> With an ati 5870 on win7 64bit the transition effect is not working as
> expected.
> I get what is best described as fast flickering artifacts... but have a
> look at the screen shoots yourself.
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc283/oliunterderbruecke/flightgear/fgfs%20bugs/fgfs2012-12-1323-
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44:00 Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi
> - Performance
> The most important limiting factor for radio propagation on VHF and up
> is question "line of sight" or "obscured by terrain".
Hi again Torsten,
Apologising for keeping this subject up, but I rather enjoy technic
Hi Thorsten
With an ati 5870 on win7 64bit the transition effect is not working as
expected.
I get what is best described as fast flickering artifacts... but have a
look at the screen shoots yourself.
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc283/oliunterderbruecke/flightgear/fgfs%20bugs/fgfs2012-12-13
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:29:49 +0200, Adrian wrote in message
<201212131629.50248.kanto...@gmail.com>:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2012 15:04:16 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> >
> > Somewhat related to the above - *if* the radio propagation model
> > could be shown to be more realistic - what framerate
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:03:45 -, Vivian wrote in message
<001201cdd8bc$f5eb6b30$e1c24190$@lineone.net>:
> Don't we need radar altitude for buildings etc. for radar
> altimeters, but probably not trees?
..at some stage, tree canopies will be dense enough to mask
the ground, or give "double r
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:04:16 +, Renk wrote in message
:
> (With regard to Adrian's code, I am well aware that factors like
> style, performance,... are also relevant).
..given the diverse coder background here, with ditto diverse
coding style backgrounds, I found reason to google and wound
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Adrian Musceac wrote:
>
>>
>> Please forgive my my clear words - it's not my intention to offend anybody.
>
> No offence taken. I understand your pain/gain argument and we agree to
> disagree on that. The pain is now taken care of, the gain is present.
> You are one of the p
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 13 Dec 2012, at 09:02, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
>> Jenkins FlightGear-Win64-CMake build history:
>>
>>> #220 (pending - All nodes of label 'x64' are offline )
>>> Last build (#219), 3 days 9 hr ago
>>
>> Shouldn't have the fix propagated to a n
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 15:04:16 Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> Somewhat related to the above - *if* the radio propagation model could be
> shown to be more realistic - what framerate loss would this be worth as
> compared to a faster, less realistic model? And does this question matter
> at all
If anyone likes flying in Iceland - the current state of Iceland regional
texturing is now on GIT with the region-specific materials file - use with
Atmospheric Light Scattering, Transition Effects to max. for best effect -
otherwise the endless lava fields and glaciers have very strong tiling
> In some cases, the used algorithm is plain wrong as we
> know by definition (ICAO rules) the propagation of the radio signal.
Um... I would like to understand this statement. The algorithm has a physics
model in. I am no expert in radio propagation, but after doing a bit of
reading, by usual F
Hi Torsten,
Regardless of the fact that you support or not the inclusion of this new radio
code, I have to clear up some statements which are wrong. See below.
> I spent an hour or two reviewing your code and I still think your
> implementation should not be merged into the code base. Let me e
Hi
replying to multiple posts here, I'll try to collect and answer to some
arguments.
First: I totally agree that our current nav/comm radio implementation is
far from being realistic w.r.t. propagation of the radio signal close to
or on the ground. This should be improved.
I spent an hour or
On 13 Dec 2012, at 09:02, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> Jenkins FlightGear-Win64-CMake build history:
>
>> #220 (pending - All nodes of label 'x64' are offline )
>> Last build (#219), 3 days 9 hr ago
>
> Shouldn't have the fix propagated to a new Win64 binary by now?
Gene upgraded the Jenkin
Forum:
> by zakalawe on Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:46 pm
> I've pushed a fix (to SG) for the sound issue. Better to report such issues
> via the developer list in the future, I don't check topics here.
Jenkins FlightGear-Win64-CMake build history:
> #220 (pending - All nodes of label 'x64' are offl
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 01:03:45 Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Don't we need radar altitude for buildings etc. for radar altimeters, but
> probably not trees?
>
> A radar altimeter needs to sample both the terrain and "hard" objects on
> it.
>
> However, I watch this work with interest: I think
16 matches
Mail list logo
