at a time.  Network latency can be a huge problem,
especially if there are modem based clients.  You're going to have to come
up with a special protocol to handle it as the Standard (milspec)
protocol is far too verbose unless you're on a local LAN or high-capacity
WAN.  A lot of time and effor has gone into this area of online gaming,
but I don't know if the research that has been done is on the net.  I'm
sure there are a few places on the net that explain the ins and outs of
this kind of thing far better than I can.

g.



-- 
I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!

Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Curtis Olson

On 5/11/07, Gene Buckle wrote:


If this wasn't involving a _simulator_, I might be inclined to agree with
you.  However, it's a bloody _game_.  Things that go *boom* in games are
typically pretty cool.  (unless you're against the unfair exploitation and
destruction of things that don't exist)

The easiest way to solve this is to just have a multi-player server that
caters only to combat ops.  The regular server would just not pass traffic
that involved weaponry.

If you don't care for virtual combat, hey that's fine.  You don't have to
work on combat related systems or use combat aircraft.  However, if you
climb upon your high horse to ban this or that, don't be too shocked to
find yourself flat on your back, staring up at the sky while I warm up my
barbecue to enjoy some recently made horse steaks.



I'm in the camp that isn't spending a lot of my own effort towards enhancing
the combat and weapons feature set of flightgear.  But having said that, I
would like to make one small observation about human nature.  My kids (2
girls) were in a daycare for a while that strictly banned any sort of
weapons playing.  If a kid so much as picked up a flute, pointed it at
something, and said bang, they were thrown in solitary confinement and
tortured for 36 hours.  And then in that environment, guess what the first
thing a 2 year old boy is going to do the first time he sees some longish
rigid toy to play with ... of course he's going to pick it up and point it
an someone and say bang, bang, bang.

So I think we can debate nature vs. nurture all day long, but at some level,
wanting to make things explode and enjoying it when they do ... is in our,
uhhh ... genes (sorrry about that Gene) :-) no matter how hard we try to
deny that.  Of course, having some level of genetic tendency towards
something doesn't necessarily make it right to act on that tendency ... take
alcoholism as an example ...

Personally, I really enjoy a TV show called Myth Busters, and they make
their living off of busting or confirming many weapons and explosion
related myths ... so that show is all about really cool explosions, guns,
swords, breaking security, torturing plants and animals, hmmm maybe I better
rethink my favorite TV shows here ... :-)

Curt.
--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Gene Buckle
 thing a 2 year old boy is going to do the first time he sees some longish
 rigid toy to play with ... of course he's going to pick it up and point it
 an someone and say bang, bang, bang.

Give 'em a P90.  They're kid sized. :)  (See Gunslinger Girls)

 So I think we can debate nature vs. nurture all day long, but at some level,
 wanting to make things explode and enjoying it when they do ... is in our,
 uhhh ... genes (sorrry about that Gene) :-) no matter how hard we try to

No problem.  I fully intend to dress up on Halloween this year as a
neandertal.  When asked if I'm a caveman, I'm going to reply, Nope, I'm
a Recessive Gene. :)

 deny that.  Of course, having some level of genetic tendency towards
 something doesn't necessarily make it right to act on that tendency ... take
 alcoholism as an example ...

Right. Online combat and Chess have two things in common.  First, they're
both forms of one on one combat and secondly, nobody ever dies from
either.  Actually, online combat would be safer than Chess I think.  You'd
never have to worry about playing some nutjob that just might try to bash
your skull in with the turn clock if you beat him. :)

 Personally, I really enjoy a TV show called Myth Busters, and they make
 their living off of busting or confirming many weapons and explosion
 related myths ... so that show is all about really cool explosions, guns,
 swords, breaking security, torturing plants and animals, hmmm maybe I better
 rethink my favorite TV shows here ... :-)

Hey, the coolest thing ever was when they blew up the cement truck.  That
rocked. :)

g.

-- 
I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!

Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Gene Buckle
  Right. Online combat and Chess have two things in common.  First, they're
  both forms of one on one combat and secondly, nobody ever dies from
  either.  Actually, online combat would be safer than Chess I think.  You'd
  never have to worry about playing some nutjob that just might try to bash
  your skull in with the turn clock if you beat him. :)


 Your mentioning of chess opens up a window of opportunity for me to post
 this link:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBT2NUkUbjg

 And you are right ... it appears like it can get a bit dangerous ...

Well that's not exactly what I had in mind, but it was funny none the
less. :)

g.

-- 
I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!

Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Martin Spott
Gene Buckle wrote:
[... lots of stuff ...]

As I already said in an earlier posting:

I'm not certain if it's really the kids we have to fear. I guess some
grown-ups that are going wild are much worse  !

I fear there's not much to add  :-/
Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Maik Justus
Hi James,

but how do I explain to my daughters, that suddenly one of the circling 
planes disappears? Periodically!
And from the other point of view:
-A combat-player probably would not like to decide each time, if the 
aircraft on the radar is in the civilian mode or in the dogfight mode.
-Two camel pilots in a dogfight probably would not like to be grounded 
by a homing missile.

 From my point of view combat mode can work only on separate server(s), 
maybe we would need different servers for different periods of time.

Maik

James Palmer schrieb am 11.05.2007 14:06:
 ...For those concerned with non-dogfighting, please rest assured that 
 I will code a turn off dogfighting option that will make all weapons 
 invisible and they will have no effect on the player.  (you would 
 still see the dogfighting planes circling each other, just nothing 
 else).  This option would be turned off by default.  If you want to 
 participate in a dogfight, it will take an action on the part of the 
 user to enable that feature. 


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Vivian Meazza
Well, as the Irish would say, if you want to get there, you don't want to
start here. Good luck. And if you want to see how much work would be
involved, compare that task with the cutover to osg - now 6 months old and
nowhere near completion.
 
Vivian

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Palmer
Sent: 11 May 2007 13:06
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting


Thanks to all for the input... the collaboration of many is what makes FG so
great in my opinion.

I still plan to eventually add some sort of dogfighting capability,
HOWEVER,... I plan to start in the area detailed by this document
http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/images/1/1e/New_FG_architecture.
pdf . (thanks to Lorne McIntosh) I believe the changes detailed in the
architecture will benefit all participants of FG by taking advantage of
multi-core systems and future developments in parallelism.  It also brings
me a bit closer to my own goal of dogfighting by giving me the FDM server/
client separation that I need. 
For those concerned with non-dogfighting, please rest assured that I will
code a turn off dogfighting option that will make all weapons invisible
and they will have no effect on the player.  (you would still see the
dogfighting planes circling each other, just nothing else).  This option
would be turned off by default.  If you want to participate in a dogfight,
it will take an action on the part of the user to enable that feature. 

I encourage more discussion on this topic.  I enjoy and benefit from reading
the opinions and information others have to offer.
If anyone in the FG community has begun work on the architecture changes in
the document above (or would like to) please contact me. 

Regards
James


On 5/11/07, Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Detlef Faber



 Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 23:55 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus:
  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

 I'd agree to seperate the combat ready flying from the
 peaceful flying. There is no reason why both environments 
 should see each other at all.
 Nevertheless it should be a matter of choice which
 environment one wishes to use. This way nobody can get
 offended (If I fly in combat mode I have to be aware someone 
 else could shoot at me).

 Adressing the concerns about combat flying, I agree to Curt,
 that FlightGear is an Open Source Project. This means anybody
 is free to work on whatever topic he/she wishes. 

 Of course this doesn't mean to ignore the valid concerns of
 the other participants. I think it is very important that
 those who do not wish to use combat functionality can use the
 Multiplayer feature in the known way. 

 Flightgear aims to be realistic, so anyone who likes to play
 games will notice, that in Reality combat flying is not as
 easy as those commercially available sims pretend.
 Just intercepting an AI Aircraft on a known course is not 
 easy. Most dubious clientele will get offended by this.

 However my Interest in combat flight is a rather
 technical/historical interest. My aircraft are most WW2
 aircraft, and I've learned a lot by creating them, digging 
 through books and other historic documents.

 For a pilot interested in aircraft of that aera the combat
 mode is simply a part of the aircraft history, and should be
 possible to explore. That doesn't mean Flightgear will become 
 a shoot em up game.


Hmm - at least for the Brit ac we would need to make the gyro gun sight work
and calculate lead angles. That'll be a challenge! I don't think I'll tackle

that one for a while. Perhaps after I do the RWR with Alexis.

Vivian


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take 
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list 
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel 





-- 
James Palmer 

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Martin Spott
Vivian Meazza wrote:

 Well, as the Irish would say, if you want to get there, you don't want to
 start here. Good luck. And if you want to see how much work would be
 involved, compare that task with the cutover to osg - now 6 months old and
 nowhere near completion.

Indeed, implementing the structure that James has in mind will
certainly take a long time and require much work. Yet, this comparison
with the move to OSG - heh, you really like banging on that one  :-)  -
doesn't really match because the move to OSG was delayed by reasons
that reside outside the FlightGear project,

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] Small request about sound in Flightgear

2007-05-11 Thread alexis bory
Hi,

I deployed huge efforts to simulate an A-10 with stopped engines at 
start up.

The effect is quite good after the execution of all needed Nasal: gauges 
to zero, no electrical power, no engine sound.

But all of this doesn't exist when FG starts up. The consequence is a 
huge engine noise at start up. This noise is not longer than a few 
seconds but its really annoying, and makes a bad impression.

Would it be possible to dim the sound for a settable duration at 
start-up ? That would be a great improvement.

Unfortunately, this is beyond my skills and I just can ask :/

Thanks,

Alexis



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] More A-10 updates

2007-05-11 Thread alexis bory

hi,

Another round of cleaning, less properties spawned every where,
a few bugs corrected, cosmetics.

attached are:

A-10-20070511.diff
A-10-fuel.nas (goes in A-10/Nasal repertory)

to be removed from CVS:

A-10/Nasal/aar.nas


thanks,

Alexis
# Properties under /consumables/fuel/tank[n]:
# + level-gal_us- Current fuel load.  Can be set by user code.
# + level-lbs   - OUTPUT ONLY property, do not try to set
# + selected- boolean indicating tank selection.
# + density-ppg - Fuel density, in lbs/gallon.
# + capacity-gal_us - Tank capacity
#
# Properties under /engines/engine[n]:
# + fuel-consumed-lbs - Output from the FDM, zeroed by this script
# + out-of-fuel   - boolean, set by this code.


var UPDATE_PERIOD = 0.3;

var enabled = nil;
var fuel_freeze = nil;
var ai_enabled = nil;
var engines = nil;
var tanks = nil;
var refuelingN = nil;
var aimodelsN = nil;
var out_of_fuel = nil;
var aar_rcvr = nil;
var aar_lock = nil;
var aar_state = nil;

# initialize property if it doesn't exist, and set node type otherwise
init_prop = func(node, prop, val, type = double) {
var n = node.getNode(prop);
if (n != nil) {
var v = n.getValue();
if (v != nil) {
val = v;
}
}
node = node.getNode(prop, 1);
if (type == double) {
node.setDoubleValue(val);
} elsif (type == bool) {
node.setBoolValue(val);
} elsif (type == int) {
node.setIntValue(val);
}
}



update_loop = func {
# check for contact with tanker aircraft
var tankers = [];
if (ai_enabled) {
foreach (a; aimodelsN.getChildren(aircraft)) {
var contact = 
a.getNode(refuel/contact).getBoolValue();
var tanker = a.getNode(tanker).getBoolValue();
#var id = a.getNode(id).getValue();
#print(ai ', id, '  contact=, contact,   tanker=, 
tanker);

if (tanker and contact) {
append(tankers, a);
}
}

foreach (m; aimodelsN.getChildren(multiplayer)) {
var contact = 
m.getNode(refuel/contact).getBoolValue();
var tanker = m.getNode(tanker).getBoolValue();
#var id = m.getNode(id).getValue();
#print(mp ', id, '  contact=, contact,   tanker=, 
tanker);

if (tanker and contact) {
append(tankers, m);
}
}
}
# A-10 specific receiver logic
var refueling = size(tankers) = 1;
refuelingN.setBoolValue(refueling);
if (size(tankers) = 1) {
if ((! aar_lock) and (aar_rcvr)) {
refueling = 1;
aar_state = 1;
} else {
refueling = 0;
}
} elsif (aar_state) {
aar_lock = 1;
setprop(sim/model/A-10/controls/fuel/aar-lock, aar_lock);
aar_state = 0;
}

if (fuel_freeze) {
return settimer(update_loop, UPDATE_PERIOD);
}


# sum up consumed fuel
var total = 0;
foreach (var e; engines) {
total += e.getNode(fuel-consumed-lbs).getValue();
e.getNode(fuel-consumed-lbs, 1).setDoubleValue(0);
}   

# unlock A-10 aar receiver lock and calculate fuel received
if (refueling) {
# assume max flow rate is 6000 lbs/min (for KC135)
var received = 100 * UPDATE_PERIOD;
total -= received;
}


# make list of selected tanks
var selected_tanks = [];
foreach (var t; tanks) {
var cap = t.getNode(capacity-gal_us, 1).getValue();
if (cap != nil and cap  0.01 and t.getNode(selected, 
1).getBoolValue()) {
append(selected_tanks, t);
}
}



if (size(selected_tanks) == 0) {
out_of_fuel = 1;

} else {
out_of_fuel = 0;
if (total = 0) {
var fuelPerTank = total / size(selected_tanks);
foreach (var t; selected_tanks) {
var ppg = t.getNode(density-ppg).getValue();
var lbs = t.getNode(level-gal_us).getValue() 
* ppg;
lbs -= fuelPerTank;

if (lbs  0) {
lbs = 0;
# Kill the engines if we're told to, 
otherwise simply

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Gene Buckle
  I heavily doubt. The simple fact that already these small kids are so
  much influenced by depiction of war/crime, that they consider taking
  the flute for a rifle (even resp. especially if it's just a game) as
  common practice, should scare us - and certainly this doesn't justify
  turning serious flight simulation into a shoot-em game !

Horsepucky.  Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a shoot-em game.
Virtual != Real.  EVER.  If your little linoleum lizard can't understand
that, it's YOUR fault.  Don't nanny-state me because you can't grow a
pair.


 For what it's worth, the R/C modeling community apparently has this same
 basic problem ...

 http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?I=LXJDU1P=ML

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5ekEu9G3o
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3XHOqgd8hY

Now I've seen some irresponsible behavior before, but wow.  That's just
beyond the pale.  Jerks like these give all of us R/C fliers bad names.

 Oh, and I'm surprised that no one has brought up the notion of building more
 spectacular crashes.  Search youtube for R/C jet crashes and you'll find
 some spectacular ones.  The R/C community is way ahead of us on that one.
 Also you might want to search youtube for bill hempel.  Or you might not
 like youtube and not want to search at all. :-)

Hehe.  Mechanically accurate crashes would be great eye-candy for sure.
Bill Hempel is probably the best model pilot I've ever seen.
Here's unassailable proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaXMrFh3n7M

g.

-- 
I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!

Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] Fly-by view mode

2007-05-11 Thread Curtis Olson

For those that haven't found it yet, the new fly-by view in the CVS
version of FlightGear is *really* cool!  I find it difficult to fly real
time using it, but if you are on autopilot it is nice.  Also, it is really
neat for watching takeoffs, landings, and other maneuvering in replay mode.
Definitely worth checking out.  It provides a really neat, new (at least to
us) perspective on your flights.

Sorry Jon, before you ask, I don't have a movie yet ... :-)

Curt.
--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable

2007-05-11 Thread gh.robin
On Fri 11 May 2007 15:28, Csaba Halász wrote:
 On 5/10/07, Nick Warne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I am surprised nobody using CVS/SVN FG/SG/OSG reports this issue (or
  replied to this) - there was a lot of chatter about it in IRC.

 The OSG SVN from last friday works for me as usual (with SG/FG CVS
 from the same time). I have given the exact revision in IRC, I can't
 tell at the moment.
 I heard there were some updates to FG over the weekend, I don't have those
 yet.

 Greets,
 Csaba



Again, 
After many research, i have found an OSG svn/cvs   version which suit to me, 
good frame rate close to that one i get with plib (plib with 3D clouds and 
shadow).

That version is dated   10-04-2007.

Regards

-- 
Gérard


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] FG air combat thoughts

2007-05-11 Thread pebble garden
I enjoy air combat sims. Adding air combat functionality to FG multiplayer is 
an interesting prospect, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Personally I'd 
like the option, but I'd also like to exempt myself when not in the mood. I've 
been thinking about it for the last day or so, and here are a few ideas. 

Mind you I'm not that familiar with what's possible, or desirable, within FG so 
I offer these suggestions with the utmost humility.

1. Some people aren't ever going to want to participate in air combat, or have 
it interfere with their general aviation activities, and I feel it's important 
to respect these preferences. Hence some kind of segregation will be needed. 
Some possibilities come to mind:
a. Separate combat and noncombat servers is one way to avoid unpleasantness. 

b. If separate servers are not possible, certain areas could be designated as 
combat/sparring areas, just as in the real world, well away from civilian 
airspace. Outside these areas, weapons could be deactivated.

c. An IFF squawk setting could be used to indicate non-participation (0, as 
default) or membership in a 'side' (1, 2, etc.). 
2. Rather than full-blown combat, perhaps a 'laser-tag' (a la Air Combat 
USA/Top Gun) mode could be implemented. No one actually gets shot, but virtual 
weapons kills are tallied. I'd certainly enjoy this.


   
Building
 a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to 
get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting -
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread James Palmer

I'm sorry if I've hit a sore spot with some by bringing up dogfighting
development.
I still intend to investigate the possibility more, but I will completely
make the capability an opt-in type.
I'm thinking along the lines of a 3 command line option set.  (see only
non-dogfighters, see only dogfighters, and see dogfighters but don't
participate, with see only non-dogfighters being default)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the capability the method of
restructuring (for parallelism) will be a benefit for all (and for future
development).
Over the next several weeks or so, I'll be doing alot of reading (and asking
alot questions too).  I plan to come up with a more comprehensive proposal
to discuss with the development community.  I plan to iron out some of the
details of the approach and set out the phases of development.  (At that
point I expect you all to poke as many holes as you can in it ;-)

Again, thanks to all for the input.  It is greatly appreciated. This is what
drives OSS IMHO.
Regards,
James

On 5/11/07, Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  I heavily doubt. The simple fact that already these small kids are so
  much influenced by depiction of war/crime, that they consider taking
  the flute for a rifle (even resp. especially if it's just a game) as
  common practice, should scare us - and certainly this doesn't justify
  turning serious flight simulation into a shoot-em game !

Horsepucky.  Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a shoot-em game.
Virtual != Real.  EVER.  If your little linoleum lizard can't understand
that, it's YOUR fault.  Don't nanny-state me because you can't grow a
pair.


 For what it's worth, the R/C modeling community apparently has this same
 basic problem ...

 http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?I=LXJDU1P=ML

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5ekEu9G3o
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3XHOqgd8hY

Now I've seen some irresponsible behavior before, but wow.  That's just
beyond the pale.  Jerks like these give all of us R/C fliers bad names.

 Oh, and I'm surprised that no one has brought up the notion of building
more
 spectacular crashes.  Search youtube for R/C jet crashes and you'll find
 some spectacular ones.  The R/C community is way ahead of us on that
one.
 Also you might want to search youtube for bill hempel.  Or you might
not
 like youtube and not want to search at all. :-)

Hehe.  Mechanically accurate crashes would be great eye-candy for sure.
Bill Hempel is probably the best model pilot I've ever seen.
Here's unassailable proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaXMrFh3n7M

g.

--
I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal!

Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel





--
James Palmer
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable

2007-05-11 Thread Georg Vollnhals
gh.robin schrieb:
 Again, 
 After many research, i have found an OSG svn/cvs   version which suit to me, 
 good frame rate close to that one i get with plib (plib with 3D clouds and 
 shadow).

 That version is dated   10-04-2007.

 Regards

   
Hi Gérard,

as my OSG framerate has dropped from 85 to 13 I want to go back to the
OSG version you mention.

Can you help me and tell me what command for *svn* to use to download
the version 10-04-2007?

Thank you very much in advance

Regards
Georg EDDW

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fly-by view mode

2007-05-11 Thread Melchior FRANZ
* Curtis Olson -- Friday 11 May 2007:
 For those that haven't found it yet, the new fly-by view [...]

Unfortunately, it makes obvious that the OpenAL spatial sound
wasn't properly finished. The listener position is just not right,
and I assume it is this simplification in main.cxx:

// Right now we make a simplifying assumption that the listener is
// always positioned at the origin.
sgVec3 listener_pos;
sgSetVec3( listener_pos, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 );

Origin of what? The aircraft? The scenery tile? No wonder that
the Doppler effect doesn't sound quite right either.  :-/

Try with --aircraft=A6M2. Sometimes the engine is silent when
nearing and only loud after it has passed etc. It's not consistent.

m.

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fly-by view mode

2007-05-11 Thread Curtis Olson

OpenAL has it's own coordinate system.

There are two issues to think about.

1. it makes no sense physically to hear cockpit sounds from the external
views, yet we probably want that to happen, but the 3d nature of openal
makes this a bit interesting.

2. openal has a 3d world coordinate system, so in an external view, there is
no concept of left or right really.  Maybe we need to think about how to
orient the openal listening vector, but that may be different from the view
direction.

In the cockpit putting the listener at the origin and defining the cockpit
sounds relative to that works quite well.  But as soon as you go outside,
things get a little weird.  What we have is way better than the original
plib audio, but you are right, there is more work that can be done.

Just remember that software is never finished, so that isn't a very
informative criticism. :-)

Curt.



On 5/11/07, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


* Curtis Olson -- Friday 11 May 2007:
 For those that haven't found it yet, the new fly-by view [...]

Unfortunately, it makes obvious that the OpenAL spatial sound
wasn't properly finished. The listener position is just not right,
and I assume it is this simplification in main.cxx:

// Right now we make a simplifying assumption that the listener is
// always positioned at the origin.
sgVec3 listener_pos;
sgSetVec3( listener_pos, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 );

Origin of what? The aircraft? The scenery tile? No wonder that
the Doppler effect doesn't sound quite right either.  :-/

Try with --aircraft=A6M2. Sometimes the engine is silent when
nearing and only loud after it has passed etc. It's not consistent.

m.

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel





--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Georg Vollnhals
James Palmer schrieb:
 I'm sorry if I've hit a sore spot with some by bringing up dogfighting
 development.
 I still intend to investigate the possibility more, but I will completely
 make the capability an opt-in type.
 I'm thinking along the lines of a 3 command line option set.  (see only
 non-dogfighters, see only dogfighters, and see dogfighters but don't
 participate, with see only non-dogfighters being default)

 Regardless of whether or not you agree with the capability the method of
 restructuring (for parallelism) will be a benefit for all (and for future
 development).
 Over the next several weeks or so, I'll be doing alot of reading (and
 asking
 alot questions too).  I plan to come up with a more comprehensive
 proposal
 to discuss with the development community.  I plan to iron out some of
 the
 details of the approach and set out the phases of development.  (At that
 point I expect you all to poke as many holes as you can in it ;-)

 Again, thanks to all for the input.  It is greatly appreciated. This
 is what
 drives OSS IMHO.
 Regards,
 James

Hi to all,

I just read through all the controverse discussion and as I am always
present here on the list it would be cowardly not to tell my opinion and
hide behind others who already said most of what I think:

First of all, there was already some interest in the FG forum and FG
users list but James is the very first who really wants to do the work
himself!!! I don't know wheather he is aware of the amount of work and
time he has to spend over the next year to get this stuff working, but
give him the chance to realize his ideas. James seems to realize pretty
well that this is only possible if his work does not have any negative
influence on the civilian side of the sim, which has to have priority
in all aspects.

If the dogfight ability will be a feature which is deselected by default
and the both usergroups are separated on their own servers then I cannot
see any problem for the civilian users.

And - to be honest - although I am a peaceful man, did no harm to
anybody until now and won't do it in the future - it could be real fun
for me trying a dogfight in a Me109 versus a Spit or in a FW190 versus a
P51. But as FG is a simulation, not a game, I doubt to have the least
chance as you really need the skills to control the aircraft *and*
fight. As already mentioned, this will limit the group using the
feature and exclude the unwished.

All the best to your project James

Regards
Georg EDDW



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable

2007-05-11 Thread gh.robin
On Fri 11 May 2007 22:30, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
 gh.robin schrieb:
  Again,
  After many research, i have found an OSG svn/cvs   version which suit to
  me, good frame rate close to that one i get with plib (plib with 3D
  clouds and shadow).
 
  That version is dated   10-04-2007.
 
  Regards

 Hi Gérard,

 as my OSG framerate has dropped from 85 to 13 I want to go back to the
 OSG version you mention.

 Can you help me and tell me what command for *svn* to use to download
 the version 10-04-2007?

 Thank you very much in advance

 Regards
 Georg EDDW

Hello Georg,

Because,  i have a lot of backup  (SG/FG/OSG) , i did rebuilt FG with an older 
OSG (10-04-2007) i had kept.

Not from a new download 


The best, i guess, for you is to download from my URL the sources.

I have built a tar.gz file  which contains
 OpenSceneGraph, OpenThreads, Producer

all of them from cvs/svn  10-04-2007.

here the link 

http://perso.orange.fr/GRTux/OSG-7-0410.tar.gz

Regards


-- 
Gérard  LFMO,LFNH


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Martin Spott
Gene Buckle wrote:

 Horsepucky.  Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a shoot-em game.
 Virtual != Real.  EVER.  If your little linoleum lizard can't understand
 that, it's YOUR fault.  Don't nanny-state me because you can't grow a
 pair.

Hey, thanks for providing such a nice occasion to laugh at you,

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable

2007-05-11 Thread Georg Vollnhals
gh.robin schrieb:
 
 Hello Georg,

 Because,  i have a lot of backup  (SG/FG/OSG) , i did rebuilt FG with an 
 older 
 OSG (10-04-2007) i had kept.

 Not from a new download 


 The best, i guess, for you is to download from my URL the sources.

 I have built a tar.gz file  which contains
  OpenSceneGraph, OpenThreads, Producer

 all of them from cvs/svn  10-04-2007.

 here the link 

 http://perso.orange.fr/GRTux/OSG-7-0410.tar.gz

 Regards


   

Gérard,
many, many thanks for your help!
I just downloaded your files and will make a new OSG build this night.
It will help me a lot to get my OSG FG running again usable :-)
Have a nice weekend.
Regards
Georg

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fly-by view mode

2007-05-11 Thread Curtis Olson

On 5/11/07, Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


For those that haven't found it yet, the new fly-by view in the CVS
version of FlightGear is *really* cool!  I find it difficult to fly real
time using it, but if you are on autopilot it is nice.  Also, it is really
neat for watching takeoffs, landings, and other maneuvering in replay mode.
Definitely worth checking out.  It provides a really neat, new (at least to
us) perspective on your flights.

Sorry Jon, before you ask, I don't have a movie yet ... :-)



Ok, I recorded a flight and captured it to a movie with xvidcap.  This
competes for rendering resources so the result is very jerky and
discontinuous, so imagine what you are seeing, but running smoothly on
decent hardware ... and at higher resolution ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ecCpLGsFl0

Regards,

Curt.
--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread syd sandy
On Fri, 11 May 2007 21:58:50 + (UTC)
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Gene Buckle wrote:
 
  Horsepucky.  Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a shoot-em game.
  Virtual != Real.  EVER.  If your little linoleum lizard can't understand
  that, it's YOUR fault.  Don't nanny-state me because you can't grow a
  pair.
 
 Hey, thanks for providing such a nice occasion to laugh at you,
 
   Martin.

Yes , we need more 'contributors' like this ;)
-- 
syd  sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable

2007-05-11 Thread Georg Vollnhals
Georg Vollnhals schrieb:
 gh.robin schrieb:
   
 
   
 Hello Georg,

 Because,  i have a lot of backup  (SG/FG/OSG) , i did rebuilt FG with an 
 older 
 OSG (10-04-2007) i had kept.

 Not from a new download 


 The best, i guess, for you is to download from my URL the sources.

 I have built a tar.gz file  which contains
  OpenSceneGraph, OpenThreads, Producer

 all of them from cvs/svn  10-04-2007.

 here the link 

 http://perso.orange.fr/GRTux/OSG-7-0410.tar.gz

 Regards


   
 

 Gérard,
 many, many thanks for your help!
 I just downloaded your files and will make a new OSG build this night.
 It will help me a lot to get my OSG FG running again usable :-)
 Have a nice weekend.
 Regards
 Georg

   
Just as a feedback, compiled without problem with the latest
SimGear/FlightGear CVS. Now my old framerates are back. Really a big
difference!
There are several strange little display errors but I can live with that
until OSG svn is usable again.
Gérard, merci beaucoup once again :-)
Regards
Georg

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] More A-10 updates - replace previous broken diff file

2007-05-11 Thread alexis bory

hi,

Sorry for the previous malformed diff file.

Description
Cleaning, less properties spawned everywhere,
a few bugs corrected, cosmetics.

in the attached tarball A-10-diff-20070512.tgz:

 A-10-20070512.diff (made from $FGROOT/Aircraft/A-10
 Nasal/A-10-fuel.nas (new file)

to be deleted:

 $FGROOT/Aircraft/A-10/Nasal/aar.nas


Thanks, and sorry again

Alexis


A-10-diff-20070512.tgz
Description: application/compressed-tar
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

2007-05-11 Thread Ampere K. Hardraade
On Friday 11 May 2007 10:28, Gene Buckle wrote:
 Banned?  BANNED?!  Good luck with that.

 If this wasn't involving a _simulator_, I might be inclined to agree with
 you.  However, it's a bloody _game_.  Things that go *boom* in games are
 typically pretty cool.

While development over the past few years might give the preception that 
Flightgear is a game, Flightgear is actually meant to be a serious flight 
simulator.  Things that go boom are cool in games, but they are also useless; 
more so in a simulator.

Part of the reason why I'm against combat elements in Flightgear is that as 
more military stuffs get added, the more Flightgear appears like a game.  If 
people still want Flightgear to be treated as a serious flight simulator, 
then the less combat capabilities the better.

 (unless you're against the unfair exploitation and
 destruction of things that don't exist)

Of course I'm not against doing fly pass over your virtual house and dropping 
virtual napalm daily...

 If you don't care for virtual combat, hey that's fine.  You don't have to
 work on combat related systems or use combat aircraft.  However, if you
 climb upon your high horse to ban this or that, don't be too shocked to
 find yourself flat on your back, staring up at the sky while I warm up my
 barbecue to enjoy some recently made horse steaks.

If you want virtual combat so much, there are plenty of combat simulators 
available out there.  But don't expect me to loose any sleep if you choose 
them over Flightgear.

As for banning, regardless of whether virtual combat is implemented or not, 
banning is going to be implemented one way or another -- whether it is 
banning combat completely, banning combat capabilities from civilian servers, 
or banning different generations of aircraft from different servers.  I'm 
really not worried.

Ampere

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel