Le 16/02/2012 23:02, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:02:46 + (GMT) From: Heiko Schulz
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel
> Digest, Vol 70, Issue 9 To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Message-ID:
> <1329390166.56815
Hi Tuomas,
Actually, I've read the same README and come up with four different
camera configurations. I haven't tested them though, because I'm still
missing the pre-distortion piece of the puzzle. By bouncing the image
off a curved mirror, the image will be distorted as it appears on the
scr
Hi Curt
Would it be a good idea to have a second mailinglist for aircraft and
scenery development? I know there have been much more lists around in
past. For me it starts to be very hard to find flightgear core related
topics in this list now. I tried to add some filters to my reader, but
with
Hi Clément
Am 16.02.12 17:45, schrieb Clement de l'Hamaide:
> I have create a discussion here :
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28709446 and I haven't
> received answer from devel list ...
I noticed this post. Maybe it is better to clone the gitorious repo
"fgdata", se
On Thursday 16 February 2012 02:07:53 Chris Forbes wrote:
> ---
> src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp |3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp
> b/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp index 0f47
Am Donnerstag, den 16.02.2012, 00:24 +0100 schrieb BARANGER Emmanuel:
> I think you misinterpreted that. I refuse nothing and besides, when I
> had access to the fantastic work of the PAF Team, I added it on GIT,
> albeit with some corrections and / or amended (with error may be possible ).
Oh,
yes my mistake i misread a name. My point was that the whole argument
was about getting permission , and it seemed a little one-sided.
All the aircraft in that hangar are someone else original work.And I
dont have a problem with that, just the basis of the argument.
Yes the 'its GPL so i can do wh
> For what its worth , I see several of my aircraft in this hangar and I
> wasn't asked permission for that so sounds like a ridiculous
> argument from the start . This team should others as they wish to be
> treated .Good place to end the discussion.
Several?
I only see one aircraft (Aeros
Hi,
> This team should others as they wish to be
treated
An huge difference exist here : you haven't received insult. Helijah insult PAF
members !
PAF team and you are not in bad relation (AFAIK) : this difference is important.
All people need to know that 60% (or more... it's approximate) of
For what its worth , I see several of my aircraft in this hangar and I
wasn't asked permission for that so sounds like a ridiculous
argument from the start . This team should others as they wish to be
treated .Good place to end the discussion.
Am 15.02.2012 19:30, schrieb kreuzritter2000:
> Am Sonntag, den 12.02.2012, 11:00 +0100 schrieb Erik Hofman:
>> So Emanuel has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model
>> and to update git accordingly.
>
> I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the
> FlightG
On 11 Feb 2012, at 21:46, Clement de l'Hamaide wrote:
> Hi all,
>
[ SNIP]
> Cheers,
> Clément
> --
I'm trying to take a neutral position here, so I'm not going to comment on who
is right and who's wrong, but instead w
@Curt: in the media subforum ;-)
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:46:08 +0100
> From: joac...@gmx.de
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:38:59 -0600
> Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> > Obviously I need to
> They seek only to
> discredit me in the eyes of all. I think I've proven myself many times
> and I have never refused any improvements for my aircraft hangar.
> Except, I confess, for JSBSim (and even if the work is good why I
> refuse, even JSBSim ).
Beside the fact that it isn't quite true
Hi,
as we are going to release version 2.6.0 this weekend, the branches
release/2.6.0 in simgear, flightgear and fgdata shall receive no more
updates after today (Thursday), 19:00 UTC until further notice to give
those who are preparing binaries and tar-balls some undisturbed time to
do their
---
Shaders/bumpspec.frag |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Shaders/bumpspec.frag b/Shaders/bumpspec.frag
index 74ee2ca..8bc7cd4 100644
--- a/Shaders/bumpspec.frag
+++ b/Shaders/bumpspec.frag
@@ -48,6 +48,6 @@ void main (void)
// fogFactor = clamp(fogFa
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 09:18 +, Martin Spott wrote:
> Erik Hofman wrote:
>
> > This is hopefully also a good encouragement for the PAF team to keep
> > developing their version and keep it available in their own hangar.
> > There's nothing wrong with two different version of the same aircraft
>
Erik Hofman wrote:
> This is hopefully also a good encouragement for the PAF team to keep
> developing their version and keep it available in their own hangar.
> There's nothing wrong with two different version of the same aircraft
> floating around. It's not really custom to FlightGear but alm
---
src/ATC/trafficcontrol.cxx |5 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/ATC/trafficcontrol.cxx b/src/ATC/trafficcontrol.cxx
index 8e29f04..eb8ca7e 100644
--- a/src/ATC/trafficcontrol.cxx
+++ b/src/ATC/trafficcontrol.cxx
@@ -1328,8 +1328,6 @@ void FGStartupCo
These patches clean up some set-but-unused locals which cause warnings on
current GCC.
There should be no change in semantics.
Tested against c5eba72c758b92b9120c38ae101f4a4ab2044ff8 ('next' at time of
writing)
-- Chris
--
---
src/Traffic/Schedule.cxx |4
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/Traffic/Schedule.cxx b/src/Traffic/Schedule.cxx
index 789631b..05e4eda 100644
--- a/src/Traffic/Schedule.cxx
+++ b/src/Traffic/Schedule.cxx
@@ -196,7 +196,6 @@ bool FGAISchedule::update(tim
---
src/FDM/YASim/Rotorpart.cpp |9 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/FDM/YASim/Rotorpart.cpp b/src/FDM/YASim/Rotorpart.cpp
index bd54f41..b88087a 100644
--- a/src/FDM/YASim/Rotorpart.cpp
+++ b/src/FDM/YASim/Rotorpart.cpp
@@ -377,11 +377,8 @@ float Ro
---
src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp
b/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp
index 0f47018..dbd494c 100644
--- a/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.
---
src/Radio/radio.cxx | 14 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/Radio/radio.cxx b/src/Radio/radio.cxx
index 169cd32..a22274a 100644
--- a/src/Radio/radio.cxx
+++ b/src/Radio/radio.cxx
@@ -77,19 +77,11 @@ FGRadioTransmission::~FGRadioTransmission()
---
src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx |5 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx b/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
index 8e9b16f..34ee61c 100644
--- a/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
+++ b/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
@@ -915,7 +915,7 @
---
src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx |4
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx b/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
index 787057c..78e8812 100644
--- a/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
+++ b/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
@@ -1354,7 +1354,6
---
src/AIModel/AIFlightPlan.cxx | 13 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/AIModel/AIFlightPlan.cxx b/src/AIModel/AIFlightPlan.cxx
index 21ad6f9..b94f033 100644
--- a/src/AIModel/AIFlightPlan.cxx
+++ b/src/AIModel/AIFlightPlan.cxx
@@ -164,25 +164,12
---
src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx b/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
index 34ee61c..787057c 100644
--- a/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
+++ b/src/Airports/groundnetwork.cxx
@@ -893,7 +893,6 @@ v
Erik Hofman wrote:
> This is hopefully also a good encouragement for the PAF team to keep
> developing their version and keep it available in their own hangar.
> There's nothing wrong with two different version of the same aircraft
> floating around. It's not really custom to FlightGear but almost
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 01:19 +0100, David Van Mosselbeen wrote:
> Should i remind everyone that this all is about open source and GPL v2
> data. Some spirit that have already proved it's capacity and functionality.
> It's all about data that is contribute by different talented peoples from
> all a
30 matches
Mail list logo
