Re: [Flightgear-devel] gnome 3 ?
Le 03/06/2011 06:10, Curtis Olson a écrit : Is anyone here running gnome 3 (and you would probably know if you were.) :-) I just loaded up Fedora 15 on a test machine and my first comment was hmmm... I haven't tried to get FlightGear running. I guess I can't imagine why it wouldn't run just fine although the desktop requires accelerated opengl hardware so I hope there won't be too much competition for resources when running FlightGear. Does anyone have any feed back on issues or problems specific to the new gnome 3 desktop scheme? Building/running FlightGear? Looks like the linux desktop folks have stopped chasing windows and are now chasing mac? Quote from an online review: gnome 3 gives you any color theme you like ... if you like black. Is gnome 3 viable for real work? I've heard gnome 3 and intuitive mentioned in the same sentence. I guess I'm going to have to go lookup the definition of intuitive again -- oh here it is -- something that makes obvious sense after you've figured it out. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://aem.umn.edu/%7Euav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org Hello, I recently installed GNOME 3 on Debian and there is no problem with FlightGear. I have a nVidia GT240 graphic card. GNOME 3 is not yet very stable on my machine, but it was my choice to install packages from the experimental repository :-). It was difficult for me to get used to it at the beginning, but now I find it very practical. But it is harder to configure than before (not only the theme, but everything else) and I think it's a bad idea. gnome-tweak-tool and dconf-editor help a bit If you don't know them already. Guillaume signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] High altitute/speed flights terrain engine problems
If two users in parallel flying spacecrafts will see the same good then there is no problem. But everything on Nasal is on local level, not global core level. At least one of us is confused about how things are structured. My understanding is that there's nothing in Flightgear which guarantees that two users flying parallel get to see the same. My understanding of the multiplayer protocol is that it largely exchanges position information of models and submodels, in addition to model and livery path. If we're flying over Seattle, and you have the default scenery and I the Pacific Northwest custom scenery, I will see different terrain than you do. If I don't have your aircraft model installed, then I will see a placeholder (I think a funny-coloured glider) at your position. If I'm running live weather and you have 'Fair Weather' selected, I might have few hundred meters visibility and rain whereas you fly next to me in bright sunshine. Similarly, I don't see how you could guarantee that two spacecraft users see the same, unless they have the same models/textures/scripts for rendering Earth from high altitude installed. I have no idea what you mean by the distinction of Nasal being on a local level and the core on a global level. If you look into /Nasal/, you find scripts like multiplayer.nas, tanker.nas or redout.nas which are available whatever aircraft you have installed or whatever aircraft you are in - just as the core, they are part of every Flightgear session. But, see above, neither core nor scripts are ever global in the sense that they'd be the same for every user - if you run GIT and I run 2.0.0, the core is obviously not the same. Scenery models usually exist on the whole FG level... Earth is not scenery. Well, that's precisely my point, isn't it? You don't need a new terrain engine if you stop thinking about planets from high above as 'terrain'. From a Celestia perspective, Earth is just a sphere with a very high resolution texture and reflection and normalmap shaders. That's something Flightgear has the functionality to render without much ado or additional coding - as a scenery model. So if, for spaceflight, you write a /Nasal/earthview.nas which periodically checks altitude and loads a large enough scenery model above 40 km while it de-activates the default terrain, you have solved the problem of implementing Celestia-like views of Earth in Flightgear. So if choice is between redoing things what's already done and including that things I would prefer including. There is four or five Open Source space simulators and most of them is not so addable for modder or even usable for end user. If them authors could put their efforts together then we could have best space sim already. If that would happen, it would be very nice. It also would be nice if people would send me their GPL-compatible photographs of Cb clouds so that I could improve my thunderstorm textures which are rather lousy at the moment. It would also be nice if people would pool their resources to create a nice GPL-compatible database of aerial images so that we'd have raw material for texturing. All that doesn't just seem to happen... so I have to make do with what happens. It's a bit up to you - if you can get off a demo of a nice Earth view from space using existing technology, the likelihood of getting more people interested in working on the issue increases. If you wait for the best solution to be implemented up front, you may be lucky, but it also may be a long wait. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Object distance fading color
I'll see what I can come up with this weekend. Thanks, much appreciated! On another note: I seem to remember you had another request for the weather system but I was too busy to remember it. Do you remember what that was? I was toying with the idea to model diffuse high-altitude haze by coloring the skydome as a function of altitude, i.e. paint the zenith a bit more hazy without touching the horizon and remove that effect again as you get above the haze layer - I believe that might create a better impression of such diffuse layers than placing texture sheets into the scene. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] modelling an battery powered electric motor MAV
I am modelling an battery powered electric motor MAV.
In JSBsim the battery does not discharge.
00178 FGElectric::CalcFuelNeed(void)00179 {00180 return 0;00181 }
now i want to write a code where fuel is the power supplied by battery.
by knowing the total stored energy we will calculate time to discharge.
How do i make the changes to the code come to effect in flightgear ?
--
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe,
secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about.
Get your free trial download today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] gnome 3 ?
On Friday 03 June 2011 06:10:24 Curtis Olson wrote: Looks like the linux desktop folks have stopped chasing windows and are now chasing mac? Quote from an online review: gnome 3 gives you any color theme you like ... if you like black. s/linux desktop/Gnome/ There's still KDE and all the lighter desktops available which do not force anything on you. And according to a phoronix comparison, the KDE window manager seems most of the time to be the one affecting performance the least. And if that's still too much, deactivating desktop effects is just a shortcut away. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_desktop_managers1num=1 Stefan -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Fwd: Crash in latest GIT/master]
On 03.06.2011 04:58, Roland Häder wrote: I have found more: http://pastebin.com/UrE81hNW Looks like an OSG installation problem. There is always an osgPlugins-2.x.y subdirectory for an OSG 2.x.y installation. I don't think this could be a general error with OSG 2.8.4. 2.8.4 is latest stable release. They are currently testing osg 2.8.5-RC2. Final call for tests has been made. You could also try this version. If anything wasn't working there, you still have a day or two to raise the issue to OSG. cheers, Thorsten -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] gnome 3 ?
I use Gnome 3 and FlightGear and it works well. I do like the Shell, and after a while it does grow on you. The main problem I think is that people logically think that as Gnome 3 is released the Shell is completed, where that is far from the truth, much of the work is still to be done. As you point out its hard to configure and might not be as intuitive as it could be but it looks like an alright base to work from. On 3 June 2011 08:54, Stefan Seifert n...@detonation.org wrote: On Friday 03 June 2011 06:10:24 Curtis Olson wrote: Looks like the linux desktop folks have stopped chasing windows and are now chasing mac? Quote from an online review: gnome 3 gives you any color theme you like ... if you like black. s/linux desktop/Gnome/ There's still KDE and all the lighter desktops available which do not force anything on you. And according to a phoronix comparison, the KDE window manager seems most of the time to be the one affecting performance the least. And if that's still too much, deactivating desktop effects is just a shortcut away. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_desktop_managers1num=1 Stefan -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] fgdata merge request 91:Animated Jetways
Ryan M wrote: * Jetways are disabled by default due to noticeable FPS impacts. I'm feeling slightly uneasy with the current state because people don't get any jetways at all if they disable the flag in order to preserve performance. Personally I'd prefer a solution which keeps static jetways and just disables the animation if people feel like the need to. While I'm at it, I'd like to point to another, presumably more severe issue: The elevation of every of the animated jetways is hardcoded into the respective 'ICAO.jetway.xml' files. Now take into account that ground elevation is subject to change with almost _every_ rebuild of the corresponding region and airfield surface From my perspective this calls for a more considerate solution. For the static scenery models at Scenemodels we're having a stupid but pretty functional and robust procedure to adjust the elevation of every model to the current World Scenery. This doesn't work for the way how elevation is being stored in the jetway XML files. Currently the Models/Airport/Jetway folder is still in the commit. I can remove it if this is inappropriate. Indeed, this would have been better Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] modelling an battery powered electric motor MAV
Hi Gaurav,
For questions specific to JSBSim code, you might also ask on the jsbsim
mailing list (details at www.jsbsim.org) -- although I'm sure several of the
developers are subscribe to both flightgear and jsbsim devel lists.
One other thought if you want to avoid changing C++ code or you wish to
support versions of FlightGear that are already released, is that you might
be able to create a simple battery model using Nasal (flightgear's embedded
scripting language.) You could perhaps limit maximum throttle position
based on the output of your battery simulation to simulate the what happens
as your battery is used up (or to simulate an aging battery, etc.)
I know batteries are pretty complex if you dig into them, but you could
probably hack something simple really quickly that would get you 90% of the
way there and cover most of the situations you would be concerned about.
Curt.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Gaurav Tendolkar grvtendol...@gmail.comwrote:
I am modelling an battery powered electric motor MAV.
In JSBsim the battery does not discharge.
00178 FGElectric::CalcFuelNeed(void)00179 {00180 return 0;00181 }
now i want to write a code where fuel is the power supplied by battery.
by knowing the total stored energy we will calculate time to discharge.
How do i make the changes to the code come to effect in flightgear ?
--
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with
vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is
safe,
secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about.
Get your free trial download today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2
___
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://gallinazo.flightgear.org
--
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe,
secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about.
Get your free trial download today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] modelling an battery powered electric motor MAV
On Friday 03 June 2011 01:49:30 Gaurav Tendolkar wrote:
I am modelling an battery powered electric motor MAV.
In JSBsim the battery does not discharge.
00178 FGElectric::CalcFuelNeed(void)00179 {00180 return 0;00181 }
now i want to write a code where fuel is the power supplied by battery.
by knowing the total stored energy we will calculate time to discharge.
How do i make the changes to the code come to effect in flightgear ?
Consuming fuel requires a loss of mass. I'm sure you don't intend that, so I
would recommend looking at other methods. Like Curt suggested, you could
create your own system using JSBSim functions (recommend) or NASAL. You can
use these properties to calculate the power consumed by the engine:
propulsion/engine/power-hp
propulsion/engine/propeller-rpm
(These are JSBSim properties, in FlightGear they are preceded by /fdm/jsbsim/)
This code snippet for the JSBSim FCS block will reduce the throttle by the
normalized battery voltage.
Setting the value of (/fdm/jsbsim/)propulsion/battery-volt-norm is left to
you.
property value=1.0 propulsion/battery-volt-norm/property
channel name=battery
pure_gain name=throttle
input fcs/throttle-cmd-norm /input
gain propulsion/battery-volt-norm /gain
output fcs/throttle-pos-norm /output
/pure_gain
/channel
Good luck,
Ron
--
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe,
secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about.
Get your free trial download today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux
Hi Stuart and all, http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials, i.e. how to start, how to use instruments... I like extremely detailed/realistic aircraft, and I'm not asking everyone to provide cheating autostart options. But realistic FDMs/cockpits/... are still of little use when people don't know how to use them. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to make the level of documentation/tutorials part of the new rating system? Especially since that's certainly of interest to new users (new to FG, or just new to the aircraft). So, how about adding Documentation and Tutorials rating section, like: 0: no documentation/tutorials available 1: aircraft key bindings dialog available, basic documentation included (i.e. readme.txt) 2: tutorials on basic aircraft operation available (at least start-up) 3: advanced tutorials available (start-up, autopilot, approach/landing configuration) 4: highly advanced training tutorials available (i.e. covering emergencies/engine-failures etc) You can certainly argue on how many points these are worth (compared to FDM/cockpit realism etc). But it shouldn't be ignored completely. Any thoughts? cheers, Thorsten -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, ThorstenB wrote: Hi Stuart and all, http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials, i.e. how to start, how to use instruments... I like extremely detailed/realistic aircraft, and I'm not asking everyone to provide cheating autostart options. But realistic FDMs/cockpits/... are still of little use when people don't know how to use them. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to make the level of documentation/tutorials part of the new rating system? Especially since that's certainly of interest to new users (new to FG, or just new to the aircraft). You may have seen that I've proposed putting it at least partly within the Systems rating, as really it is related to operating those systems. Thus far, my proposal is that for a Systems:3 rating, there must be either in-sim instructions or a tutorial for the correctly modelled engine startup. I think that is reasonable, and will allow new users to at least start the engine, if not get into the air. We could extend that such that for each of the modelled systems for a given rating there must be either - in-sim help/checklist - in-sim tutorial - referenced documentation elsewhere (Manual, wiki, freely available PoH) Does that seem reasonable or too draconian? The problem with having it as a completely separate rating is that when calculating an overall status for the aircraft it dilutes the other ratings (in particular FDM) unless one starts weighting the different ratings. -Stuart -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Hudson Mac
Hi Hudson I see that FlightGear-next-mac fails since some days because of some missing plib headers. Is next-mac not followed anymore on hudson, is FlightGear-mac-cmake reference now ? Cheers, Yves -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux
On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:45:26 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, ThorstenB wrote: Hi Stuart and all, http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials, i.e. how to start, how to use instruments... I like extremely detailed/realistic aircraft, and I'm not asking everyone to provide cheating autostart options. But realistic FDMs/cockpits/... are still of little use when people don't know how to use them. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to make the level of documentation/tutorials part of the new rating system? Especially since that's certainly of interest to new users (new to FG, or just new to the aircraft). You may have seen that I've proposed putting it at least partly within the Systems rating, as really it is related to operating those systems. There are some things that should be covered in the in-sim help or a pilots handbook that are related to the FDM such as Vne, stall speeds, service ceiling and the like. So perhaps there is an FDM component to this as well but this is probably a nit and having it covered in the Systems catigory seems OK to me. Thus far, my proposal is that for a Systems:3 rating, there must be either in-sim instructions or a tutorial for the correctly modelled engine startup. I think that is reasonable, and will allow new users to at least start the engine, if not get into the air. We could extend that such that for each of the modelled systems for a given rating there must be either - in-sim help/checklist - in-sim tutorial - referenced documentation elsewhere (Manual, wiki, freely available PoH) Does that seem reasonable or too draconian? This strikes me as an OK approach. As the systems being modeled get more complex and/or numerous having everything covered by in-sim help/check lists is not feasible (IE. the help text becomes too big). But there is also a need for more documentation as more systems are added to the model. Having some basic aircraft help (perhaps startup, take off and landing check lists along with some other basic info) and referring users to a pilot's handbook that covers in detail how these systems work IRL should be enough to satisfy this requirement. For many aircraft getting the pilots handbook is not hard but it can take some research to find. I had considered adding the pilots handbook to my aircraft directory in a Docs subdirectory since it has been put in the public domain by US.gov (IE. no IP issues - something that will not be the case for all aircraft). But the best of the handbooks available is fairly large (around 54 meg) and I am a little hesitant to add it since adding the handbook almost doubles the download size of the aircraft. I didn't even think about this when rating my aircraft since I had assumed that most if not all aircraft with with a shot at something beyond a beta rating would either have extensive in-sim documentation or a pilots handbooks would be available. For me adding this requirement to the rating system would not affect how I scored my model but it may impact others. The problem with having it as a completely separate rating is that when calculating an overall status for the aircraft it dilutes the other ratings (in particular FDM) unless one starts weighting the different ratings. -Stuart -- Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
