[Flightgear-devel] Primus1000 / M877
Hello everyone, first let me say that I realy appreciate what you are doing. Flightgear is an awesome project, I realy love it. I've been watching it's development for a couple of months now and I would be glad to contribute. I'm using the Citation-Bravo and CitationX frequently, and currently am working on a couple of things I've been realy missing, and I want your opinion and maybe some hints: 1) The Primus1000 always shows distance and bearing (the additional blueish and white needles) to the VOR-Stations tuned in, even if they are out of range. I think this is not how it is supposed to be. I changed it so that the DME-Display in the Primus-PFD shows ---.- if the VOR is out of range. I saw this on a picture of the P1000 (keep it real). In lack of better knowledge I made the blueish/white needles always point to the 12 o'clock position. If anyone of you knows how a real P1000 would behave in this situation, I would be glad to implement this. Anyway, I think this is better than having the needles pointing at some random direction pretending to know what they are doing. 2) The white/blueish needles point to true-bearing-values while everything else shows magnetic-values. I changed that, assuming it's a mistake. If you know better, please explain. 3) I think it would be nice, if the CDI would show the course-deflection in FMS-Mode the same way it does in NAV-Mode. I implemented that by setting the deflection to deflection=bearing-legcourse, where the legcourse is the direction from the last waypoint to the current waypoint. I think this value should be divided by 5 (using degrees, not radians). Yet, I again do not know if this is supported by the real P1000. So what do you think? 4) I implemented a stop watch for the M877. Select the most-right position with the select-button. Start/Stop/Restart the timer with the other button. Nice when you are in a procedure-pattern. Do you want that? 5) I want... no... I need Buttons in the 3D-Cockpit to select previous/next Waypoint. There is this console called CDU in the middle. I think those buttons should go there. This CDU shows the first four or five Waypoints, I could also work on this. So what do you think? Maybe the Primus-MFD would also be a nice place for that. Suggestions?? 6) I've been thinkink about the Primus-MFD assuming there are a lot of features that are not implemented. I would realy like to enhance this, but i cannot find any documentation on the thingy. Without knowing what a real P1000 can do... example: it would be nice to have a screen that shows the VOR-IDs/Bearing/Selected Radial/DME, as well as the current waypoint-id, distance, bearing and leg. I am having issues with the Autopilot in the Citation-Bravo. Doesnt't work at all. Holds altitude, anything else fails. But I didn't sort this out. Will let you know. live long and prosper, makkes -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear and Copyrights
Hello all - My previous email may have been lost in the fray so I'd just like to float my recommendation again. If you have contributed code, please check to make sure your copyright, and the date, is in the header for the source code you have contributed. This will make it easier for us to track if there has been a copyright and GPL violation. If someone modifies a copyrighted file AND distributes that file IN VIOLATION OF the GPL version 2, then the person or people who hold the copyright on that file can force compliance. However, I also believe we should put a copyright statement within the executables of FlightGear which we distribute - we should have a statement saying FlightGear is copyrighted by its contributors - please see the source code for information. (Perhaps several statements, in the console and under the menu for instance.) Just because we release the software and the components of the software under the GPL does not necessarily mean the contributors forfeit their copyright on the work. By including copyright information within the essence of our product components, we thereby make it more difficult for resellers to rebrand and resell our product (because they can't just remove the copyright without being in violation of the GPL - and if they do they have to state how they modified the file from the original copy in the source code, AND distribute that source code). At the same time, we maintain the fact the copyright is held by the individual contributors, which was important to people the last time around. This also does not constrict the freedom of the software under the GPL and therefore I would strongly recommend adding this into the software. If people are opposed to this for whatever reason, a "softer" suggestion would be including an About menu with version information in each version, say "FlightGear version 2.0.0 release date X/X/2010". Since this doesn't include a copyright, though, anyone can remove it as long as they state they removed it within the source code of the product; and since the people likely to be negatively affected by someone reselling our product as-is aren't going to be looking at the source code, I strongly recommend the copyright components, Cheers John -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
> > I spent some time using Pete's menu css and trying to build a column > of menus down the left side of the screen. I have an initial version. > Some of that I like, but I'm just not happy with how it's coming > together yet. > > Curt. Your going to be running around in circles until its got valid (x)html, eg html4. All sorts of silly stuff can happen in presentation/ style sheet if html/css is invalid. pete -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Patrice Poly > > I have been reading the mail archive and forums about this story, then > went on the FPS website and read their disclaimer. > > >From what I saw, and given that my understanding of GPL and copyrights > might be wrong, here are my thoughts : > > I think what this person(s) do here is *almost* legal. > > They are commercially distributing a GPL software in order to make > profit, which is clearly allowed by the GPL licence, > provided that the seller makes the source code accessible. > > I could find a link to some sources in their disclaimer. > I did not parse the whole provided archive, so I don't know if every bit > of FG sources are here. > I am not sure if providing a download link is enough, or if they should > provide the sources with the commercial CD/DVD they sell. > Also, I don't know if they provide the source with the CD/DVDs. > I found a link and downloaded the sources. AFAIKS he is offering FG 1.9.1 unchanged in any way that I could discover. So I reckon he's legal. We might take the view that he's doing the marketing that we can't/won't do and spreading FG more widely than we could otherwise achieve. Of course, people would get ripped off. But - caveat emptor - it's not our job to shepherd unwise shoppers. Or we could take a different tack and offer FG for sale at a price that undercuts his wherever and whenever we find FPS. I don't think he could long sustain his effort in the face of that. And we could do with a bit of petty cash. But who would take that one on? With all the tax and accounting implications? Finally, I made a rare visit to our website today. We appear to offer every flightsim for download apart from our own - which was scrolled of the page. Well, FlightSim Pro wasn't there - but give it time. Surely we can do better? Pete Morgan seemed to have a handle on this one. And I can't see why we have suddenly got out knickers in a twist over Google: it's happily underpinned MPMap for years. My tuppence worth. Vivian -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Curt, I can help out organization wise and can provide some really good feedback on the site. Let me know. -- Kyle On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:56 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote some stuff about the web > page: > > A couple brief comments on the web site. > > Pete and I agreed (I think) that we probably don't want to ultimately do the > official flightgear web site as a google apps engine page. That locks us > into a closed source, proprietary situation for the web site. > > What we suggested might be a way to move forward would be to migrate some of > Pete's other people's ideas and feedback into the current web site. > > I spent some time using Pete's menu css and trying to build a column of menus > down the left side of the screen. I have an initial version. Some of that I > like, but I'm just not happy with how it's coming together yet. First we > have too many menu options to really make that approach work right now (thus > some reorg work really needs to be done), and it's a good time to perhaps > think about what all is in or out of the menus because not everything that's > there makes as much sense as it used to, and there are probably some things > that really should get dropped in there. Again, in terms of menu content, I > think we can agree that Pete's example page doesn't cover many of the items > that are currently in the FlightGear web page menu structure and adds some > different things that aren't currently in the FlightGear menu structure. > > Regards, > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > -- > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Kyle Keevill kyle...@gmail.com -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote some stuff about the web page: A couple brief comments on the web site. Pete and I agreed (I think) that we probably don't want to ultimately do the official flightgear web site as a google apps engine page. That locks us into a closed source, proprietary situation for the web site. What we suggested might be a way to move forward would be to migrate some of Pete's other people's ideas and feedback into the current web site. I spent some time using Pete's menu css and trying to build a column of menus down the left side of the screen. I have an initial version. Some of that I like, but I'm just not happy with how it's coming together yet. First we have too many menu options to really make that approach work right now (thus some reorg work really needs to be done), and it's a good time to perhaps think about what all is in or out of the menus because not everything that's there makes as much sense as it used to, and there are probably some things that really should get dropped in there. Again, in terms of menu content, I think we can agree that Pete's example page doesn't cover many of the items that are currently in the FlightGear web page menu structure and adds some different things that aren't currently in the FlightGear menu structure. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Curtis Olson wrote: > I wish to second this! FlightGear has never really gone on a marketing > offensive. Marketing takes a lot of time and effort, so it's hard for > people who are developing code or aircraft or working on other aspects of > the project to find a lot of additional time to do marketing on top of > everything else. Well, at least a minor step into a reasonable direction would be _not_ to dedicate prominent areas of the "flagship of the projects' marketing tools" - the main website - to 3rd party advertisement, and to let knowledgeable people develop not only a better design for the site but also a better concept for dealing with, updating the content. Let's be honest, in its current state the site isn't well suited to be shown around as an appealing intro into learning what the project is about. If we're seriously going into competition for headlines, then we should make sure, _beforehand_, not to have a primary web site which has such an embarrassing look (and feel) as the current one. BTW, it's generally understandable that nobody wants to dive deeply into developing a nice web representation for FlightGear if they don't see a change of getting the result accepted as the new site. While I'm uncertain wether I agree with every detail of Pete Morgan's proposal for a web site re-design, I think he deserves a real chance of getting his work accepted as The New Site, if he's doing a proper job. As far as I can tell, he'll be able to recruit people supporting (t)his effort, thus he doesn't have to shoulder all the work himself. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] a corruption of the heap
Hi! I biuld the source under windowsXP by MSVC90. I set ai-enable value as false to make sure the FP exception is not triggered. But after runing for minutes, the MSVC show the message following: HEAP[fgfs.exe]: Invalid Address specified to RtlFreeHeap( 0183, 01017020 ) Windows has triggered a breakpoint in fgfs.exe. This may be due to a corruption of the heap, which indicates a bug in fgfs.exe or any of the DLLs it has loaded. I have spend lots of time to find out what happened, but I get no result by now. Has anybody met this before? Please tell me if you have the solution about this problem. Thanks! Wlbg. -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shaders experiments
- "HB-GRAL" a écrit : > Erik Hofman schrieb: > > I've changed the coverage size of the textures from 1024 to 2000 > meter. > > Hello Erik > > I guess it is better not to change the texture size to 2000 meters(?) > in materials.xml. As I can see the size of the textures fits exactly to > the relief when it is 1024 at the moment. The relief (you mean the height of the buildings) can be adjusted in the effect file. The more important thing to me is to get the right horizontal scale. Nothing will change until the next scenery release because the scale is engraved in the scenery files (as texture coordinates) -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery - album photo http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/ FlightGear Scenery Designer -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
First, a parable: The local supermarket sells shiitake mushrooms for $5.00 per ounce. About a mile down the road there is an ethnic market that sells the same kind of mushrooms for $5.00 per *pound*. You might have been told in high school that this kind of thing can never happen in an efficient market. Well ... it turns out that the mushroom market is not efficient. You might say wow, that's a huge markup. I agree, it's a huge markup. On the other hand, huge markups are perfectly legal. There is nothing anybody can do about it, except maybe to shop around. Other examples abound. Year after year, people buy "breakfast cereal" despite the amazingly high markup. In early 1976, a Mattel vice president compared a game I had written to a Pet Rock. He meant it as the highest compliment, referring to something that millions of people would gladly buy, even though there was obviously a high markup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock On 03/17/2010 08:07 AM, Patrice Poly wrote: > I think what this person(s) do here is *almost* legal. I am not a lawyer, and I will not opine as to whether any particular thing is legal, but we certainly must consider the hypothesis that what FPS is doing is legal. It's a plausible hypothesis. Is FPS making money off of GPL software? Yes ... but that is expressly permitted by the GPL subject to some not-very-onerous conditions. We can insist that FPS strictly uphold the conditions, but that will not stop FPS from doing the things that list members find most distasteful. Is FPS charging a huge markup? Yes, definitely ... but there is nothing illegal about that. Some of the suggestions offered in this forum for trying to prevent that would violate the letter and spirit of the GPL. Loosely speaking, the point of the GPL is to prevent people -- including us -- from modifying GPL software so as to make it non-GPL. Is FPS guilty of plagiarism? Yes, definitely ... but this is not illegal, either. It is IMHO morally reprehensible, but it is permitted by the GPL. In another context, if you want to disallow plagiarism, you should use a Creative Commons / attribution license or some such. The GPL was designed by and for people who thought the anti-plagiarism provisions of the BSD license were too much trouble. In the context of FG, short of starting over and rewriting FG from scratch, I cannot imagine any way of "porting" FG to a more- restrictive license. == So, what *can* be done? For starters, in this situation as in so many others, sunlight is an excellent disinfectant. If the FPS guy is touting his wares in any open forum, you can speak up in that forum, early and often, so that buyers know where to go for the cheapest and most up-to-date FG versions. Don't get mad, just get the facts out. You can even go so far as to write articles for the various PC simulator magazines. This includes articles announcing the latest version of FG ... and also perhaps articles doing a review, comparing price and features, of the various offerings. I reckon somebody who increases the price without increasing the features would not fare well in such a comparison. -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shaders experiments
Erik Hofman schrieb: > I've changed the coverage size of the textures from 1024 to 2000 meter. Hello Erik I guess it is better not to change the texture size to 2000 meters(?) in materials.xml. As I can see the size of the textures fits exactly to the relief when it is 1024 at the moment. -Yves -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
I have been reading the mail archive and forums about this story, then went on the FPS website and read their disclaimer. >From what I saw, and given that my understanding of GPL and copyrights might be wrong, here are my thoughts : I think what this person(s) do here is *almost* legal. They are commercially distributing a GPL software in order to make profit, which is clearly allowed by the GPL licence, provided that the seller makes the source code accessible. I could find a link to some sources in their disclaimer. I did not parse the whole provided archive, so I don't know if every bit of FG sources are here. I am not sure if providing a download link is enough, or if they should provide the sources with the commercial CD/DVD they sell. Also, I don't know if they provide the source with the CD/DVDs. On the other hand, it seems from what I have read, that some of the pictures used in their website are screenshots coming from either the wiki, or from personal websites / blogs of FG users. In the case of the wiki, I understand the contents are provided under GPL. I am not sure how GPL works for images, my guess is that as long as the images on the website are linked to the wiki sources, the website holders must be safe. In the case of personal screenshots from personal blogs/ websites, it would depend on the licensing that their holders choosed. I see in the website disclaimers that they are willing to remove images if the copyright holders ask so. So, basically, if the source providing part and the image copyrights conditions are met, I think what is done here is just legal. It doesn't mean that I approve it entirely. When some commercial linux distributors include flightgear in their pay packages, I see it as a nice feature, and a 'plus' for that distribution. What the FPS team seems to be making is just easy money based on thousands man hour work, without other justification than simple profit. Ethically, this is a little bit border line in my opinion... but ( again if conditions are met ), this is just what the GPL allows. I didn't do much contributions to Flightgear, but the few I made, I did perfectly knowing that someone could reuse it for a commercial project, so despite the questionnable ethics in this story, I am not that upset. I see some people really upset and quite surprised, and I perfectly understand their feeling when they see that their hard work is being piped into some company's wallet. I presume there might be a need for better communicating what the GPL is to Flightgear new contributors, before their work is added to the project. I don't know how this could be done, though. Maybe asking contributors to include a copy of the license text with their work ? Maybe having a ' are you sure you understand what GPL is ' paragraph in the developer wiki portal ? Anyways, my opinion is that FlightGear and its contents SHOULD remain GPL based. This is what makes its great strength, what makes it an amazingly alive and vibrant project, that constantly evolves and progresses day after day, answering the needs and wishes of its userbase in good freedom and friendship feeling. The fact to include our work, be it code or some aircraft model, under the GPL is just our choice. If someone feels better to have it separate, under other types of licensing, like Creative Commons for instance, the choice is their too ! But again I think there is a need for some way to clearly explain people what the licenses really mean, before new work is commited, in order to avoid bitter surprises like we see now. I presume nothing can prevent some people with little consideration to make commercial attempts from time to time based on the FG team work... but as this has been said here, what future have these commercial projects when people will see that they can get the same product for free, with a wonderful community support and lifetime updates for nothing more than a hello in a chat or mailing list ? -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instant Replay, and it's recording of A/C parameters
Hi Peter, I haven't had a chance to look at this closely, but maybe I can offer a small bit of insight. We recognized that to record hours of high resolution flight data would blow up the memory footprint of FlightGear on any PC. So we went for a balance ... We record the most recent 60 seconds of data at full resolution, then the previous "n" minutes (I forget the exact number) is recorded at 1 second intervals. And then I think we go even further back recording at an even sparser interval. This way you get something as far back as you like, and you get high detail if you replay the last 60 seconds. Somewhere along the line a bug got introduced which I unfortunately haven't had a chance to dig into ... it's been there for a long time now. Originally, the recorder got turned off during the replay. Now the recorder continues to record while you replay ... so you are recording the replay as you replay it and you sort of end up with a recursive infinite loop. This actually has a nice feature that when you replay a flight, it loops for ever until you quit the replay, but know that each time through you are replaying a recording of the previous replay, and losing resolution each time through the cycle. So that's a bug, it needs to be fixed, I haven't had a chance to dig into it. The problem with this particular bug is that because you are recording as you replay, you never actually get to see that 60 seconds of highly detailed data (assuming you replay more than 60 seconds which most people probably do.) So we are missing out on all the subtle nuances of your landing when you replay your landing for instance. One other thing. The data structure that is recorded is the FGNativeFDM structure defined in src/Network/native_fdm.hxx. You do bring up a good question: what values should be recorded every frame? Given that aircraft designers can make up their own properties and drive them with nasal or other means, we can't know in advance a fixed set of property names that cover every situation. So for the replay system we decided to go with a fixed, pre-defined binary structure ... and then you do live with a few replay warts if you are viewing an aircraft that uses "non-standard" properties ... and that's not a knock on the aircraft designer ... some airplanes have more than 4 engines, the AN-225 has like 185 landing gear assemblies, many aircraft have unique control systems and control surfaces ... and we can't take 20 minutes worth of snapshots of the entire property tree @ 60hz ... not on my PC anyway. So the 60 second marker you mention is interesting ... that could correspond with the system that records the most recent 60 seconds at a high data rate. There could be some boundary logic there that didn't take every possible situation into consideration. Best regards, Curt. On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Peter Brown wrote: > As I have not been able to find any doc's or forum topics expounding on it, > could someone explain a few things to me about Instant Replay? > > First off, what parameters are logged by it, or what defines if a parameter > is logged by it? ie, thrust reverser use do not replay, but flaps do. > This doesn't seem to be by model builder choice (?), unless Instant Replay > is tied into multi-player parameters? > > Secondly, in using it to test a few modifications, I found this > sort-of-an-issue. I say sort-of, for it would be rare for someone to find > it. Took me 2 years. >- If you start FG, and attempt to use Instant Replay with the > default 90 second timeframe in _less than 60 seconds Sim time_, FG will > crash with a CullVisitor~nan nan nan error. >- And so, if you start FG and set the replay time for a shorter > period than sim time, it will work. >makes sense, other than it shouldn't crash FG. >But, if you wait for the Sim clock in the property browser to reach > 60 seconds, you can enter _ANY_ duration into the replay time menu (200 > seconds for example), and the replay function will simply drop you back at > the spawn location until the clock counts down to your spawn and movement > time. > >So, why won't it do that under 60 seconds? > > I only found the issue since I was attempting to see what I could make work > in replay. So, it's not really an issue, but thought I'd pass it along. If > someone can fill me in on the first question about what is or can be tied > into the replay function for aircraft parameters, that would be great. > > Thanks, > Peter > > ref: tested senario in 2 aircraft and the mibs, to ensure consistency. > > -- > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > __
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Peter Brown wrote: > While I truly hope this group, or multiple groups can get together and > bring him to task for his wrongs, publication of "FlightGear.org as a > BETTER simulator, which also happens to be FREE, and by the way, that other > simulator is just a copy of ours that you have to pay for" may be the best > way to be combative. Go on the offense, publicize the heck out of it. > Encourage users to post more youtube videos, publish your own, make sure > every website page has the best language for the google bots to promote > FlightGear.org as better, with free being a side benefit. > > I say this for it seems that marketing is his game, although purely a sham. > Let's beat him at it, honestly. > I wish to second this! FlightGear has never really gone on a marketing offensive. Marketing takes a lot of time and effort, so it's hard for people who are developing code or aircraft or working on other aspects of the project to find a lot of additional time to do marketing on top of everything else. Can we do distributed / open-source marketing? What would that look like? Would we be able to get some volunteers to put some time into a marketing effort? Based on my slim experience, I will propose that our biggest bang for the buck (or for our efforts) would be to get mentioned on popular web sites. I.e. a release announcement on slashdot or one of the popular flight sim web sites. Contacting magazine editors is another thing we could be doing. For example, last fall I stumbled across "PC PILOT" on the new stand. It's a great magazine ... full of really cool, realy splashy, screen shots. I noticed a trend though ... 90-95% of the magazine was dedicated to reviewing aircraft and scenery add ons for MSFS. If we had time to establish a relationship with some different magazine editors, I think that would be beneficial. Again, based on my slim experience, magazine editors want to sell magazines and advertising, so the more attractive and interesting they can make their publication, the better. If we can offer some fresh and interesting content, they might suck that right up and run with it. A splashy headline on the front of the magazine might be all it takes to get another person to pick it up and buy a copy ... Again, based on my slim experience, it seems like whenever we do get a mention on a prominent web site, our own web traffic spikes, lots of new visitors come check out our web page for the first time, lots of new users download FlightGear and try it out. Probably our all time greatest spike (bigger than slashdot) was when we were mentioned as Kim Kommando's "cool site of the day." So in my view, our biggest bang for our effort will be to establish relationships with the editors of large web sites and popular magazines and try to get interesting news announcements and content pushed out through their publications. But there is a reason companies hire full time marketing folks ... it takes time and energy and effort to establish the relationships with key people and time and effort to create quality "news" content to feed them, and then do this on a continual basis so we continue to look "fresh". An announcement on slashdot rolls off the end of the page after a day or two (or a couple hours even.) For a print magazine, once this month is done, everyone is moving on to next month. I think our newsletter is a great example of keeping "fresh" information alive, but we need to take that sort of information and "push" it out to our different information distribution channels ... and we need to establish those channels in the first place. Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
As much as I'd hope what you say would be true, realistically there is not much of a downside for this guy. Everyday people make purchases without knowing all the facts, and for more money buying online than locally. (Ebay can be a good example) From his side of it, unless someone or group is willing to take it through the legal process, any sale he gets is free money to him. And if someone does take to court, does anyone know what to expect for an outcome? Would it be more than a simple "stop order"? If not, he's already stolen money from unknowning customers, so he's still ahead of the game. While I truly hope this group, or multiple groups can get together and bring him to task for his wrongs, publication of "FlightGear.org as a BETTER simulator, which also happens to be FREE, and by the way, that other simulator is just a copy of ours that you have to pay for" may be the best way to be combative. Go on the offense, publicize the heck out of it. Encourage users to post more youtube videos, publish your own, make sure every website page has the best language for the google bots to promote FlightGear.org as better, with free being a side benefit. I say this for it seems that marketing is his game, although purely a sham. Let's beat him at it, honestly. my .02 worth. Peter On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: > I think this is exactly true. And what happens to this guy when more and more > people start finding out that they have paid money for something they could > have gotten for free? > > Jon > > > From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] > > The guy is building his business on a charade ... and that is a hard thing to > keep up long term. He has to spend a large percentage of his time > maintaining his charade, covering his tracks, etc. I can't even remember my > own forum password half the time ... and this guy has to remember a bunch of > user names and passwords. He probably has sticky notes all over his monitor. > Maybe he's really good at that sort of thing and will have some leeching > success, but it's a shaky business model that could come crashing down around > him at any time. He's always going to be looking over his shoulder ... > hoping he doesn't inadvertently swindle the wrong person in the wrong country > ... hoping the major publications don't catch on to him ... hoping if > something does go wrong he can duck into the shadows and re-emerge somewhere > else ... reality has a way of catching up with these guys eventually. > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > -- > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
I think this is exactly true. And what happens to this guy when more and more people start finding out that they have paid money for something they could have gotten for free? Jon From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] The guy is building his business on a charade ... and that is a hard thing to keep up long term. He has to spend a large percentage of his time maintaining his charade, covering his tracks, etc. I can't even remember my own forum password half the time ... and this guy has to remember a bunch of user names and passwords. He probably has sticky notes all over his monitor. Maybe he's really good at that sort of thing and will have some leeching success, but it's a shaky business model that could come crashing down around him at any time. He's always going to be looking over his shoulder ... hoping he doesn't inadvertently swindle the wrong person in the wrong country ... hoping the major publications don't catch on to him ... hoping if something does go wrong he can duck into the shadows and re-emerge somewhere else ... reality has a way of catching up with these guys eventually. Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Am Mittwoch, den 17.03.2010, 07:57 +0100 schrieb Tim Moore: > > I'm not worried about introducing our own violations of the GPL by > putting planes under a second license. I strongly believe that > modelers should use whatever license they want. There may be issues > with calling GPL'ed Nasal code, borrowing, etc., but that's beside the > point. I have been making contributions to Flightgear for the last 3 > years in the belief that it will remain under the GPL. The GPL assures > me that future users of the code will want to share their > contributions as well. This rewards my time spent by encouraging a > growing community and code base. If Flightgear starts retreating from > the GPL out of misplaced worries about mooching, I'd have to reexamine > how I spend my hacking time. > I pretty much agree that FG should stay GPL. And there is a benefit in putting content under GPL too. Aircraft modelling has become a huge task with todays features (which of course is a good thing). So any contribution is welcome. Personally I'd only contribute to GPL Projects. However I see some new strategy in FlightProSim actions. It appears this guy wants to divorce developers off from flightgear, either by discrediting and lying on his "review-sites", calling out "monthly development prizes" on the mailing list or by calling to "Join FlightProSim" in our forums. Greetings -- Detlef Faber http://www.sol2500.net/flightgear -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Tim Moore wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Rob Oates >Our models and our code should be seen as two separate entities, >>that is all that I'm suggesting. > > I'm having trouble seeing the difference between "highly detailed models > and artwork" and significant code contributions in terms of the ethics > of making money off them. True, if it weren't for tens of thousands of hours of developer time to develop and extend the code then the highly detailed models would just be sitting on someones hard drive. The code base took almost 15 years to mature to it's current state. That's what made me start to hate the guy who was the reason this discussion started; He is trying to make anyone believe that because he makes money of our work, his code base is better than ours since "FlightProSim is a paid Flight Simulator so more work and time goes into it than a volunteer one." Idiot. Erik -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
