On 7/13/07, Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:52:20 +0200
> "gh.robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri 13 July 2007 18:32, AnMaster wrote:
> >> gh.robin wrote:
> >> > On Fri 13 July 2007 01:28, bass pumped wrote:
> >> >> On 7/12/07, gh.robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The problem was if a client connects and closes the connection for
> whatever reason while the jpg-httpd is sending the image (e.g. web
> browser refreshes when loading the first image), a SIGPIPE will be
> raised which isn't handled and causes FG to simply exits.
>
> The attached fix ca
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:52:20 +0200
"gh.robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri 13 July 2007 18:32, AnMaster wrote:
>> gh.robin wrote:
>> > On Fri 13 July 2007 01:28, bass pumped wrote:
>> >> On 7/12/07, gh.robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>> >> While you are it... maybe a M-21 an
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
I'm not involved into the project but here are my 2 cents :
A "civilian" simulator means nothing to me. The simulator itself handles
physics, graphics, communicati
This whole idea could be leveraged to a time state as well.
This would allow people who want to do period of time simming to share
the same servers.
You could declare your period of time of exitence and your software
would render only other objects identifing themselves in a similiar
window of
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
I'm not involved into the project but here are my 2 cents :
A "civilian" simulator means nothing to me. The simulator itself handles
physics, graphics, communicati
For people not interested in combat they could just declare themselves
invulnerable and turn off visibilty of combat vehicles operating in
their area.
Meanwhile combat vehicles could contnue to straff them invisbly as human
piloted drones.
You just need a turn off vehicles indentying themselve
* Heiko Schulz -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> Of course it is open for all and everyone can do what
> he want. But with this way we loose a lot of abilities
> to develop.
Which abilities do or did we lose exactly? And how?
> It looks very chaotic for me - and that's
> one point which maybe scares o
Hi All,
Included below is a patch to make the vulcanb2 use the correct tags for
keyboard help.
Could someone please commit to both PLIB and OSG branches.
Thanks
-Stuart
Index: vulcanb2-set.xml
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.
* Heiko Schulz -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
> seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
> etc...
FDMs are already separated. You have to restart fgfs to change
the mode. (Unfortunately!)
> I can really remember, that one of you said, th
Hi,
well I think, it should be discussed which way FGFS
should go in the future.
There was so much developements in the last time -
FGFS isn't the FGFS which was it at the beginning.
Of course it is open for all and everyone can do what
he want. But with this way we loose a lot of abilities
to d
On 7/13/07, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
etc...
I can really remember, that one of you said, that the
aim is to become a civilian simulator - so I'm
mistaken?
Clearly the primary purpose and a
Personally I would love to see online free dogfighting with guns or
"lasertag".
Its great fun and a great test of your ability as a pilot. It is also
the best way to really understand about momentum and drag and lift and
thrust and forces of turning etc.
Remember guys even if modeled realistic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
> seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
> etc...
I don't think that would be a too good idea, after all it would be quite fun
if they all could share one
Hi,
O.k. - but then I think (suggestion) it should be
seperated into branches of combat, sailing, driving,
etc...
I can really remember, that one of you said, that the
aim is to become a civilian simulator - so I'm
mistaken?
HHS
--- GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Flight gear was origin
Flight gear was originally proposed by myself and others to be a sim
that wnet where people wrote code for it.
If there are people who want to write code for combat then it should be
included.
The same is true for ships and cars.
I would love it if flightgear also became a good driving simulato
I'm sorry but the mail of fgcom programmer is not avaible. I post my
message here.
Hello,
First of all to ask you forgiveness for my bad English. Actually I use
Google to translate for me because I do not speak English.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]$ make
> > gcc -O2 -DDEBUG -D'SVN_REV="18M"' -c f
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:47:32 +0100
leee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it absolutely be part of flight simulation software. The main reason I
> made the Canberra B(I)8 was so that I had an appropriate aircraft to
> investigate LABS/toss-bombing scenarios and techniques. This wasn't because
Hi,
That's right, it's an OpenSource-Project, everyone can
implement what he wants.
But we don't have to forget that the aim is to have a
civil simulation.
I'm not against to see military aircrafts here in the
sim, but where is the limit? Showing only bombs? The
resultats? Or dogfighting?
At le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Mike Schuh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, AnMaster wrote:
>
>> gh.robin wrote:
>>> You are right
>>> it would a good idea, and why no a bell-X1 with the B-29,
>>> or the B52 and X15 (we have both into FG)
>>> that would be a challenge to have wit
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, AnMaster wrote:
>gh.robin wrote:
>>
>> You are right
>> it would a good idea, and why no a bell-X1 with the B-29,
>> or the B52 and X15 (we have both into FG)
>> that would be a challenge to have within MP both Aircrafts Mother and Child
>> flying first together , and then
On Fri 13 July 2007 18:32, AnMaster wrote:
> gh.robin wrote:
> > On Fri 13 July 2007 01:28, bass pumped wrote:
> >> On 7/12/07, gh.robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >> While you are it... maybe a M-21 and launchable D-21 might work great
> >> too!
> >>
> >> :p
> >>
> >> To be really co
Yes, it absolutely be part of flight simulation software. The main reason I
made the Canberra B(I)8 was so that I had an appropriate aircraft to
investigate LABS/toss-bombing scenarios and techniques. This wasn't because
I wanted to pretend to vapourise lots of people but because the aerial
m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
gh.robin wrote:
> On Fri 13 July 2007 01:28, bass pumped wrote:
>> On 7/12/07, gh.robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SNIP
>> While you are it... maybe a M-21 and launchable D-21 might work great too!
>>
>> :p
>>
>> To be really cool would be to then d
On Fri 13 July 2007 01:28, bass pumped wrote:
> On 7/12/07, gh.robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SNIP
> >
> > the full package is available here (5 mo)
> > http://perso.orange.fr/GRTux/SR71-BlackBird.tar.gz
> >
> > Regads
> >
> > --
> > Gérard
> >
> >
> >
>
SNIP
> While you are it... maybe a M-21 a
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 12 July 2007:
> I would like to redefine two keys:
>
> now then
> --
> SPACE starter/prop browserPTT
> s-key toggle 2D panels starter
> S-key --
On Fri 13 July 2007 13:19, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * gh.robin -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> > i guess the space key change which is discussed here will not modify
> > the process).
>
> Didn't look at the code, but I doubt it. If you redefine the SPACE
> key, then you also redefine the PTT function. Yo
* Anders Gidenstam -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> I think it might also be nice to use a nasal wrapper for the PTT key
> binding (like most things in controls.nas), that way a user could more
> easily add more bindings for PTT (e.g. a joystick button).
Yes, of course. I plan a two-stage wrapper. One
* gh.robin -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> i guess the space key change which is discussed here will not modify
> the process).
Didn't look at the code, but I doubt it. If you redefine the SPACE
key, then you also redefine the PTT function. Your aircraft works
as you intended, with your SPACE-key over
* AnMaster -- Friday 13 July 2007:
> I think it makes sense to change from space, but I'm not sure about to "s".
> After all that key is quite easy to hit by mistake (some other such are t/T
> and r, all those should be moved some less dangerous place as I don't think
> they are used a lot either).
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Holger Wirtz wrote:
> That redefinition would be great (because there is not need for me
> patching the keyboard.xml for the PTT key anymore :-) ).
>
> This makes it possible for fgcom to switch through the COMs and NAVs -
> something like a switchboard simulation. I am curren
--- Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> should this really be part of a flight simulation software? If yes, what
> will
> be the next step?
> - Should the demolition of buildings be modeled?
> - What about humans in the scenery?
> - Any sound for this?
>
> My personal vote is "please do not commit".
Am Freitag, den 13.07.2007, 10:27 +0200 schrieb Heiko Schulz:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Torsten - FGFS is a civil simulator - not
> a war simulator.
>
first of all FG is an open source simulator, so the author of an
airplane, or contributor of code can implement any (legal) feature he
wishes.
Gre
Hi,
I agree with Torsten - FGFS is a civil simulator - not
a war simulator.
--- Torsten Dreyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> should this really be part of a flight simulation
> software? If yes, what will
> be the next step?
> - Should the demolition of buildings be modeled?
> - Wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> should this really be part of a flight simulation software? If yes, what will
> be the next step?
I think should be part of the simulation, also what about impact craters when
the airplane crashes?
> - Should the dem
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:55:44PM +0200, Csaba Halász wrote:
> On 7/11/07, John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 07/10/2007 01:40 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe try the sed hack with a shorter prefix, such as replacing
> > > _ZNSt6vector with _ZNSt6vectorX. Note that it is a
36 matches
Mail list logo
