Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 70, Issue 11
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.yahoomailclas...@web29504.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > question of you in this sentence > So why don't you keep to your own words, and keep that away from this list?! Simply because when I am attacked and insulted in public I have a right of reply logic. > From: Clement de l'Hamaide > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice& autorisations > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > All people need to know that 60% (or more... it's approximate) of aircraft > available for flightgear are created by helijah. > More than 80% of them are totaly crappy ! They aren't a good point for > FlightGear project ! So here is an insult to all those (and there are many) who appreciate my work and my aircraft hangar. Who insult who ? Curt, good news for you, the Arup S2 is a shit, as modeled by me ( dixit Cément ) > Imagines > a man who don't know FlightGear project : he test 1, 2 ,3 aircrafts by > helijah then he says "pfff all these aircraft are unusable. I leave > FlightGear and I go buy MSFS !" The last argument fashionable but totally ridiculous. Decidedly, if they find nothing more to say it becomes ridiculous. Clement was yet well pleased to make his work on the Dc 3 of my shed. Memory loss certainly. Let's be clear in this case. I must model planes full, finished, perfect etc. . In this case the PAF Team would not exist even. Because none of them would have wanted to improve the original Dc 3 FG. Similarly for the Lancair, the Techman etc. ... This is because my airplanes are available in the state, that people flock to help. These comments are totally contradictoirs. In this case the PAF Team would not exist even. Because none of them would have wanted to improve the original Dc 3 FG. Similarly for the Lancair, the Techman etc. ... This is because my planes are available in the state that people flock to help. I model airplanes complet, finished, perfect etc. . and no one will want to improve and entréer in the large family of contributors. Otherwise this would create new aircraft, of course. Either I continue as I did since 2006 and many other contributors appear coming, as the PAF Team that has a very short memory as you can see. I never refused improvements (Long Ez, Velocity XL, Carreidas 160, B25, A26 Invader, I16, UH 1, etc. ) So stop slandering without knowing. And it is only sad to see them continue to ridicule himself this way. Personally, this does not prevent me from living and I especially do not want it to anyone. Their misunderstanding is sad that's all. See so much talent wasted by so much animosity and stupidity is just a pity > Message: 20 > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:32:49 +0100 > From: kreuzritter2000 > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 70, Issue > 9 > To:flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Message-ID:<1329417169.3356.3.camel@blackbox> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Am Donnerstag, den 16.02.2012, 00:24 +0100 schrieb BARANGER Emmanuel: > Oh, then i misinterpreted that. Thanks for clarification. No problem :) >> This is the PAF team that refuses all. > But one question, how can they refuse a commit when they are no > maintainer of fg-data? Disease, memory loss, madness, desire to hurt or something other I do not know lol Regards. Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr http://embaranger.free.fr -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 70, Issue 9
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 screen. So you need to pre-distort the image and then bounce it off the mirror so the two distortions cancel each other out, and the image looks correct. There's a couple of ways I think I can do this. One way is by using the osgDistortion tool (http://www.openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/browser/OpenSceneGraph/trunk/examples/osgdistortion/osgdistortion.cpp). It looks similar to the code libraries Paul Bourke wrote, but I don't know how to integrate that into FlightGear. The second way is by using a program called Projection Designer with one of the camera groups I've created (http://orihalcon.jp/projdesigner/). But again, I'm not sure how to make FlightGear use the program. Roy On 2/15/2012 10:38 AM, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:35:38 +0200 From:tuomas.kuosma...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Projection system question To:flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi. Two things: First, keep us posted of your progress:) I am also working on simulator stuff at our aviation club, so this kind of stuff is interesting to follow. Another thing that comes to my mind is a spherical door projection example I remember seeing on README.multiscreen (or it was one other file in the docs/ dir in flightgear sources) - Did you check that example out, did it not do what you needed? Unfortunately I am also just looking into all this, so I cannot be of more help, but I remember trying that one, and it warped the display to a circle and the perspective was all curved, so maybe it could be something useful? Anyway, thanks for posting the link, that kind of setup looks very interesting, given it uses just one projector. Might work for us also.. /Tuomas -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft/Scenery development list needed?
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 without success. I hope there isn’t already another list and I missed it ;-) Cheers, Yves -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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", send a merge request with your changes AND a note to the list announcing your merge request. Much easier to review your changes for other developers with commit rights. (I apologize in advance in case you’re already aware of this "workflow"). > Other example : > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28360748 and no answer > from devel list The multiplayer map is not in FlightGear core project. Changing a single aircraft symbol for the map is not possible in FlightGear fgdata code, it is in scripts for the multiplayer map maintained by pigeon (as far as I know). So your changes can not be "merged" in here anywhere. Maybe you have to contact pigeon for this. (Personally I think "branding" aircrafts with individual symbols is not a very good idea for a map, going to show 300 different symbols, but that’s another discussion and this is not mine.) Cheers, Yves -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 8/9] remove unused percent_RPM local from FGPiston::doEnginePower
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 0f47018..dbd494c > 100644 > --- a/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp > +++ b/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp > @@ -733,10 +733,9 @@ void FGPiston::doEnginePower(void) >FMEP = 0; >if (Running) { > // FIXME: this needs to be generalized > -double ME, percent_RPM, power; // Convienience term for use in the > calculations +double ME, power; // Convienience term for use in the > calculations ME = > Mixture_Efficiency_Correlation->GetValue(m_dot_fuel/m_dot_air); > > -percent_RPM = RPM/MaxRPM; > // Guestimate engine friction losses from Figure 4.4 of "Engines: An > Introduction", John Lumley FMEP = (-FMEPDynamic * MeanPistonSpeed_fps * > fttom - FMEPStatic); I will apply this one upstream and let it trickle back down, thanks. Ron -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 70, Issue 9
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, then i misinterpreted that. Thanks for clarification. > > This is the PAF team that refuses all. But one question, how can they refuse a commit when they are no maintainer of fg-data? Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 what ever i like, so na na boo boo ' argument comes up over and over and over we all know what GPL is , but i never hear , "hey i'll help you maintain it !" Anyway , on a more positive note ,I'd be interested in getting any aerostar-700 improvements into fgdata , if the team is interested. -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
> 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 (Aerostar 700) of yours!! Beside the L39 Breitling, most of all others had been started by Mr. Baranger, who claims ownership and want to be asked as well. But anyway- "the one" (as David called him) seems to managed what he wanted. Congratulations! I really recommend all participiants here to read along what David van Mosselbeen wrote- it will light up about some things! Here you go, in the case you missed it: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=55540383887f9aa7959911b6affbb8be%40sun.pinguin.local&forum_name=flightgear-devel -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 aircraft available for flightgear are created by helijah. More than 80% of them are totaly crappy ! They aren't a good point for FlightGear project ! Imagines a man who don't know FlightGear project : he test 1, 2 ,3 aircrafts by helijah then he says "pfff all these aircraft are unusable. I leave FlightGear and I go buy MSFS !" I'm really convinced the work made by helijah is bad for FlightGear project. Aircrafts created by helijah aren't realist. It will be good if FlightGear community take conscious of this ! A real example : I have invited a friend to download and test FG, after some days he says me : pfff your simulator is very bad ! A lot of aircraft haven't real instruments and are totally uncompleted ! I have asked him what aircrafts have he tested : CL415, Gee Bee, Katana, c172p, Piper Cub Helijah needs to stop to create 1 aircraft per week and needs to improve the aircrafts already available ! It's not a good point to say "FlightGear is the only simulator with more than 400 airacrafts !" but in these 400 aircrafts a lot of aircrafts are uncompleted and these uncomplete aircrafts are mainly created by helijah. The work made by helijah isn't a good ads for FlightGear project, I'm convinced ! About the list of my friend, only Helijah's aircrafts was concerned by the critics. As I found, FlightGear isn't ready to see the reality about Helijah... I continue to believe that Helijah doesn't create aircraft : he creates 3D model, not an aircraft. The difference is huge... An aircraft has need electric system, fuel system, operating procedures, radio... Helijah's aircraft haven't that, so I call this a 3D model, not an aircraft. FlightGear is an aircraft simulator... not an exposition software of 3D model... But now I keep this opinion for me since nobody can heard/understand this opinion My opinion is also join by David : > There's work enough for the next coming 10 years! Each, new > I-don't-plann-to-finish-aircraft just make the whole FGFS project less > competitive to other simulators. Now I'm real impressive about this discussion. Why ? because many many answers appear about this discussion. And what ? It's very simple : I have create a discussion here : http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28709446 and I haven't received answer from devel list... Other example : http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28360748 and no answer from devel list When I write mails to contribute to FlightGear : No answer from devel-list. Just a little answer like "Ok Clément I see your mail but actually we are too busy" would be sufficient. (This is not a criticism, just an observation) But when I write a mail about fair practice : Many answer. Now I continue to improve some parts... Rembrandt project, sceneries... And I turn the page about this discussion ;) Cheers, Clément -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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. -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 > FlightGear project. > I see the aircraft name DC-3 as a placeholder owned by the FlightGear > project and Emanuel modified it by adding data to it. So he is not the > owner of the placeholder. > > What i want to say is, that it will get a community driven project > nowhere if we have persons sitting there refusing commits from others > only because they have personal issues with them or because they were > the ones that started an aircraft at first place. > Refusing commits is only acceptable if the data is not GPL, a copyright > violation or a degradation of the existing data. > And it won't help the whole project if we have 1...n different DC-3 > aircrafts on git and everyone is doing his own thing. > So there is one DC-3 starting out as a placeholder owned by the > FlightGear projet and individuals should learn to work together and > improve the placeholder. It's common practice that contribution get reviewed. In FG this is usually done by the maintainer, in most cases the initial commiter of the Aircraft. The Maintainer decides what to include, what to reject and what has to be modified. Usually, before starting a Project, one does some homework, collects data, pilot reports, drawings, reads manuals, etc. With this knowledge, he should be capable to review contributions. This has worked for FlightGear for years and I don't see a point in reverting this, just because of personal dislike. To be clear. Noone has suffered physical injury, no material destroyed and no law broken. Emmanuel keeps collecting compatible contributions and the PAF can maintain their (really impressive) modifications in their hangar. Both parties should stop the whining, shrug their shoulders and continue having fun working on FlightGear. > > If persons do not comply on working together on a single aircraft then i > suggest to remove the existing aircraft data completly. > So that a willing group of volunteers that want to work together can > start from the beginning > > So in other words, Emanual has every right to dismiss any modifications > on *his* model but he has no right to refuse improvements of the > FlightGear Project. > And one aircraft is like a couple of lines of source code in the > project. > > It would be horrible if programmers would say: > "This is my function and no one is allowed to modify it, i will refuse > any commit." > > > In they case i get this mentioned conflict wrong you can ignore the > above words. > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Virtualization& Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 would like to propose a possible solution that might keep everybody happy in the intermediate to long term. Last year, we have discussed several options to split fgdata, but decided to put these plans on hold until the 2.6.0 release was finished, for very practical reasons. Once we commence with these plans, it is very likely that we have a separate fgaircraft repo, and the idea is that we would allow more contributers access rights to this repository. In such a situation, one or more members of the PAF group could gain access rights and commit their own contribution as a separate version. While I generally agree with Martin that I would rather encourage collaboration rather then competition, I don't think it would be in the interest of the project to see a group of motivated contributers being denied access due to a personal dispute. A little bit of competition is not necessarily bad either, because it motivates people to improve their own work. Healthy competition may be beneficial specifically if the efforts are directed to different models, as opposed to replicating an existing one. But if we can't avoid that, I'm not sure why we should selectively block access to our repository either. Finally, I would also like to point out that the PAF team could already clone the fgrepository, merge their changes and file a merge request. Cheers, Durk -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Final 2.6.0 Release Preparations
@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 steer clear of images that show development or testing > > features that are not yet available in the v2.6 release > > What about custom scenery? > > > > Joe > > > > > > -- > Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 70, Issue 9
> 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, you are discrediting yourself with this words, don't you notice it? > But this list is primarily a development list. I would like people who > want me to do harm, do to other places. Of course Oliver, there is no > question of you in this sentence :) So why don't you keep to your own words, and keep that away from this list?! -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] release/2.6.0 development ends today
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 work. So, please: no pushes to release/2.6.0 in any repository! The branches next (fg+sg) and master (fgdata) are unaffected. Thank you, Torsten -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] fgdata: Fix compile error in Shaders/bumpspec.frag
--- 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(fogFactor, 0.0, 1.0); // gl_FragColor = mix(gl_Fog.color, color, fogFactor); - color.rgb = fog_Func(fragColor.rgb, fogType); + color.rgb = fog_Func(color.rgb, fogType); gl_FragColor = color; } -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 > > floating around. It's not really custom to FlightGear but almost common > > practice for other simulators. > > Well, in fact it's just another example of a missed chance to learn > from other's mistakes. I'm not sure wether this approach should be > supported I agree it's sad but sometimes it's inevitable. Erik -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 common > practice for other simulators. If the authors can´t sort it out themselves, why not each have their own version of the aircraft within FG. This is not without precedent. I don´t think that consigning improved aircraft to a 3rd party hangar is good for the FG project as a whole. As FG is GPL there is no reason why each cannot draw code from the other. Please move the bickering to a private forum. The points have been made (many times) and it is clear that neither party gets on well with the other. Alan -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 5/9] remove pointless elevation_feet local from FGStartupController::render
--- 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 FGStartupController::render(bool visible) group = new osg::Group; FGScenery * local_scenery = globals->get_scenery(); //double elevation_meters = 0.0; -double elevation_feet = 0.0; - //for ( FGTaxiSegmentVectorIterator i = segments.begin(); i != segments.end(); i++) { double dx = 0; @@ -1370,7 +1368,6 @@ void FGStartupController::render(bool visible) SGGeod center2 = end; center2.setElevationM(SG_MAX_ELEVATION_M); if (local_scenery->get_elevation_m( center2, elevationEnd, NULL )) { -elevation_feet = elevationEnd * SG_METER_TO_FEET + 0.5; //elevation_meters += 0.5; } else { @@ -1433,7 +1430,6 @@ void FGStartupController::render(bool visible) SGGeod center2 = segment->getStart()->getGeod(); center2.setElevationM(SG_MAX_ELEVATION_M); if (local_scenery->get_elevation_m( center2, elevationStart, NULL )) { -elevation_feet = elevationStart * SG_METER_TO_FEET + 0.5; //elevation_meters += 0.5; } else { @@ -1445,7 +1441,6 @@ void FGStartupController::render(bool visible) SGGeod center2 = segment->getEnd()->getGeod(); center2.setElevationM(SG_MAX_ELEVATION_M); if (local_scenery->get_elevation_m( center2, elevationEnd, NULL )) { -elevation_feet = elevationEnd * SG_METER_TO_FEET + 0.5; //elevation_meters += 0.5; } else { -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Cleanup unused locals
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 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 1/9] remove pointless remainingTimeEnroute local in FGAISchedule::update()
--- 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(time_t now, const SGVec3d& userCart) time_t totalTimeEnroute, elapsedTimeEnroute, -remainingTimeEnroute, deptime = 0; if (!valid) { return false; @@ -259,7 +258,6 @@ bool FGAISchedule::update(time_t now, const SGVec3d& userCart) totalTimeEnroute = flight->getArrivalTime() - flight->getDepartureTime(); if (flight->getDepartureTime() < now) { elapsedTimeEnroute = now - flight->getDepartureTime(); - remainingTimeEnroute = totalTimeEnroute - elapsedTimeEnroute; double x = elapsedTimeEnroute / (double) totalTimeEnroute; // current pos is based on great-circle course between departure/arrival, @@ -275,7 +273,6 @@ bool FGAISchedule::update(time_t now, const SGVec3d& userCart) speed = ((distanceM - coveredDistance) * SG_METER_TO_NM) / 3600.0; } else { // not departed yet - remainingTimeEnroute = totalTimeEnroute; elapsedTimeEnroute = 0; position = dep->geod(); SG_LOG (SG_GENERAL, SG_BULK, "Traffic Manager: Flight is pending, departure in " @@ -283,7 +280,6 @@ bool FGAISchedule::update(time_t now, const SGVec3d& userCart) } } else { // departure / arrival coincident -remainingTimeEnroute = totalTimeEnroute = 0.0; elapsedTimeEnroute = 0; position = dep->geod(); } -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 7/9] remove unused locals from Rotorpart::calculateAlpha
--- 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 Rotorpart::calculateAlpha(float* v_rel_air, float rho, float incidence, float cyc, float alphaalt, float *torque, float *returnlift) { -float moment[3],v_local[3],v_local_scalar,lift_moment,v_flap[3],v_help[3]; -float ias;//nur f. dgb -int i,n; -for (i=0;i<3;i++) -moment[i]=0; +float v_local[3],v_local_scalar,lift_moment,v_flap[3],v_help[3]; +int n; float relgrav = Math::dot3(_normal,_rotor->getGravDirection()); lift_moment=-_mass*_len*9.81*relgrav; *torque=0;// @@ -427,7 +424,6 @@ float Rotorpart::calculateAlpha(float* v_rel_air, float rho, Math::mul3(1/v_local_scalar,v_local,v_help); float incidence_of_airspeed = Math::asin(Math::clamp( Math::dot3(v_help,_normal),-1,1)) + local_incidence; -ias = incidence_of_airspeed; //reduce the ias (Prantl factor) float prantl_factor=2/pi*Math::acos(Math::exp( @@ -437,7 +433,6 @@ float Rotorpart::calculateAlpha(float* v_rel_air, float rho, incidence_of_airspeed = (incidence_of_airspeed+ _rotor->getAirfoilIncidenceNoLift())*prantl_factor *_rotor_correction_factor-_rotor->getAirfoilIncidenceNoLift(); -ias = incidence_of_airspeed; float lift_wo_cyc = _rotor->getLiftCoef(incidence_of_airspeed -cyc*_rotor_correction_factor*prantl_factor,v_local_scalar) * v_local_scalar * v_local_scalar * A *rho *0.5; -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 8/9] remove unused percent_RPM local from FGPiston::doEnginePower
--- 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.cpp +++ b/src/FDM/JSBSim/models/propulsion/FGPiston.cpp @@ -733,10 +733,9 @@ void FGPiston::doEnginePower(void) FMEP = 0; if (Running) { // FIXME: this needs to be generalized -double ME, percent_RPM, power; // Convienience term for use in the calculations +double ME, power; // Convienience term for use in the calculations ME = Mixture_Efficiency_Correlation->GetValue(m_dot_fuel/m_dot_air); -percent_RPM = RPM/MaxRPM; // Guestimate engine friction losses from Figure 4.4 of "Engines: An Introduction", John Lumley FMEP = (-FMEPDynamic * MeanPistonSpeed_fps * fttom - FMEPStatic); -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 9/9] simplify FGRadioTransmission::getFrequency
--- 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() double FGRadioTransmission::getFrequency(int radio) { - double freq = 118.0; switch (radio) { - case 1: - freq = fgGetDouble("/instrumentation/comm[0]/frequencies/selected-mhz"); - break; - case 2: - freq = fgGetDouble("/instrumentation/comm[1]/frequencies/selected-mhz"); - break; - default: - freq = fgGetDouble("/instrumentation/comm[0]/frequencies/selected-mhz"); - + case 1: return fgGetDouble("/instrumentation/comm[0]/frequencies/selected-mhz"); + case 2: return fgGetDouble("/instrumentation/comm[1]/frequencies/selected-mhz"); + default: return fgGetDouble("/instrumentation/comm[0]/frequencies/selected-mhz"); } - return freq; } -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 2/9] remove pointless minbearing local in FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment
--- 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 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment(int id, double lat, previousInstruction = current->getSpeedAdjustment(); double mindist = HUGE_VAL; if (activeTraffic.size()) { -double course, dist, bearing, minbearing, az2; +double course, dist, bearing, az2; SGGeod curr(SGGeod::fromDegM(lon, lat, alt)); //TrafficVector iterator closest; closest = current; @@ -937,8 +937,6 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment(int id, double lat, mindist = dist; closest = i; closestOnNetwork = i; -minbearing = bearing; - } } //Check traffic at the tower controller @@ -961,7 +959,6 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment(int id, double lat, // << endl; mindist = dist; closest = i; -minbearing = bearing; otherReasonToSlowDown = true; } } -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 4/9] remove pointless elevation_feet local from FGGroundNetwork::render
--- 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 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::render(bool visible) group = new osg::Group; FGScenery * local_scenery = globals->get_scenery(); // double elevation_meters = 0.0; -double elevation_feet = 0.0; time_t now = time(NULL) + fgGetLong("/sim/time/warp"); //for ( FGTaxiSegmentVectorIterator i = segments.begin(); i != segments.end(); i++) { //double dx = 0; @@ -1394,7 +1393,6 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::render(bool visible) SGGeod center2 = end; center2.setElevationM(SG_MAX_ELEVATION_M); if (local_scenery->get_elevation_m( center2, elevationEnd, NULL )) { -elevation_feet = elevationEnd * SG_METER_TO_FEET + 0.5; //elevation_meters += 0.5; } else { @@ -1454,7 +1452,6 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::render(bool visible) SGGeod center2 = segments[k]->getStart()->getGeod(); center2.setElevationM(SG_MAX_ELEVATION_M); if (local_scenery->get_elevation_m( center2, elevationStart, NULL )) { -elevation_feet = elevationStart * SG_METER_TO_FEET + 0.5; //elevation_meters += 0.5; } else { @@ -1466,7 +1463,6 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::render(bool visible) SGGeod center2 = segments[k]->getEnd()->getGeod(); center2.setElevationM(SG_MAX_ELEVATION_M); if (local_scenery->get_elevation_m( center2, elevationEnd, NULL )) { -elevation_feet = elevationEnd * SG_METER_TO_FEET + 0.5; //elevation_meters += 0.5; } else { -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 6/9] remove pointless useInitialWayPoint/useCurrentWayPoint locals from FGAIFlightPlan::ctor
--- 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 @@ FGAIFlightPlan::FGAIFlightPlan(FGAIAircraft *ac, gateId=0; taxiRoute = 0; start_time = start; - bool useInitialWayPoint = true; - bool useCurrentWayPoint = false; SGPath path( globals->get_fg_root() ); path.append( "/AI/FlightPlans" ); path.append( p ); SGPropertyNode root; isValid = true; - // This is a bit of a hack: - // Normally the value of course will be used to evaluate whether - // or not a waypoint will be used for midair initialization of - // an AI aircraft. However, if a course value of 999 will be passed - // when an update request is received, which will by definition always be - // on the ground and should include all waypoints. - if (course == 999) -{ - useInitialWayPoint = false; - useCurrentWayPoint = true; -} if (path.exists()) { -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH 3/9] remove pointless previousInstruction local in FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment
--- 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 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment(int id, double lat, TrafficVectorIterator current, closest, closestOnNetwork; TrafficVectorIterator i = activeTraffic.begin(); bool otherReasonToSlowDown = false; -bool previousInstruction; if (activeTraffic.size()) { //while ((i->getId() != id) && (i != activeTraffic.end())) while (i != activeTraffic.end()) { @@ -912,7 +911,6 @@ void FGGroundNetwork::checkSpeedAdjustment(int id, double lat, current = i; //closest = current; -previousInstruction = current->getSpeedAdjustment(); double mindist = HUGE_VAL; if (activeTraffic.size()) { double course, dist, bearing, az2; -- 1.7.5.4 -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 common > practice for other simulators. Well, in fact it's just another example of a missed chance to learn from other's mistakes. I'm not sure wether this approach should be supported Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice & autorisations
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 around the world. It's all about little self made parts from each other > that is proudly copied and glued together to make somethings. It's all > about a bunch of enthousiast collaborating together. It's all about "thanks > to ..."! Well said David. 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 common practice for other simulators. Erik -- Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel