Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear and OSG out of sync?
I was confused, by my git SVN import of the OSG source tree, about what commits are in 2.8.3. I'll check in a correction soon. Tim On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Frederic Bouvier fredfgf...@free.fr wrote: - Bertrand Coconnier a écrit : 2011/2/15 Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com: I've checked in fixes for this change in osgDB:DatabasePager to the SimGear and FlightGear next and releases/2.2.0 branches. Part of the delay resulted from the fact that the Open Scene Graph change introduced a new bug; I have waited until my patch for that was accepted in OSG to avoid a situation where people could compile with OSG SVN and then crash immediately. So, You need to have revision 12170 or later of OSG SVN in order to run fgfs from the release and next branches. Otherwise you should use OSG 2.8.3 or 2.9.10. I will not conditionalize code in fgfs based on individual revisions of OSG SVN; if you are using OSG SVN, then you are, by definition, living on the bleeding edge. Hi Tim, Your commit broke SimGear for me (using OSG 2.8.1). I have attached a tiny patch that restores the ability to compile the last SG git revision with OSG 2.8.1 Could you please review it and apply it if it makes sense ? Your patch doesn't work for OSG = 2.9 because _readerWriterOptions is unconditionally used in SGPagedLOD.cxx Regards, -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://www.youtube.com/user/fgfred64 Videos -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear and OSG out of sync?
By the way, I committed the changes to releases/2.2.0 and then merged that branch into next. This is the way fixes should move between the two branches. Please don't commit a fix to next and then cherry-pick it to the release branch. It is very messy to have the same change committed on several different branches. I tried that on the data repo without luck. Many Aircraft are removed for the release, and merging propagate that in master. Recovering my local workspace now... Regards, -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://www.youtube.com/user/fgfred64 Videos -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH-1 Merge Request
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Jack Mermod wrote: Hi, The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release. Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about a simple logo. It is neither ridiculous nor immature. Unfortunately the reality of the world that we live in is that Intellectual Property licensing is very important, particularly for a project such as FlightGear where we are all volunteers While you may not see it as an issue, and be prepared to fight in court, by having someone include the logo in the git repository we would be making them, and possibly all the git maintainers, personally liable for any infringement. Red Bull might not care, but if they did, the costs of defending such legal challenges would be huge, even if we were not infringing. If you have no assets you might not be a target, but I have sufficient assets and a wife and child to think about - it is simply not worth the risk. Approaching Red Bull directly (as noted in the topic) seems by far the most sensible option here. I would be very interested in what they say, but I strongly suspect at the very least it would have some non-commercial clause that would be incompatible with the GPL. If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull logos that are already in our database. IMO these need to be removed. Could you list them please so we can get in touch with the maintainers? FYI, when I initially created the Pitts biplane for FG, it had a Duff Beer livery, after the beer in The Simpsons. So, a wholly fictious brand in a cartoon. After some discussion, we decided that this wasn't really appropriate and it was removed from (then) cvs. So, you're not the first to be in this position. If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very well change the license back to the CC license and our community will have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. I don't think posting to the FlightGear-Dev list can be considered interfering. It is after all, a discussion group :) It is important that these issues are discussed - and this is exactly the correct forum for this. I think you will find that any other git committer will want to discuss these issues in an open forum and come to a consensus view rather than just committing such work. I expect that they would have exactly the same concerns as me. This is not an issue with GPL/CC licensing. You are perfectly entitled to release your aircraft with the Red Bull livery under the GPL - in fact you have already done so! The issue is whether it is something that we can risk adding to the core FG repository. Note that to change to a CC license, you would need to get permission from all the contributors to the aircraft. From reading the Forum topic, it would appear to be a great example of cooperation between many different people. Frankly such threats of changing the license are beneath you. -Stuart -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear and OSG out of sync?
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Frederic Bouvier wrote: By the way, I committed the changes to releases/2.2.0 and then merged that branch into next. This is the way fixes should move between the two branches. Please don't commit a fix to next and then cherry-pick it to the release branch. It is very messy to have the same change committed on several different branches. I tried that on the data repo without luck. Many Aircraft are removed for the release, and merging propagate that in master. Recovering my local workspace now... Yes, for fgdata merging back from the 2.2.0 branch will not work. I'm a bit at loss why the 2.2.0 branch was reduced to contain only the data package contents instead of being a snapshot of everything to be included in the release - presumably there will be archives for the download page generated also for the aircraft removed in the 2.2.0 branch. Hopefully their state in master will still be 2.2.0 compatible at that time.. For the next release maybe we could create two release branches in data 2.x.0-full and 2.x.0-datapackage, where the first serves as the full data release and the latter whatever purpose (snapshot generation?) the 2.2.0 branch serves now. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] memory usage
At Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:48:58 +0100 Csaba Halász csaba.hal...@gmail.com wrote: I have noticed that after about an hour of hanging around at KSFO in an ufo on MP, FG's memory went steadily up and eventually reached 2.7GiB. Similarly, during the TGA event at the weekend, memory usage was above 2GiB by the end of the ~5 hour flight. Looks like we may be leaking memory. Anybody else have similar experience? I am using current GIT on 64 bit linux with AI traffic, traffic manager and replay turned off. I can confirm the issue with ~1 month git code. My scenario was: l410 AC (from Jiri Javurek) short flight from EVRA(Riga, Latvia) to UMMS (Minsk, Belarus) during ~ 1.5-2 hours (including coffee brakes). FG has eaten ~ 500 MB of RAM during flight. FG has been paused over night (~ 8h) after landing and parking at UMMS. At morning FG has ~ 1.5GB consumed. FG dead after ~ 3 minutes after take off from UMMS. PS: I have only 2Gb RAM on FG node and 960MB of swap, both airports have custom AI traffic. Debian Linux x86. --- Regards, Alexey. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear and OSG out of sync?
My patch may not work for OSG =2.9 but the fact is that _readerWriterOptions is also needed for SimGear to compile with OSG 2.8.1. Cheers, Bertrand Le 16 févr. 2011 02:53, Frederic Bouvier fredfgf...@free.fr a écrit : - Bertrand Coconnier a écrit : 2011/2/15 Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com: I've checked in fixes for this change in osgDB:Dat... Your patch doesn't work for OSG = 2.9 because _readerWriterOptions is unconditionally used in SGPagedLOD.cxx Regards, -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://www.youtube.com/user/fgfred64 Videos -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists... -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
PodaVhone issue: http://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=56can=1q=vodaphone Tips: #1 don't mention the brand name as you are are aware of it and thus intentional.. (or patents) Sorry, but I have worked in this area and they are out to kill as interest is held... Flightgear needs to avoid them completely, unless - we have permission To have permission we need someone/something/entity to have agreement with.. Indeed PJ is very handy, my dream would be she could represent FG, lots of choclates and free flights imagined.. pete -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH-1 Merge Request
Stuart Buchanan On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Jack Mermod wrote: Hi, The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release. Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about a simple logo. It is neither ridiculous nor immature. Unfortunately the reality of the world that we live in is that Intellectual Property licensing is very important, particularly for a project such as FlightGear where we are all volunteers While you may not see it as an issue, and be prepared to fight in court, by having someone include the logo in the git repository we would be making them, and possibly all the git maintainers, personally liable for any infringement. Red Bull might not care, but if they did, the costs of defending such legal challenges would be huge, even if we were not infringing. If you have no assets you might not be a target, but I have sufficient assets and a wife and child to think about - it is simply not worth the risk. Approaching Red Bull directly (as noted in the topic) seems by far the most sensible option here. I would be very interested in what they say, but I strongly suspect at the very least it would have some non-commercial clause that would be incompatible with the GPL. If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull logos that are already in our database. IMO these need to be removed. Could you list them please so we can get in touch with the maintainers? FYI, when I initially created the Pitts biplane for FG, it had a Duff Beer livery, after the beer in The Simpsons. So, a wholly fictious brand in a cartoon. After some discussion, we decided that this wasn't really appropriate and it was removed from (then) cvs. So, you're not the first to be in this position. If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very well change the license back to the CC license and our community will have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. I don't think posting to the FlightGear-Dev list can be considered interfering. It is after all, a discussion group :) It is important that these issues are discussed - and this is exactly the correct forum for this. I think you will find that any other git committer will want to discuss these issues in an open forum and come to a consensus view rather than just committing such work. I expect that they would have exactly the same concerns as me. This is not an issue with GPL/CC licensing. You are perfectly entitled to release your aircraft with the Red Bull livery under the GPL - in fact you have already done so! The issue is whether it is something that we can risk adding to the core FG repository. Note that to change to a CC license, you would need to get permission from all the contributors to the aircraft. From reading the Forum topic, it would appear to be a great example of cooperation between many different people. Frankly such threats of changing the license are beneath you. This is ridiculous. We have this discussion every so often, when we are not arguing over FlightPro Sim. Do we have to change every airliner model in the inventory? Of course we don't. Use the bloody thing. And if ever anyone complains say: Whoops! Sorry., and take it down, as we would for any other copyright infringement. We ways end up with this solution. Simples. Vivian -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
On 2/15/2011 8:27 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:50:36 -0800, Jack wrote in message 72e5b800-d213-466d-bf46-c3d33d4ae...@gmail.com: Hi, The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release. Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about a simple logo. If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull logos that are already in our database. .._where_? If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very well change the license back to the CC license and our community will have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. Regards, Jack ..now, imagine where _we_ would have been if tSCOG _had_ a case against Big Blue. You would have had to pay tSCOG US $1499 (or whatever it was) for every thread in your cpu. They were targeting GPL code, and the GPL itself, as anti-American. ..even as we celebrate the approaching conclusion of: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110215183557939 in http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040319041857760 it is _just_ a side show. http://groklaw.net/ has waaay more. Jack, You know who takes trademark law seriously? Trademark owners. An owner must protect their trademarks from being used in ways that decrease the value to them. This tends to be two areas, one very specific and the other kind of broad. The first thing they must protect against is their trademark becoming generic; if everyone refers to an adhesive bandage as a Band-Aid, then Johnson and Johnson, who owns that trademark, runs the risk of losing the exclusive use of it. In fact, they made their advertising jingle many years ago to include stuck on Band-Aid brand as a very public way of asserting their ownership of the brand. Did you know Otis Elevator company came up with and trademarked the name escalator? They did not actively (enough) assert their ownership of that trademark and have lost any rights of exclusivity to it. It is now a generic term that any company can use to refer to stairs that move or anything else, for that matter. In these cases, it is an *urgent* obligation of the trademark owner to sue the pants off of any infringer. The remaining broad category is your trademark being used in any other way that decreases its value to you. This can be using it to refer to products or things it isn't intended to be associated with, removing the focus from the owner's product(s). Worse are cases where a trademark is used in ways that are harmful to the image of the owner or the owner's products. A hopefully imaginary example here might be the questionable marketing practices of certain people who are selling FlightGear to the public. Hell, even *we* don't want to be associated with them... why would Red Bull (tm) like it any better? They have much more to lose, in terms of gross dollars, than anyone here does if their trademarks were to become associated with misbehavior. So, you might say, let them go after ProSimFraud if they are misbehaving. The ProFraudSimulator people would simply point to FlightGear and say, hey this is Open Source and *they* did it! This topic has come up here before and I even checked with American Airlines about use of their logos/trademarks. Their answer was dense legal talk that I roughly translated to mean we realize we can't stop everybody from using our logos, but boy howdy, we have the right to kick your ass in court if you do it and tick us off! How is open source Red Hat Enterprise different from open source CentOS? Trademarks. The words Red Hat and any logos owned by them are completely removed by the CentOS group, leaving the only encumbrances those obligations covered by the GPL. It's kind of neat that you can take a Red Hat installation, point it to a CentOS repository instead of the Red Hat network and have it install updates. When the updates are complete, Ta dah! You now have a CentOS branded installation. Back on point, Red Hat differentiates its products by the services they provide and the *trademarks* that they own. Sure, you can use their operating system code freely, but not their services or *trademarks*. Like American Airlines, they have the right to kick your ass in court for doing so. If the Red Bull were to get litigious on us, they'd have to put some names on the law suit. There isn't a FlightGear Foundation or any single entity responsible for FG, so right at the top of the list would be names near and dear to us, starting with Curtis Olson. The list of defendants would probably include anyone else identified as being responsible for the infringement, such as whoever committed the livery to git and whoever participated in releasing the
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH-1 Merge Request
Vivian Meazza wrote: This is ridiculous. We have this discussion every so often, when we are not arguing over FlightPro Sim. Do we have to change every airliner model in the inventory? Of course we don't. Use the bloody thing. Red Bull is known to be very restrictive sensitive when it comes to commercial use of their trademarked material. Therefore I'd call it unjustifiable to put the FlightGear project at risk of facing a legal battle. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
I hate to wade into mud wrestling matches. But for every one who is on their high horse about being pristine in our non-use of any possible trademarked items ... have you browsed through our aircraft? We have liveries from just about every airline imaginable, past and present. What I don't like to hear is arguments along the line of: person A can't submit anything that could ever possibly be a trademark infraction by anyone's estimation, but person B we will let get away with it. Oh and by the way, we really should go through our repository and clean out any possible trademark infringements ... maybe some day. First of all this smacks of targeting or interpreting our policy differently for different people... and that usually is done on the basis of some other agenda. Maybe the person in question has invited some of this, maybe they haven't, but applying our policies in different measures to different people can quickly get petty and immature. Second, saying that oh I wish we'd retroactively fix our repository to honor this policy perfectly, and then doing nothing about it also is really weak. It sounds good on the face of it, but at the end of the day what matters is action, not words. I think it's pretty accepted that flight simulators can reproduce company liveries in the process of realistically modeling the world. I know that has been widely debated (AA, et. al) but the reality is that people are creating liveries of all kinds of companies all the time. Where do we draw the lines? Is it ok to reproduce an airline livery, but not some other company livery? As far as I can tell the people arguing that we can't have a red bull logo are on really shaky ground from a consistency perspective. Do you want to argue this from a legal standpoint? Do we only include anything that we have written permission from the original company to use? In that case probably we'll have to rip out half of our simulator. How far do we want to take it? Do you think aircraft manufacturers have given us explicit permission to replicate their designs? Aircraft systems and cockpit displays? Tire manufacturers? ACME rivet company? I've got nothing on file from them. Building shapes and names and logos? If we have to get written permssion to replicate anything, then we might as well pack it all up and go home, as should every other simulator developer. I only wade in because this whole thing smacks of a pissing match and I get strong indication that our policies are being selectively interpreted by some to gain an advantage in this stupid pissing match and not for the benefit and quality and safety of the FlightGear project itself. Thank you, Curt. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Reagan Thomas wrote: On 2/15/2011 8:27 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:50:36 -0800, Jack wrote in message 72e5b800-d213-466d-bf46-c3d33d4ae...@gmail.com: Hi, The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release. Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about a simple logo. If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull logos that are already in our database. .._where_? If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very well change the license back to the CC license and our community will have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. Regards, Jack ..now, imagine where _we_ would have been if tSCOG _had_ a case against Big Blue. You would have had to pay tSCOG US $1499 (or whatever it was) for every thread in your cpu. They were targeting GPL code, and the GPL itself, as anti-American. ..even as we celebrate the approaching conclusion of: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110215183557939 in http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040319041857760 it is _just_ a side show. http://groklaw.net/ has waaay more. Jack, You know who takes trademark law seriously? Trademark owners. An owner must protect their trademarks from being used in ways that decrease the value to them. This tends to be two areas, one very specific and the other kind of broad. The first thing they must protect against is their trademark becoming generic; if everyone refers to an adhesive bandage as a Band-Aid, then Johnson and Johnson, who owns that trademark, runs the risk of losing the exclusive use of it. In fact, they made their advertising jingle many years ago to include stuck on Band-Aid brand as a very public way of asserting their ownership of the brand. Did you know Otis Elevator company came up with and trademarked the name escalator? They did not actively (enough) assert their ownership of that trademark and have lost any rights of exclusivity to
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Re: Red Bull. One could ask for forgiveness rather than permission. But, another approach might be to go directly to Red Bull for permission to use their trademark in return for free advertising for them. I don't know how several RC aircraft makers 'solved' this issue. There are several RC aircraft with the Red Bull livery in addition to several other trademarked liveries. However, one never really knows how lawyers will react on a case by case basis. Regards, Duane -Original Message- From: Reagan Thomas [mailto:thomas...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:12 AM To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request On 2/15/2011 8:27 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:50:36 -0800, Jack wrote in message 72e5b800-d213-466d-bf46-c3d33d4ae...@gmail.com: Hi, The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release. Download: http://jackmermod.bplaced.net/Files/cobra21511.zip I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about a simple logo. If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull logos that are already in our database. .._where_? If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very well change the license back to the CC license and our community will have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. Regards, Jack ..now, imagine where _we_ would have been if tSCOG _had_ a case against Big Blue. You would have had to pay tSCOG US $1499 (or whatever it was) for every thread in your cpu. They were targeting GPL code, and the GPL itself, as anti-American. ..even as we celebrate the approaching conclusion of: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110215183557939 in http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040319041857760 it is _just_ a side show. http://groklaw.net/ has waaay more. Jack, You know who takes trademark law seriously? Trademark owners. An owner must protect their trademarks from being used in ways that decrease the value to them. This tends to be two areas, one very specific and the other kind of broad. The first thing they must protect against is their trademark becoming generic; if everyone refers to an adhesive bandage as a Band-Aid, then Johnson and Johnson, who owns that trademark, runs the risk of losing the exclusive use of it. In fact, they made their advertising jingle many years ago to include stuck on Band-Aid brand as a very public way of asserting their ownership of the brand. Did you know Otis Elevator company came up with and trademarked the name escalator? They did not actively (enough) assert their ownership of that trademark and have lost any rights of exclusivity to it. It is now a generic term that any company can use to refer to stairs that move or anything else, for that matter. In these cases, it is an *urgent* obligation of the trademark owner to sue the pants off of any infringer. The remaining broad category is your trademark being used in any other way that decreases its value to you. This can be using it to refer to products or things it isn't intended to be associated with, removing the focus from the owner's product(s). Worse are cases where a trademark is used in ways that are harmful to the image of the owner or the owner's products. A hopefully imaginary example here might be the questionable marketing practices of certain people who are selling FlightGear to the public. Hell, even *we* don't want to be associated with them... why would Red Bull (tm) like it any better? They have much more to lose, in terms of gross dollars, than anyone here does if their trademarks were to become associated with misbehavior. So, you might say, let them go after ProSimFraud if they are misbehaving. The ProFraudSimulator people would simply point to FlightGear and say, hey this is Open Source and *they* did it! This topic has come up here before and I even checked with American Airlines about use of their logos/trademarks. Their answer was dense legal talk that I roughly translated to mean we realize we can't stop everybody from using our logos, but boy howdy, we have the right to kick your ass in court if you do it and tick us off! How is open source Red Hat Enterprise different from open source CentOS? Trademarks. The words Red Hat and any logos owned by them are completely removed by the CentOS group, leaving the only encumbrances those obligations covered by the GPL. It's kind of neat that you can take a Red Hat installation, point it to a CentOS repository instead of the Red Hat network and have it install updates. When the updates are complete, Ta dah! You now have a CentOS branded installation. Back on point, Red Hat differentiates its products by the services they
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH-1 Merge Request
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: This is ridiculous. We have this discussion every so often, when we are not arguing over FlightPro Sim. Do we have to change every airliner model in the inventory? Of course we don't. Use the bloody thing. And if ever anyone complains say: Whoops! Sorry., and take it down, as we would for any other copyright infringement. We ways end up with this solution. Simples. I think we would be safer not having real life airliner liveries. I recall that MSFS 2002 (or was it 2004?) used fictional liveries, presumably to avoid this entire issue. I don't know what FS-X does. In the case of airliner liveries there is a history of them being used in flight simulators. IANAL, but AFAIK the fact that they have been used for a number of years without any enforcement from the trademark owner can be considered precedent in court that the owner is not that fussed about the use and makes enforcement more difficult in the future. I just had a quick look on avsim.com to see if add-on aircraft are being sold with real life liveries, and they are. I'd be interested to find out what licensing they have, if any. Nevertheless, if I was a commercial FS aircraft developer or commercial FG distributor, I'd be quite nervous about including trademarked liveries. As Martin points out Red Bull is very careful about their trademark licensing - I guess it's because they are very much a brand who sponsors a whole load of liveried products, teams etc. on the back of a rather sweet caffeinated drink (IMO it's a bit like Buckfast without the alcohol ;) ) As I said above, I think asking for permission is the right approach here, and I'd be interested in the response. -Stuart -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Hi Curt, At the risk of being a case of if the hat fits On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: I hate to wade into mud wrestling matches. But for every one who is on their high horse about being pristine in our non-use of any possible trademarked items ... have you browsed through our aircraft? We have liveries from just about every airline imaginable, past and present. Yes, and as I said in the other post (which crossed in the ether with yours), I personally think that's a mistake and a legal risk (albeit a small one). What I don't like to hear is arguments along the line of: person A can't submit anything that could ever possibly be a trademark infraction by anyone's estimation, but person B we will let get away with it. Oh and by the way, we really should go through our repository and clean out any possible trademark infringements ... maybe some day. First of all this smacks of targeting or interpreting our policy differently for different people... and that usually is done on the basis of some other agenda. Maybe the person in question has invited some of this, maybe they haven't, but applying our policies in different measures to different people can quickly get petty and immature. I don't think I am holding Jack's work to a higher standard than anyone else here, though other committers may have different standards to me. As mentioned on the other post, I'm applying the same standards I've applied to my own work based on discussions on this list: http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg13303.html (Oh, that brings back memories - we were all so young, a new aircraft was a big deal, CVS) Melchior's comment is an interesting one, but I've no idea if it has any legal basis. Second, saying that oh I wish we'd retroactively fix our repository to honor this policy perfectly, and then doing nothing about it also is really weak. It sounds good on the face of it, but at the end of the day what matters is action, not words. It might also lead to a commit war, which would be bad. I'd much prefer a clear policy at a project level and then consistency with that policy. At present I don't think we have a policy - though it's possible that my experience with the Pitts is an exception and we are quite happy to use trademarks in the data package. It sounds like your view is that including trademarks in the data repository is perfectly OK. Correct? If that's the case and the majority of devs agree then I'll bite my tongue, though like Melchior I won't commit it myself. I think it's pretty accepted that flight simulators can reproduce company liveries in the process of realistically modeling the world. I know that has been widely debated (AA, et. al) but the reality is that people are creating liveries of all kinds of companies all the time. Where do we draw the lines? Is it ok to reproduce an airline livery, but not some other company livery? As far as I can tell the people arguing that we can't have a red bull logo are on really shaky ground from a consistency perspective. See my post which crossed with yours. I think where there is precedent we're (relatively) OK. the danger lies in trademarks that have not been used regularly within simulators and which have litigious owners. Do you want to argue this from a legal standpoint? Do we only include anything that we have written permission from the original company to use? In that case probably we'll have to rip out half of our simulator. How far do we want to take it? Do you think aircraft manufacturers have given us explicit permission to replicate their designs? Aircraft systems and cockpit displays? Tire manufacturers? ACME rivet company? I've got nothing on file from them. Building shapes and names and logos? If we have to get written permssion to replicate anything, then we might as well pack it all up and go home, as should every other simulator developer. There is a legal difference between objects/copyright and trademarks which is important. We could fairly easily have aircraft liveries and buildings that do not infringe trademarks. I only wade in because this whole thing smacks of a pissing match and I get strong indication that our policies are being selectively interpreted by some to gain an advantage in this stupid pissing match and not for the benefit and quality and safety of the FlightGear project itself. I don't think there's much of a pissing match going on here - I encouraged Jack to release his AH-1 under the GPL and committed the original version to git, so to suggest I have an axe to grind is mistaken. I admit I'm being paranoid here, and that there is a gray area. However, I think it is a good idea to air these issues on the list. -Stuart -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Stuart Buchanan Hi Curt, At the risk of being a case of if the hat fits On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: I hate to wade into mud wrestling matches. But for every one who is on their high horse about being pristine in our non-use of any possible trademarked items ... have you browsed through our aircraft? We have liveries from just about every airline imaginable, past and present. Yes, and as I said in the other post (which crossed in the ether with yours), I personally think that's a mistake and a legal risk (albeit a small one). What I don't like to hear is arguments along the line of: person A can't submit anything that could ever possibly be a trademark infraction by anyone's estimation, but person B we will let get away with it. Oh and by the way, we really should go through our repository and clean out any possible trademark infringements ... maybe some day. First of all this smacks of targeting or interpreting our policy differently for different people... and that usually is done on the basis of some other agenda. Maybe the person in question has invited some of this, maybe they haven't, but applying our policies in different measures to different people can quickly get petty and immature. I don't think I am holding Jack's work to a higher standard than anyone else here, though other committers may have different standards to me. As mentioned on the other post, I'm applying the same standards I've applied to my own work based on discussions on this list: http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear- de...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg13303.html (Oh, that brings back memories - we were all so young, a new aircraft was a big deal, CVS) Melchior's comment is an interesting one, but I've no idea if it has any legal basis. Second, saying that oh I wish we'd retroactively fix our repository to honor this policy perfectly, and then doing nothing about it also is really weak. It sounds good on the face of it, but at the end of the day what matters is action, not words. It might also lead to a commit war, which would be bad. I'd much prefer a clear policy at a project level and then consistency with that policy. At present I don't think we have a policy - though it's possible that my experience with the Pitts is an exception and we are quite happy to use trademarks in the data package. It sounds like your view is that including trademarks in the data repository is perfectly OK. Correct? If that's the case and the majority of devs agree then I'll bite my tongue, though like Melchior I won't commit it myself. I think it's pretty accepted that flight simulators can reproduce company liveries in the process of realistically modeling the world. I know that has been widely debated (AA, et. al) but the reality is that people are creating liveries of all kinds of companies all the time. Where do we draw the lines? Is it ok to reproduce an airline livery, but not some other company livery? As far as I can tell the people arguing that we can't have a red bull logo are on really shaky ground from a consistency perspective. See my post which crossed with yours. I think where there is precedent we're (relatively) OK. the danger lies in trademarks that have not been used regularly within simulators and which have litigious owners. Do you want to argue this from a legal standpoint? Do we only include anything that we have written permission from the original company to use? In that case probably we'll have to rip out half of our simulator. How far do we want to take it? Do you think aircraft manufacturers have given us explicit permission to replicate their designs? Aircraft systems and cockpit displays? Tire manufacturers? ACME rivet company? I've got nothing on file from them. Building shapes and names and logos? If we have to get written permssion to replicate anything, then we might as well pack it all up and go home, as should every other simulator developer. There is a legal difference between objects/copyright and trademarks which is important. We could fairly easily have aircraft liveries and buildings that do not infringe trademarks. I only wade in because this whole thing smacks of a pissing match and I get strong indication that our policies are being selectively interpreted by some to gain an advantage in this stupid pissing match and not for the benefit and quality and safety of the FlightGear project itself. I don't think there's much of a pissing match going on here - I encouraged Jack to release his AH-1 under the GPL and committed the original version to git, so to suggest I have an axe to grind is mistaken. I admit I'm being paranoid here, and that there is a gray area. However, I think it is a good idea to air these issues on the list. Curt has it right. Get real guys. No one is
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear model animation question
I was browsing the flightgear wiki pages on doing model animations. Everything is written from the perspective of a single model with named parts and the animations refer to the part names. What I have here is two version of the same model as separate 3ds files. I realize it's a crude hack, but I'm short on time. What I would like to do is create an animation that selects one entire model or the other depending on the state of a property. I assumed it would be easy to do so I left it to the last minute ... I've probably done it in the past, but now I can't find any documentation or examples ... is this possible to do? Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear model animation question
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: I was browsing the flightgear wiki pages on doing model animations. Everything is written from the perspective of a single model with named parts and the animations refer to the part names. What I have here is two version of the same model as separate 3ds files. I realize it's a crude hack, but I'm short on time. What I would like to do is create an animation that selects one entire model or the other depending on the state of a property. I assumed it would be easy to do so I left it to the last minute ... I've probably done it in the past, but now I can't find any documentation or examples ... is this possible to do? Thanks, Curt. Curt, One way to do this, set up the primary model XML file: ?xml version=1.0? PropertyList pathmymodel.ac/path model nameModel1/name pathAircraft/myplane/Models/model_1.xml/path /model model nameModel2/name pathAircraft/myplane/Models/model_2.xml/path /model animation typeselect/type object-nameModel1/object-name condition ... /condition /animation animation typeselect/type object-nameModel2/object-name condition ... /condition /animation /PropertyList So you import the primary model 'mymodel.ac (or whatever) in the path (this could be a null model), and specify two submodel imports and two selects that determine when the submodels appear. Then each submodel XML file will reference its model: ?xml version=1.0? PropertyList pathmodel_1.ac/path /PropertyList Hope this helps, -Gary aka Buckaroo -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear and OSG out of sync?
On 15.02.2011 13:41, Tim Moore wrote: I've checked in fixes for this change in osgDB:DatabasePager to the SimGear and FlightGear next and releases/2.2.0 branches. Still doesn't compile with OSG = 2.8.5. We also need the patch that Bertrand sent yesterday, i.e. the #ifdef logic for the _readerWriterOptions attribute is still incorrect (inverted): diff --git a/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx b/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx index a9e55d9..4e25931 100644 --- a/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx +++ b/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ public: protected: virtual ~SGPagedLOD(); -#if SG_PAGEDLOD_HAS_OPTIONS +#if !SG_PAGEDLOD_HAS_OPTIONS osg::ref_ptrosgDB::ReaderWriter::Options _readerWriterOptions; #endif }; = Fixes the compile for any OSG version without SG_PAGEDLOD_HAS_OPTIONS support. By the way, I committed the changes to releases/2.2.0 and then merged that branch into next. This is the way fixes should move between the two branches. Please don't commit a fix to next and then cherry-pick it to the release branch. It is very messy to have the same change committed on several different branches. Hmm. On the other hand this means applying all (experimental) patches to the stable release/2.2 branch first. I'm not a git expert, but generally I like the opposite approach of applying patches to a project's experimental (master / next / ... ) branch first. And only after the patch proved to be ok and stable for everyone, eventually move it to the stable release branch. Reduces the risk of (temporarily) breaking a release branch (like we did now :) ). cheers, Thorsten -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear and OSG out of sync?
OK, I see that merely removing the 2.8.3 case from my conditional, which I checked in a couple of hours ago, isn't correct. I'll have another go. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:10 PM, ThorstenB bre...@gmail.com wrote: On 15.02.2011 13:41, Tim Moore wrote: I've checked in fixes for this change in osgDB:DatabasePager to the SimGear and FlightGear next and releases/2.2.0 branches. Still doesn't compile with OSG = 2.8.5. We also need the patch that Bertrand sent yesterday, i.e. the #ifdef logic for the _readerWriterOptions attribute is still incorrect (inverted): diff --git a/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx b/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx index a9e55d9..4e25931 100644 --- a/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx +++ b/simgear/scene/model/SGPagedLOD.hxx @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ public: protected: virtual ~SGPagedLOD(); -#if SG_PAGEDLOD_HAS_OPTIONS +#if !SG_PAGEDLOD_HAS_OPTIONS osg::ref_ptrosgDB::ReaderWriter::Options _readerWriterOptions; #endif }; = Fixes the compile for any OSG version without SG_PAGEDLOD_HAS_OPTIONS support. By the way, I committed the changes to releases/2.2.0 and then merged that branch into next. This is the way fixes should move between the two branches. Please don't commit a fix to next and then cherry-pick it to the release branch. It is very messy to have the same change committed on several different branches. Hmm. On the other hand this means applying all (experimental) patches to the stable release/2.2 branch first. I'm not a git expert, but generally I like the opposite approach of applying patches to a project's experimental (master / next / ... ) branch first. And only after the patch proved to be ok and stable for everyone, eventually move it to the stable release branch. Reduces the risk of (temporarily) breaking a release branch (like we did now :) ). Well, in this case I should have tested with 2.8.3, which I don't happen to have checked out. Anyway, we chose a simple branching model, http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ , where fixup work done on the release branches is merged into the development branch. It is very messy to have a commit virtually checked in on several different branches. As there is no good reason for the development branch not to have all the commits made to the release, the commits should originate on the release branch and be merged into development. Now, you don't have to work this way locally, and in this case I didn't; I had next checked out, so hacked away on a fix and committed it locally. I then rebased that fix onto the release branch, tested (hah!), committed that and pushed it to gitorious. I then reset the next branch to blow away my commit at the head, merged in releases/2.2.0, and pushed that. You can use git rebase to get things in shape before committing to the master repo in the way I've described. Tim cheers, Thorsten -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear model animation question
Thanks Gary, Worked perfectly ... turns out I don't need to specify a global model ... I can just load submodels and give them names and use them. A global offset/rotation does work. Now I'm having trouble with that whole ambient/diffuse thing and my model surfaces that aren't pointed at the light are all black ... this is a 3ds model ... is there an easy way to patch that up? I've figure out about 0.01% of blender ... and so far that hasn't included material properties or object hiearchies. Thanks! Curt. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Gary Neely wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: I was browsing the flightgear wiki pages on doing model animations. Everything is written from the perspective of a single model with named parts and the animations refer to the part names. What I have here is two version of the same model as separate 3ds files. I realize it's a crude hack, but I'm short on time. What I would like to do is create an animation that selects one entire model or the other depending on the state of a property. I assumed it would be easy to do so I left it to the last minute ... I've probably done it in the past, but now I can't find any documentation or examples ... is this possible to do? Thanks, Curt. Curt, One way to do this, set up the primary model XML file: ?xml version=1.0? PropertyList pathmymodel.ac/path model nameModel1/name pathAircraft/myplane/Models/model_1.xml/path /model model nameModel2/name pathAircraft/myplane/Models/model_2.xml/path /model animation typeselect/type object-nameModel1/object-name condition ... /condition /animation animation typeselect/type object-nameModel2/object-name condition ... /condition /animation /PropertyList So you import the primary model 'mymodel.ac (or whatever) in the path (this could be a null model), and specify two submodel imports and two selects that determine when the submodels appear. Then each submodel XML file will reference its model: ?xml version=1.0? PropertyList pathmodel_1.ac/path /PropertyList Hope this helps, -Gary aka Buckaroo -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Hi, Curt has it right. Get real guys. No one is going to sue a non-existent organization with no assets. The worst they will do is tell us to desist. Which we will do of course. If you want to remove or alter almost every livery in our inventory, fork the data in git and go right ahead ... Vivian Red Bull is an austrian company, and very famous among RC-model-fans. In many german forums I found discussion about using their logo. And really many people there told that they are told by RedBull not to use their logos and marks. There have been even some people which have been sued by RedBull. And I'm sure they find their way to sue the author if they want to do it! And indeed it would be better to keep off the hands- I do know that one of their active heli-acrobatic pilots is quite aware of the Project FlightGear. Ask RedBull if we may use, if not- well, there are other nice liveries out there waiting to be made. Cheers Heiko -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:05:41 + (GMT), Heiko wrote in message 59953.21793...@web29501.mail.ird.yahoo.com: Hi, Curt has it right. Get real guys. No one is going to sue a non-existent organization with no assets. The worst they will do is tell us to desist. Which we will do of course. If you want to remove or alter almost every livery in our inventory, fork the data in git and go right ahead ... Vivian Red Bull is an austrian company, and very famous among RC-model-fans. In many german forums I found discussion about using their logo. And really many people there told that they are told by RedBull not to use their logos and marks. There have been even some people which have been sued by RedBull. And I'm sure they find their way to sue the author if they want to do it! And indeed it would be better to keep off the hands- I do know that one of their active heli-acrobatic pilots is quite aware of the Project FlightGear. Ask RedBull if we may use, if not- well, there are other nice liveries out there waiting to be made. ..a way to sell them on the idea, is do 2 sim scenario videos on air show concepts they could do, or show off FG as a training and familiarization etc sim tool. One video with Red Bull, the other with Red Bull's _Nice_ Competitor. ;o) ..mention It probably needs the Board's Approval. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Nasal getprop: property /accelerations[0]/pilot[0]/z-accel-fps_sec[0] is NaN
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Andreas Gaeb a.g...@web.de wrote:
Hi Henri,
I think I found the error, it was in JSBSim's FGForce class. I've
proposed a fix on the JSBSim-devel mailing list.
Best regards,
Andreas
Hi Andreas,
had a look at the patch you suggested on the JSBSim list
(http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/attachment.php?list_name=jsbsim-develmessage_id=4D5436B3.10606%40web.decounter=1).
However, I looking at the code it seems calling these InitMatrix in
the FGForce constructor shouldn't be necessary. The FGMatrix33
constructor in fact does initialize the matrix to 0 (see
FGMatrix33.cpp, i.e.
FGMatrix33::FGMatrix33(void)
{
data[0] = data[1] = data[2] = data[3] = data[4] = data[5] =
data[6] = data[7] = data[8] = 0.0;
}
. And the FGForce constructor will automatically call all its members'
constructors.
--
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Nasal getprop: property /accelerations[0]/pilot[0]/z-accel-fps_sec[0] is NaN
Hi Andreas,
had a look at the patch you suggested on the JSBSim list
(http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/attachment.php?list_name=jsbsim-develmessage_id=4D5436B3.10606%40web.decounter=1).
However, I looking at the code it seems calling these InitMatrix in
the FGForce constructor shouldn't be necessary. The FGMatrix33
constructor in fact does initialize the matrix to 0 (see
FGMatrix33.cpp, i.e.
FGMatrix33::FGMatrix33(void)
{
data[0] = data[1] = data[2] = data[3] = data[4] = data[5] =
data[6] = data[7] = data[8] = 0.0;
}
. And the FGForce constructor will automatically call all its members'
constructors.
... Oops, wasn't finished typing... :)
Anyway, you maybe you can double-check if that patch really changed
anything concerning initialization. If it really did, then I suspect
there must be something else going terribly wrong (memory
corruption?), which could explain why the FGMatrix33 constructors
weren't executed properly.
cheers,
Thorsten
--
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear model animation question
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Gary, Worked perfectly ... turns out I don't need to specify a global model ... I can just load submodels and give them names and use them. A global offset/rotation does work. Now I'm having trouble with that whole ambient/diffuse thing and my model surfaces that aren't pointed at the light are all black ... this is a 3ds model ... is there an easy way to patch that up? I've figure out about 0.01% of blender ... and so far that hasn't included material properties or object hiearchies. Thanks! Curt. Curt, I'm not siginificantly familiar with the 3ds format-- it might be possible to directly edit the material settings and augment ambient values, etc. Someone else may be able to answer that. Is conversion to another format like .ac an option? If so and the models are not terribly complex, I would be happy to attempt the conversion for you. I deal with this sort of thing frequently at work, so it's probably not a big deal. If interested, feel free to send me the models and I'll give it a shot. -Gary -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear model animation question
Hi Gary, I think I've beat the model pretty much into submission now. I was able to export as .ac, but the scaling was off by 2.54 ... hmmm where have I seen that number before? I figured out how to scale and reposition the model in blender wow! and there was much rejoicing. :-) Then all the faces were totally faceted so I figured out how to smooth the surfaces in blender wow!!! three exclamation marks on that!!! That got me to the point where I could manually edit the material definitions in the .ac file and setup the ambient and diffuse properly, also got the tires back to black ... and rescaled the textures 3000x3000 is probably over kill. So I'm learning more about blender than I want to know ... and I hesitate to even say this because in 2 years some guy in some far away land is going to be googling, decide I'm a blender expert and now I'll be doing blender tech support for the rest of my life ... got to love the internet! Curt. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Gary Neely grne...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Gary, Worked perfectly ... turns out I don't need to specify a global model ... I can just load submodels and give them names and use them. A global offset/rotation does work. Now I'm having trouble with that whole ambient/diffuse thing and my model surfaces that aren't pointed at the light are all black ... this is a 3ds model ... is there an easy way to patch that up? I've figure out about 0.01% of blender ... and so far that hasn't included material properties or object hiearchies. Thanks! Curt. Curt, I'm not siginificantly familiar with the 3ds format-- it might be possible to directly edit the material settings and augment ambient values, etc. Someone else may be able to answer that. Is conversion to another format like .ac an option? If so and the models are not terribly complex, I would be happy to attempt the conversion for you. I deal with this sort of thing frequently at work, so it's probably not a big deal. If interested, feel free to send me the models and I'll give it a shot. -Gary -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Hey everyone, Based on my (brief) reading of some United States statutes, I would suggest we can continue using these trademarks until asked not to do so. I don't think this will bring forth a lawsuit, most likely a cease and desist action which is easily complied with, if it is on trademark grounds. However I would definitely suggest whenever we do use trademarks we should publish a notice we are not affiliated, connected, or associated with the companies whose trademarks we use. I think we should also be cautious of the screenshots we use to advertise the software. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1125000-.html#a I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. Yours John Holden -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
To throw something into the mix here: I've actually got experience of dealing with RedBull regarding the use of their logos and IP in Flight Simulation. Several years ago I contacted them for an old Payware project and they were most supportive, provided an email stating that as long as nowhere we claimed that they endorsed the product then they saw it all as good publicity. I'm sure they'd do something similar here, as would many companies. In fact there is only two companies that I'm aware of, who have caused issues in the FS community, that was a large American airline who requested a VA stop using their name, and got quite aggressive about it, and a well known Bizjet manufacturer who flatly refuse to grant any permission for any of their aircraft to be represented, and will go to great lengths to stop people making a product out of it. There's lots of history of probably most Aviation related companies being contacted by FlightSimulation enthusiasts/3rd party developers/ etc over the past few years and getting very positive results for doing so, in some cases huge gains as well. Alex On 16 Feb 2011, at 21:07, J. Holden wrote: Hey everyone, Based on my (brief) reading of some United States statutes, I would suggest we can continue using these trademarks until asked not to do so. I don't think this will bring forth a lawsuit, most likely a cease and desist action which is easily complied with, if it is on trademark grounds. However I would definitely suggest whenever we do use trademarks we should publish a notice we are not affiliated, connected, or associated with the companies whose trademarks we use. I think we should also be cautious of the screenshots we use to advertise the software. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1125000-.html#a I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion. Yours John Holden -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear model animation question
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Gary, I think I've beat the model pretty much into submission now. I was able to export as .ac, but the scaling was off by 2.54 ... hmmm where have I seen that number before? I figured out how to scale and reposition the model in blender wow! and there was much rejoicing. :-) Then all the faces were totally faceted so I figured out how to smooth the surfaces in blender wow!!! three exclamation marks on that!!! That got me to the point where I could manually edit the material definitions in the .ac file and setup the ambient and diffuse properly, also got the tires back to black ... and rescaled the textures 3000x3000 is probably over kill. So I'm learning more about blender than I want to know ... and I hesitate to even say this because in 2 years some guy in some far away land is going to be googling, decide I'm a blender expert and now I'll be doing blender tech support for the rest of my life ... got to love the internet! Curt. Cool-O on your conversion success! Oddly enough that's kinda how I got into my current position. I used to be a coder but played with 3D work on the side and advised grad students and professors at work from time to time, doing the odd model here and there. Eventually our director asked if I'd do that sort of thing full-time. So I am. :) -Gary -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Hi, To throw something into the mix here: I've actually got experience of dealing with RedBull regarding the use of their logos and IP in Flight Simulation. Several years ago I contacted them for an old Payware project and they were most supportive, provided an email stating that as long as nowhere we claimed that they endorsed the product then they saw it all as good publicity. According to many RC-forums, they don't do this anymore as they licenced their stuff to Third parties. So if a single, simple man wants to paint his aircraft into RD-colors, he is in the risk to be sued. But your example shows one special thing: ask, and wait to see what they say. I'm sure they'd do something similar here, as would many companies. No as they licences their logos and colors to certain third parties. If you don't belong to them: Good Luck! In fact there is only two companies that I'm aware of, who have caused issues in the FS community, that was a large American airline who requested a VA stop using their name, and got quite aggressive about it, and a well known Bizjet manufacturer who flatly refuse to grant any permission for any of their aircraft to be represented, and will go to great lengths to stop people making a product out of it. No, regarding VA's several airlines and companies more: Lufthansa, AirBerlin, ADAC, DRF... But Condor, REGA and some others gave permission under certain circumstances. There's lots of history of probably most Aviation related companies being contacted by FlightSimulation enthusiasts/3rd party developers/ etc over the past few years and getting very positive results for doing so, in some cases huge gains as well. Yep, but depends on. I still wait for an answer by Eurocopter and Erricson AirCrane.On the other side The developer of the AutoGyro Hornet even gave us a 3d-model right of his CAD-program ;-) Heiko -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
Hi, Technically, all these logos are under trademark: http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/737-100/Models/Liveries/731CA.png;h=43cfc5a15abb392519e1f95d34951d410d3c3c80;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/737-100/Models/Liveries/731continw.png;h=2c7854e28f50ebfd270551fea6ee17c161ca56a6;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/747-400/Models/Liveries/KLM.png;h=fb5a5e15737ff7d45cb4b6c4ecae1c664221fd4c;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/ACA.png;h=24cab3acc9be66ffa819d4b86b3d269d6c5c146d;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/AFR.png;h=feb509950de44037ee2ffe72d99e803820f2078c;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/ANZ.png;h=6ac933fa22c33e0f0b637c032cdc473108fee367;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/AUA.png;h=6fa2d4d95c4e614bb67ba3514a09d60b253e45d7;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/BAW.png;h=c13d743667bf7de26df391ee1baf6627f012ae9b;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/UAL.png;h=5c93dbbe501aa1a44adbaeac305e4a637ff8adec;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/777-200/Models/DAL-Livery.png;h=e516842b15c4cd8e42c3f20dd2bbd9e1cfcebb8e;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/777-200/Models/KLM.png;h=76ca78871b1b5cd58eb0533aefc91eb63b5e7149;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ec135/Models/fuselage.adac.png;h=effa8b73133ad6991dc615ea670b5a3db58dcc0e;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ec135/Models/fuselage.anwb.png;h=f4ca4abcc551aeca443ca68b06f60006ef84af12;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ZivkoEdge/Models/Liveries/Fuselage-RedBull.png;h=4af09d1cb79a04528b824447190bc68e809ecceb;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ZivkoEdge/Models/Liveries/WingTail-RedBull.png;h=592707498df5f8f923b2c9da1f3e9a68370ddd7e;hb=HEAD http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/Zlin-50lx/Models/Liveries/red-bull.png;h=d60378d6af8635efc3f5b15a1345e2a810f65fcb;hb=HEAD I can dish out links all day if I have to And go ahead, get them removed. ;) You know what you'll have accomplished when you're finished? You'll have deleted hundreds of hours of work, all in paranoia of a lawsuit that will never happen. Unless you wish to delete nearly all our liveries, all of you that do not wish for my work to be committed are being well, hypocrites. On the subject of my AH-1; I have removed the content for now, what other hoops do you want me to jump through? I'd like to see somebody commit it relatively soon, so my (somewhat) recent work can be included in the release. Check Six, Jack-- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH1 merge request
Jack wrote: Hi, The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release. Jack, thanks for caring and removing the livery from the package. As I said you can still provide it separately from your web site. This does not make it legal but moves FlightGear out of the focus. I find it ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about a simple logo. For the trademark owner (which happens to be Red Bull) it is more than a simple logo. It is identification, cult and trend and it is worth money. So they are pretty picky who to grant usage rights. If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull logos that are already in our database. These are two different steps to take. First secure the area from more risks to come in, then remove the existing ones. There sure should be a debate how to deal with the ones already existing and I am glad you found the others. If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very well change the license back to the CC license and our community will have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. I am surprised that you still think this has something to do with the outstanding work on your aircraft. -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] fgfs 2.2 licence
so what happened to fgfs 2.2? can we get a Linux installer as well? as it's not yet released, what about changing licence to something alike CC etc.(see the forum) Android uses Apache licence...I didn't read those but am sure that there's one to keep off jerks. -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
i doubt...have a look at FSX. Even commercial products alike xtraffic etc use such liveries. --- On Thu, 2/17/11, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..IP and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request To: Devel List flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 3:45 AM Hi, Technically, all these logos are under trademark: http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/737-100/Models/Liveries/731CA.png;h=43cfc5a15abb392519e1f95d34951d410d3c3c80;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/737-100/Models/Liveries/731continw.png;h=2c7854e28f50ebfd270551fea6ee17c161ca56a6;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/747-400/Models/Liveries/KLM.png;h=fb5a5e15737ff7d45cb4b6c4ecae1c664221fd4c;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/ACA.png;h=24cab3acc9be66ffa819d4b86b3d269d6c5c146d;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/AFR.png;h=feb509950de44037ee2ffe72d99e803820f2078c;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/ANZ.png;h=6ac933fa22c33e0f0b637c032cdc473108fee367;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/AUA.png;h=6fa2d4d95c4e614bb67b a3514a09d60b253e45d7;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/BAW.png;h=c13d743667bf7de26df391ee1baf6627f012ae9b;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/767-300/Models/UAL.png;h=5c93dbbe501aa1a44adbaeac305e4a637ff8adec;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/777-200/Models/DAL-Livery.png;h=e516842b15c4cd8e42c3f20dd2bbd9e1cfcebb8e;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/777-200/Models/KLM.png;h=76ca78871b1b5cd58eb0533aefc91eb63b5e7149;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ec135/Models/fuselage.adac.png;h=effa8b73133ad6991dc615ea670b5a3db58dcc0e;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ec135/Models/fuselage.anwb.png;h=f4ca4abcc551aeca443ca68b06f60006ef84af12;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ZivkoEdge/Models/Liveries/Fuse lage-RedBull.png;h=4af09d1cb79a04528b824447190bc68e809ecceb;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/ZivkoEdge/Models/Liveries/WingTail-RedBull.png;h=592707498df5f8f923b2c9da1f3e9a68370ddd7e;hb=HEADhttp://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p=fgdata;a=blob;f=Aircraft/Zlin-50lx/Models/Liveries/red-bull.png;h=d60378d6af8635efc3f5b15a1345e2a810f65fcb;hb=HEAD I can dish out links all day if I have to And go ahead, get them removed. ;) You know what you'll have accomplished when you're finished? You'll have deleted hundreds of hours of work, all in paranoia of a lawsuit that will never happen. Unless you wish to delete nearly all our liveries, all of you that do not wish for my work to be committed are being well, hypocrites. On the subject of my AH-1; I have removed the content for now, what other hoops do you want me to jump through? I'd like to see somebody commit it relatively soon, so my (somewhat) recent work can be included in the release. Check Six, Jack -Inline Attachment Follows- -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
