Hi everyone , and merry christmas...
I'm busy playing with my new 1440x900 flat - panel monitor ...wow what a
difference in FG !
Which gave me an idea maybe others would appreciate too
Before this , a default field 0f view of 55 was about right ... now I need to
set it to 70 for a good view
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:24:07 -0500, GWMobile wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Again just proving that sims can't do accurate landing crash detection
> without strutural analysis and therefore shouldn't fake it under any
> condition.
..agreed, however there are a few such programs out th
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:20:24 -0500, GWMobile wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have to say that no person will use flightgear for reenacting actual
> crashes because it doesn't model structures.
..seeing the sponsorship in action, I'd caution you, remember what
happened when someone el
You are really missing the point.
What I am saying is no one interested in reality is going to land on
water in the first place so the people who would expect a crash
indication won't be doing the landing anyway.
But those who want to land on water because they aren't concerned about
reality f
All I say is the default for water for the sim regardless of aircraft
without modifying anything should be allowed landing and even takeoff
because if anyone is doing it in the sim they are doing it for a reason
and have made a consious decision to defy reality.
>
> Therefore everything you
Again just proving that sims can't do accurate landing crash detection
without strutural analysis and therefore shouldn't fake it under any
condition.
No one benefits by the sim saying "you crashed" except a little kid who
says to his friend " hey watch this". That situation is best handled
wit
I have to say that no person will use flightgear for reenacting actual
crashes because it doesn't model structures.
In crash recreation they don't ever model impact but only 1. Structural
debris spread after impact or 2. flight system or weather conditions
prior to impact or 3. structal failure
On Dec 18, 2007 9:10 PM, Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Csaba wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2007 6:53 PM, AnMaster wrote:
> > >
> > > Much better would be getting the closest airport with a
> > matching
> >
> tower frequency
> > > than just using the nearest airport.
> >
> > Excellent idea,
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 13:57, GWMobile wrote:
[snip...]
> Setting a crash default is silly. It forces people to not be able
> to do what they want and it isn't realistic.
>
> 2. In reality all water is in fact landable even in
> a non float plane. It simply acts like extremely mushy ground. I
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 23:47, Bohnert Paul wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have checked a few aircraft in v1.0 and CVS. c172, A-6E, p51d
> and An255.
>
> They all stated with left brake on and the right brake off.
>
> controls/gear/brake-left=1
> controls/gear/brake-right=0
>
> It would be nice if bot
Hi All,
I have checked a few aircraft in v1.0 and CVS. c172, A-6E, p51d and An255.
They all stated with left brake on and the right brake off.
controls/gear/brake-left=1
controls/gear/brake-right=0
It would be nice if both brakes were set to the same state at start up.
Seting the property on
Hi,
GWMobile schrieb am 25.12.2007 14:57:
> The original post quoted below exemplifies why I beleive it is a mistake
> to ever have crash detection for water in a flight sim however let me
> lay it out simply.
>
> 1. Anyone who lands on water in a flight sim knows they are doing it. It
> is high
gerard robin schreef:
> With an aircraft which has gears retractable , the "landing" on sea can be
> done smoothly on the belly.
> TableData "drag" (and "lift") can be given with the best values according
> to the water reaction.
> The values regarding landing on ground remains right.
> We
GWMobile schreef:
> The original post quoted below exemplifies why I beleive it is a mistake
> to ever have crash detection for water in a flight sim however let me
> lay it out simply.
>
> 1. Anyone who lands on water in a flight sim knows they are doing it. It
> is highly likely they WANT to d
On mar 25 décembre 2007, gerard robin wrote:
> On mar 25 décembre 2007, GWMobile wrote:
> > The original post quoted below exemplifies why I beleive it is a mistake
> > to ever have crash detection for water in a flight sim however let me
> > lay it out simply.
> >
> > 1. Anyone who lands on water
On mar 25 décembre 2007, GWMobile wrote:
> The original post quoted below exemplifies why I beleive it is a mistake
> to ever have crash detection for water in a flight sim however let me
> lay it out simply.
>
> 1. Anyone who lands on water in a flight sim knows they are doing it. It
> is highly l
The original post quoted below exemplifies why I beleive it is a mistake
to ever have crash detection for water in a flight sim however let me
lay it out simply.
1. Anyone who lands on water in a flight sim knows they are doing it. It
is highly likely they WANT to do it - ie have a float plane
You can remove the labels at the sattelite layer by moving your mouse
over the sattelite button and untick the box in front of "Show labels".
Is that what you mean?
Gijs
> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:43:33 +0100> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
It seems like all the modes are overlayed with the map though, like the old
hybrid mode (that seems
gone). I miss the mode without all the labels and road lines on it. :/
Regards,
Arvid Norlander
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First to all of yo
Hi,
First to all of you: a very Merry Christmas and a nice 2008!
As you may noticed, there's a new overlay on the google maps
(see http://maps.google.com) it's called Terrain. I thought it
may be nice for us, pilots, to have this layer in the mpmap to.
That's because you can see actually mount
20 matches
Mail list logo
