On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Alex Buzin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fabian Grodek wrote:
I'm using Tortoise.
Can somebody tell me what should be the command line? Something like:
:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/cvs/FlightGear..
Thank you.
Fabian
Look at the
Thank you for your help. I change the FGNetFDM class and it's working.
Jan
2008/12/3 Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Jan,
You could work your way back through the previous versions at the following
link and extract the version that matches what you want (or just scroll down
to the
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Well- like I said it yet- OI used original drawings and they showed
her on the ground. So the rotation is not much...
Apparently the the term original drawings is not sufficently precise
in this context. The POH for
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have original drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
authoritative information at his hands how it is
Hi All,
Attached is what I'm hoping will be the final 3D clouds patch.
It does the following:
- Replaces simple shader attributes with vectors (this was missed out of the
last patch by mistake)
- Includes Yon's Fog update code (Thanks!)
- Fixes a bug since 1.0 where --enable-real-weather-fetch
I wrote:
Hi All,
Attached is what I'm hoping will be the final 3D clouds patch.
Nope, it wasn't attached, because I hit Send rather than Attach.
This time it is attached.
Sorry for the noise.
It does the following:
- Replaces simple shader attributes with vectors (this was missed out
On 12/06/2008 03:25 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have original drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us has
authoritative information at his hands how it is supposed to be
properly positioned 'at level'. This is the
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have original drawings of the entire airframe, still none of us
Hi,
reading the patch, in the callback:
fogC[3] = 0.0;
I believe this sliped from my testing, not sure if it's needed. I was doing
some alpha-channel tests. If it works with this set, all is fine :)
greetings,
yon
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Stuart Buchanan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On dimanche 07 décembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
On samedi 06 décembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
gerard robin wrote:
With the c172p i have included the following:
[...]
To me that is perfect, [...]
This is the sole point I'm talking about: Apparently, even though 'we'
have
On 12/06/2008 04:02 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
In a case like this one I prefer the 'pragmatic' approach of reading a
manual (if available), determining what its authors consider as being
at level (if they do in some way) and finally to evaluate if we're
able to make use of it.
It doesn't serve
Is there a reason that com1 and nav1 are the lower kx165 while the nav1
vor head is on top?
--
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.
Hi,
Is there a reason that com1 and nav1 are the lower kx165
while the nav1
vor head is on top?
You mean the KX165 radio stack on the middle concole?
This was a mistake by me, will fix it soon.
--
13 matches
Mail list logo
