Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On Wednesday 26 January 2011 01:34:35 Curtis Olson wrote: > The other implication here is that it would be extremely handy to have > multiple branches checked out simultaneously for other reasons. git makes > branching easy, yes, but if you find yourself bouncing between branches > with changes fo

[Flightgear-devel] [FWD: Re: VATSIM support?]

 OK, here's the first part, apologies for the screw-up   Original Message Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?From: cas...@mminternet.comDate: Tue, January 25, 2011 11:36 pmTo: "FlightGear developers discussions"Hi,Hmmm, I would t

Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?

 NUTS!!   was working on a draft and hit send by accident. to finish my comments.   waiting on word for a proposal to build a 737NG FTD certified by FAA at Level 5. Should know within the next few weeks, hopefully. That wil wipe me out for the next six months, but can still find some time to get th

Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?

Hi, Hmmm, I would take it one step further... You write and operate an FG/VATSIM server running on a dedicated machine(s) and publish the FG open source interface and protocol. The VATSIM side and source in the server is closed and operates with an approved NDA. Anyone may join from the FG si

Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?

HI Chris, Here are a couple quick comment in reply ... My sense is that there are very few people who would outright oppose a vatsim interface to flightgear. I think most people would consider this is a good thing. Here is my question/concern. If some developer gets approved by vatsim and sign

Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?

[PREFACE: I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I an intellectual property rights attorney. My sole desire is to use FG as a "realistic" flight similator, as opposed to using it as a fun "game." Please consider the remarks below in that context. Thanks!] On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:15 -

[Flightgear-devel] ..replay HUD speed tape bug?, was: Fgdata release branch for 2.2.0

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:04:37 +, James wrote in message : > Following on from the release branches of the code, it's now time to > make a release branch for fgdata. (In fact it should have already > been done, since fgdata contains changes incompatible with the code > release branch) > > I'll

[Flightgear-devel] list of aircraft that don't load in fgdata

I have tried to load several AC that did not load with "filed to load " errors. So I did a survey of the entire up-to-date fgdata. I used an up-to-date fgrun and went through all the AC. The following do not load even to the viewer in fgrun: 737-100, 737-300, AG-14, Airwave Xtreme 150, CRJ-200

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

The other implication here is that it would be extremely handy to have multiple branches checked out simultaneously for other reasons. git makes branching easy, yes, but if you find yourself bouncing between branches with changes for separate projects, and external events may require you to jump t

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to > have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be > curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons. We have been > using large poly

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:44 PM, ThorstenB wrote: > > "make" isn't smart > enough to notice that the older object files were generated from (older) > sources, which had identical content to the current ("newer") sources. Right. Enter ccache :) -- Csaba/Jester --

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Curtis Olson wrote: > Once you get it all figured out, please let us know how, so we can get setup > correctly too. :-) I'm not sure this counts as figuring it all out.. :) anders@sleipner:/opt/FlightGear$ du -sk fgdata 7930604 fgdata anders@sleipner:/opt/FlightGear$ git clo

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:08:00 +0100, Bertrand wrote in message : > 2011/1/25 Vivian Meazza : > > and the vertical movement would > > tend to unlatch aircraft on deck from the carrier. > > > > Are you sure of that statement ? Can the carrier vertical speed be > higher than the speed of a falling o

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Anders Gidenstam wrote: > I suspect the option --local to git clone might be useful. > I have not tried myself, though. > Once you get it all figured out, please let us know how, so we can get setup correctly too. :-) Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.a

[Flightgear-devel] Italian Flight Sim Show

Italian Flight Simulator Show: Weekend of March 19-20, 2011 Verona, Italy http://www.pvi.it/joomla/eventi/79-flight-simulator-show-2011/210-documenti-sul-flight-simulator-show I am just passing along information here in case we have FlightGear developers or users that might be interested in this

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

2011/1/25 Vivian Meazza : > and the vertical movement would > tend to unlatch aircraft on deck from the carrier. > Are you sure of that statement ? Can the carrier vertical speed be higher than the speed of a falling object ? My bet would be that the normal reaction forces at the landing gears wil

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Is there a problem with maintaining vertical sync with MPCarrier? If there is > please file a report here: > > http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/list > > Vivian > No Vivian, Curt suggested that "carriers do a terrain heig

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

Is there a problem with maintaining vertical sync with MPCarrier? If there is please file a report here: http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/list Vivian -Original Message- From: Peter Brown [mailto:smoothwater...@adelphia.net] Sent: 25 January 2011 19:33 To: FlightG

Re: [Flightgear-devel] NaNs when resetting JSBSim

Am 25.01.2011 12:59, schrieb Geoff McLane: > [... JSBSim trim failure report] > Is this a problem? Certainly do not like seeing 'Failed', > but it seems fg runs ok, and the aircraft seems to fly ;=)) > so maybe not a problem... It is probably not a problem, except for adding complexity when hunting

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

Carriers are set to 0 ft altitude. However, we were aware of the discrepancy caused by a flat sea on a roundish world. The wake of the Nimitz is angled down to form a skirt that conceals the error from most, if not all, normal viewing angles. We deliberately do not seek the local sea level as this

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Peter Brown > wrote: > > I expected if flat then the polys would only go down until the mid-span of > the ocean surface and then it would rise back up to meet the terrain again. > > Isn't that what is happen

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On 25 Jan 2011, at 19:22, Anders Gidenstam wrote: > I suspect the option --local to git clone might be useful. > I have not tried myself, though. The thing I was thinking of is: git-new-workdir Which essentially symlinks the key pieces of .git between two different dirs. Documentation

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:20 PM, John Denker wrote: > On 01/25/2011 12:14 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: >> How about having carriers do a terrain height check and follow the polygon >> curvature of the FlightGear world? > > Call it a feature. > > The real ocean has swells. They make carrier flight opera

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, ThorstenB wrote: > You'll also need to keep git from touching any _sources_, so maintain > two sets of matching sources and their objects. Using two completely > separate repos helps - or the "magic" feature to create two separate > source checkouts from one repository, which

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On 01/25/2011 12:14 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > How about having carriers do a terrain height check and follow the polygon > curvature of the FlightGear world? Call it a feature. The real ocean has swells. They make carrier flight operations considerably more interesting. ---

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Peter Brown wrote: > Does it not seem a bit odd to have a divot like this? > Well odd things result occasionally when we try to represent the physical world with triangles ... we could discuss how many triangles and where to concentrate them ... that's always a f

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to > have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be > curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons. We have been > using large poly

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

Tides? Ocean with LOD? On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Curtis Olson wrote: > Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to > have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be > curved.  To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons.  We hav

Re: [Flightgear-devel] git work flow question

On 24.01.2011 22:49, James Turner wrote: >> Perhaps another approach would be to do out-of-source builds. I think >> automake/conf should support that, although it's been a while since I've >> tried it. > Cmake is very good at out-of-source builds :) Hmm. The out-of-source builds alone don't rea

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

Quick explanation: the world is curved (oblate spheroid) so if in order to have an ocean that measures zero MSL at all points, it would have to be curved. To do this perfectly requires a *lot* of polygons. We have been using large polygons for the ocean so that leads to some errors depending on w

[Flightgear-devel] Carrier Altitude

In attempting to place an item on the ocean surface, I came to realize that it's not the Nimitz that is "hovering" above MSL, it's that the "ocean surface" is about 7 meters below MSL. I was going to suggest simply dropping the carriers to match, but then looking around I discovered that it was

Re: [Flightgear-devel] NaNs when resetting JSBSim

Hi, In Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, just did a git pull (SG/FG/DATA), and make, etc, and on running the default a/c, as someone else also reported, get the console output :- creating 3D noise texture... DONE Trim Results: Altitude AGL:4.4 wdot: 1.54e-03 Tolerance: 1e-03 Failed

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!

On 25 Jan 2011, at 10:28, Jon S. Berndt wrote: > What patch? FIx for #204, the issue Henri is describing: http://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/commit/c2458a17bf0a8a95caf1a43e37482162ae0100bc Partial band-aid for #222, the reset-NaN crash: (ugly, but not in the main JSBSim code) http://gitoriou

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Jon S. Berndt wrote: >> It was solved, but my was over-written when Erik updated JSBSim >> (because I didn't remember to submit it to JSBSim). But last night I >> re-appllied the fix to Git, so it should work again - I spent some time >> with the C172 resetting and repositioni

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!

> > It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash > with that message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine! > > It was solved, but my was over-written when Erik updated JSBSim > (because I didn't remember to submit it to JSBSim). But last night I > re-appllied the fix to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!

Thanks, I did not noticed the last nigh update. Will try out it. 2011/1/25 James Turner > > On 25 Jan 2011, at 09:46, henri orange wrote: > > > It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash with > that message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine! > > It was solved, but

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!

On 25 Jan 2011, at 09:46, henri orange wrote: > It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash with that > message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine! It was solved, but my was over-written when Erik updated JSBSim (because I didn't remember to submit it to JSBSim).

[Flightgear-devel] Tried to initialize a non-existent engine!

Hello devel members, That issue with jsbsim aircraft is back. It comes up when at reset , for instance c172p.and we get a crash with that message: Tried to initialize a non-existent engine! I thought it was solved. -- Best regards, Henri, aka Alva Official grtux hangar maintainer -