On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> >> That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
> >> though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
> >
> > This is
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> > There is always a risk associated with changing default
> > behaviour and the bottom line is that there is no immediate
> > need to do so, nor any overhead incurred by not d
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM, leee wrote:
> > I agree that windup == bad and antiwindup == good, and that in
> > a perfect world no one would have leveraged windup and that
> > everyone would have implemented their
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, leee
wrote:
> > As this would be a new feature, and one which might affect
> > existing behaviours, I _really_ think it ought to be off by
> > default.
>
> I really can't imagine any
want to demonstrate to someone why anti-windup is a
> good idea ... but in that case, the switch should be to turn it
> off, not turn it on.)
[snip...]
>
> Regards,
>
> Curt.
As this would be a new feature, and one which m
nyone can find some high-res pictures of _real_ HUD displays
(and not ones from flight sims, as they're obviously going to be
produced via a raster display) it should be possible to see the
LCD 'dots' (unless they LCD scree
; -Fred
Overlaying a geometry shader on the FG scenery is pretty cool: is
there the scope to tune it to the terrain gradient i.e. adapt the
shader according to the steepness of the terrain slope?
LeeE
--
Download Intel
On Thursday 25 Feb 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 Feb 2010, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > [snip...]
> >
> >> As follows from this, I have to add that I'm not too excited
> >> about all the invidual hangars, and scenery repository
On Thursday 25 Feb 2010, James Turner wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2010, at 22:15, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> > "logic filters" use well known conditions to drive output
> > properties. Example for bax = baz & (foo | bar).
>
> Nice!
>
> Regards,
&g
t even getting into the issue of control
without responsibility, for if the FG project is to control
everything, is it in a position to accept the responsibility of
maintaining and fixing it all?
LeeE
--
Download Intel
as you may be exceeding them. If this isn't the case
then it may be that the C-X actually cruises with a higher AoA than
you've tuned for and you need to tweak the FDM config to increase
it.
LeeE
--
Download
se FG and if you can't find that out then
you can't use FG. Is that not a usability issue?
LeeE
--
SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace,
Predictive Self Healing and
linux; that's why there are options (parameters) to
override normal defaults, but ./configure should be checking for
consistency and failing when it finds inconsistency, not giving the
appearance that all is well.
LeeE
-
On Saturday 06 Feb 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 Feb 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> >> John Denker wrote:
> >> > The fact that workarounds exist for this bug seems to
> >> > be rather strong evidence that the bug exists.
>
ery local setup doesn't prove a single bug,
>
> Martin.
If ./configure is generating a makefile that doesn't work then there
is clearly a bug.
Saying that because the bug doesn't exist because it isn't
widespread is just being in denial, and is an e
On Friday 05 Feb 2010, John Denker wrote:
> On 02/05/2010 11:26 AM, leee wrote:
> > Are those clouds on the horizon or is it distant scenery?
>
> Scenery. Mountainous terrain. Clearly recognizable as such.
What I thought - just wanted to make sure.
>
> No clouds any
radius of about 12nm around the aircraft but was
invisible beyond that. Where the scenery was mountainous you could
see it gradually appearing as you flew towards it; can you see the
distant scenery (if that is what it is) disappearing as you fly
towards it
On Monday 01 Feb 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 Jan 2010, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > > Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > > > It's been a long time since I (re-)wrote the random object
> > > > code for OSG, but my recollection is
on that trying to coordinate
FG development was like trying to heard cats, but FG long ago
became bigger than any of its contributors. It seems to me that
perhaps part of the the problem is that not all of the contributors
to FG realise that.
LeeE
-
h offers fast
> prototyping, flexibility, and more (but not complete)
> independence from the C/C++ code.
>
> This means that for any particular case, there may be plenty to
> discuss and debate, and there may not be one single general
> purpose approach that works for everyone.
>
hough: the autopilot controllers and filters should run at a
constant rate and although a parameter was added and
initially worked, I think it may have become broken at some point
and the rate at which the controllers and filters operate depends
more upon the frame rate than anything else. Becau
eath /autopilot.
As your autopilot becomes more complex it pays to set up new
sub-parent nodes to group together each type of thing you're
working with e.g.
/autopilot/FCS/settings
/autopilot/FCS/targets
/autopilot/FCS/controls
LeeE
--
9, bz= 1.4, and with a taper of between 0.3-0.5, should be
about right.
However, simply doing this is likely to change the YASim CoG because
it distributes the total aircraft weight according to the various
element definitions.
LeeE
homas Jefferson
A true thing, except TJ's statement depends upon the rarest sense of
all; that of common sense.
LeeE
--
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon'
become the standard way of increasing
hardware performance.
Good luck, and I look forward to hearing about your progress.
LeeE
--
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon&#
of
all proportion to any results gained, which at most can only stop
someone from doing something and is entirely concerned with
restriction; it does nothing to actually further improve or promote
anything, or allow something new.
LeeE
-
On Tuesday 05 Jan 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > John, in referring to "our" software, I'm afraid that you're
> > missing the point of the GPL. Once the software has been
> > released under the GPL it isn't 'ours' or anyone
nces, like
the GPL, and various other public domain or free to use licences
where the originator is just letting other people use their slave
rather than granting the slave their freedom.
LeeE
--
This SF.Net emai
On Wednesday 23 Dec 2009, Alan Teeder wrote:
> --
> From: "leee"
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:05 PM
> To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
>
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] auto-coordination bro
-coordination was a JSBSim feature and did nothing when enabled
for other FDMs.
LeeE
--
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development
On Friday 18 Dec 2009, John Denker wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 12:30 PM, leee wrote:
> > I live beneath the turn-in point for clockwise approaches on 05
> > at Stanstead Airport (EGSS)
>
> I assume that was supposed to say
ypes of approach at EGSS I
was between 2500-3000ft asl (over ground that's about 200ft asl) as
I turned in above my home for the more typical airliner approach,
and around 4000ft when I got on the glideslope for a straight in
approach using the AN-225 to
" and it turns
out to be wrong (possibly in the future) then it risks invalidating
everything else in the statement (see the recent brou-hahah about
the university of Anglia's CRU cover-up e-mails) In addition, the
FG project should not comment about activities or contracts betwe
do I recall seeing
go by on the cvs update logs and remember thinking that it would
help a lot - some of the current modellers should be able confirm
this).
Sadly, I'm afraid that I don't currently have a working FG or AC3D
here atm, otherwise I'd have a go at it for you, but I'm su
ly dedicated to running FG then it
might not be such a problem,as you'll avoid some of the issues
because you're just not running that software, but if you use your
system for any other serious work, in addition
e technology and pragmatism
have resulted in more effective and more useful aircraft than what
the West has developed. It's not true in every case, of course,
but you certainly need to look deeper than just what the western
political and manufacturing propaganda would suggest.
LeeE
---
On Tuesday 27 Oct 2009, Rob Shearman, Jr. wrote:
> Leee, you said "If someone were to redistribute
>
> an altered binary derived from a GPL'd work without making the
> corresponding source code available then it is a straightforward
> violation of the GPL and that is w
On Sunday 25 Oct 2009, Durk Talsma wrote:
> On Sunday 25 October 2009 09:50:40 pm leee wrote:
> > I'm sorry Durk, but you still don't get it. The license is not
> > there to protect anything but the freedom of the software.
> > It's not there to protect o
would be trivial (and it shouldn't be made
difficult to do) it would force a change in the code, which must be
accompanied by the notice in the amended source. Then the issue
just comes down to whether the amended source code is made
available or not, which would then be a valid licensing
oncerned by this issue then they really _need_ to
decide whether to accept or reject the conditions of the GPL.
There is no room for dispute or modification; either it's ok for
you personally, as it is, or it is not. The GPL cannot be
reinterpreted to suit different peoples' opinion
e
anyway.
Changing the license of the aircraft is more feasible as these would
be considered as separate works and copyright is usually only held
by a few people at most. As mentioned previously though, the new
license
upon any GPL'd work, they can impose whatever conditions they
like. It is not a violation of the GPL to distribute non-GPL'd
software along with GPL'd software, but while they can impose
restrictions upon their software, those restrictions cannot and
will not apply to the GPL
treating
source then it should double for an approaching source.
LeeE
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing
On Friday 16 Oct 2009, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > I think you need to accept that many aircraft are indeed
> > broken, and most have been broken by software changes made
> > since the aircraft was released.
>
> No, I don't have to.
Well, I'm afraid
ackwards compatibility
i.e. by allowing different versions of sub-systems to be used by
specifying a version in the appropriate config file, broken
aircraft will remain a feature of FG.
LeeE
--
Come build with us! The Bla
t the
controller rate control is still working properly)
Heh :) Yet another solution has occurred to me while writing this,
although it would need a new abs (absolute value) filter type...
Feed the current roll value into the abs filter, to ensure a simple
positive value, then feed that into
On Wednesday 14 Oct 2009, Alan Teeder wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: leee [mailto:l...@spatial.plus.com]
> >
> > > Did you try scheduling your autoplilot´s height-error to
> > > pitch demand gain with 1/V (speed inverse) ?
> > >
> &
> > though, would mean that it would see a smaller deviation
> > because the aircraft would have moved less in the shorter time
> > period.
>
> Did you try scheduling your autoplilot´s height-error to pitch
> demand ga
ink something has gone
slightly askew somewhere along the way though, as some tests I did
to dump out the data indicated some pretty wild swings.
LeeE
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, C
On Sunday 11 Oct 2009, Alan Teeder wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: leee [mailto:l...@spatial.plus.com]
> >
> > > ie if u stick in a new value to the FDM then it will react..
> > > That sucks in my oioiion.. I how have to create my own craqo
>
ll not be able to do it without understanding what it is that
you're working with. Working on developing and tuning the FG
autopilots can take an awful lot of time and can lead to an awful
lot of frustration but they're not magical or mystical and
impossible to understand, and it
r this discussion but I
was so annoyed that I couldn't let it pass. Hopefully, it'll die
soon.
I've answered a couple of responses, one reasonable and one not,
imo, but I'll shut up about it now as I&
lead the non-respect. The
> non-respect over certain history facts! If we had learned of it,
> we woulden't have similar things today!
>
> Do you know that even today more than 60 years after the war and
> holocaust my country germany still have to pay compensations?
> That t
ht, if you're going to comment, as you're
> basing your opinion on non straight facts :)
> Cheers,
> Nic
The saddest thing about your posting is that rather than
contributing to the debate you've chosen to try to personally
belittle an
o make
things any better and it will only be by _really_ understanding
things and coming to terms with them that we will stand any chance
of preventing them from occurring again.
LeeE
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry
s, but I still think that the 'note' was unnecessary as
all it achieved was to aggressively suggest that the poster was
lazy or stupid.
Sure, people can be lazy _and_ stupid, but I can't see that
attacking them for being so is the best way to do anything about
it.
LeeE
On Fri
rovide
instructions that don't work and then tell people who try to follow
those instructions that they should have figured out the correct
instructions for themselves.
LeeE
--
Let Crystal Reports handle the report
On Friday 07 Aug 2009, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, leee wrote:
> > I'm just wondering how much hardwood there is in Sweden.
> > Sweden's Firs might have been ok for the masts and spars but
> > hardwood was needed for the hull and superstructure,
and frames and other hardwoods for hull and deck planking. Teak
was especially favoured for deck planking once trade had opened up
the tropics. A relatively little known fact is that Balsa is
actually a hardwood :-)
LeeE
--
On Wednesday 05 Aug 2009, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, leee wrote:
> > Fair enough. To be honest, the question was at the limits of
> > my understanding. What inspired it though is that when I'm
> > rendering any of my 3D stuff the rendering
On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:05 AM, leee
wrote:
> > That's interesting. Could you elaborate on that a little more
> > i.e. did you split a single scene into 'render boxes' or were
> > you, in effect, runn
t to the whims and desires of its
developers.
Like I said, I mean no criticism of the developers by this; they
have achieved an immense amount by getting FG to this point, but in
getting FG this far they've made FG into a
On Friday 17 Jul 2009, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, leee wrote:
> > The X/YB-35/49s certainly suffered from yaw instability
> > problems; in one YB-49 bomb run test it took the pilot four
> > minutes to stabilise the aircraft, during which time the
--prop:environment/config/boundary/entry/visibility-m=6000
--prop:environment/config/boundary/entry[1]/visibility-m=1
--prop:environment/config/aloft/entry/visibility-m=2
--prop:environment/config/aloft/entry[1]/visibi
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxz1UF67EQI
You can see the V-173 at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfpTDOAfj7Y
and also worth looking at, in the context of the Horten and other
flying wings, is the Armstrong Whitworth AW-52:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H1tyMRtcho
LeeE
--
G development, so for the period of
your thesis I would avoid tracking the cvs version of FG and either
use one of the stable versions or stick with a single cvs snapshot;
you're quite likely to find your work broken by subsequent
development cod
Subject line says it all really.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/02/nav_robothopter_flight_phase_ii/
LeeE
--
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel
ined dataset that will be most useful, of course.
LeeE
--
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
There's a download link at the end of the article, but the article
also points out that it seems a bit overloaded atm.
> Hi Lee,
>
> Have you seen a download link?
>
> Curt.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, leee wrote:
> > Just a heads-up to say that
On Wednesday 01 Jul 2009, leee wrote:
> Just a heads-up to say that it seems that the ASTER 30 metre
> resolution world topographic data has been released, covering 83
> degrees north to 93 degrees south.
>
> Apparently NASA is currently working to combine this with the
> SRTM da
/30/nasa_japan_release_99_complete_topographic_map/
LeeE
--
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo
On Friday 26 Jun 2009, Maik Justus wrote:
> Hi LeeE
>
> leee schrieb am 26.06.2009 13:57:
> > I just thought I'd point out that the YASim solver sets the
> > incidence for the element, not the element.
>
> Thanks for correcting me. I checked the code. The only dif
ble to fine-tune
the single element to get very close to the real world
characteristics, and certainly closer than you could get with a
and combination.
LeeE
--
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Friday 12 Jun 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
[snip...]
> ... I simply don't want to write files that use the more
> verbose alternative...
[snip...]
I must commend your honesty.
LeeE
--
Crystal Reports - New F
e A-10 since I initially produced it, so any good tricks
you've learned from the A-10 should perhaps be credited more to
Alexis than myself.
LeeE
--
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out t
be a good idea to think in terms of either re-naming the
current 'Generic' FCS so that it's clearly a generic Heli FCS, or
re-designing the 'Generic' FCS so that it is modular, with truly
generic modules, applicable to any type of vehicle, and separate
vehicl
ve for
cruise and approach conditions and just use the gear drag bits,
which could then be placed and animated to simulate a human body.
LeeE
--
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a ga
property tree nodes
in your animations while they're atomic values but if it's decided
that they should be represented by compound values, and it makes as
much sense to use them for lat, lon & alt, or pitch, roll & yaw, as
using them anywhere else, you'd have to write some co
ute frame of reference where you could specify an
absolute location or attitude.
This is the method I used for the old and now defunct SeaHawk-pair,
as well as for high-elevation terrain markers and navigation target
markers.
Working out the relative animations isn't too difficult tho
On Wednesday 08 April 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
> LeeE wrote:
> > I've been following this but I don't remember anyone, in either
> > camp, pointing out where it brings a significant performance
> > increase, or where the failure to adopt it will result in a
>
ists exactly where it can
and can't be used, baring in mind that it is normal to add new
branches and nodes to the tree as required?
LeeE
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in
bad design; it doesn't seem to be required to enable an
otherwise impossible feature but at the same time introduces the
scope for new errors whilst breaking the consistency of the current
data atomicity.
LeeE
On Sunday 05 April 2009, Curtis Olson wrote:
> I agree that the property system
#x27;ll be trivial to convert from the
current property tree representation of the data to the form
required by OSG.
I still can't see a good reason to make changes to the way the
property tree represents data unless the overhead of ac
uld just be increased a little to account for it,
forgetting about the colour cast because over a large area of
different coloured background and objects the caustic colours will
average out.
LeeE
--
On Monday 30 March 2009, George Patterson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE
wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 March 2009, Ron Jensen wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 01:55 -0700, syd adams wrote:
> >> > I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in
n obsolete version available, which is worse than useless.
A link to the maintained version makes much more sense.
LeeE
--
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lis
On Saturday 21 March 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
> LeeE wrote:
> > On Friday 20 March 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
> >> RFC: Vector Types in the Property System
> >>
> >> Proposal: Allow vector types as properties in property list
> >> XML files and as properties
asing
the workload for the user-developers, at the same time rendering
the interface inconsistent and ambiguous.
LeeE
--
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with
e aircraft 3D-model, but
then placed in the scenery as required, for the landing airfield
(chosen at run-time), using the built-in Nasal geo fuctions, whilst
also using Nasal to prototype the algorithms.
LeeE
--
Open Source
a presents no problems.
If you need to cut it down you can take out the examples []. You
can then give examples once you've got their attention.
LeeE
--
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009,
and doesn't make sense.
If you're setting up the system primarily to run FG however, this
doesn't apply, but in any case, I'd still start with a distro
that's based on newer versions of software than Debian.
I guess it comes down to identifying your primary requiremen
or something like FG, Ubuntu might be a better bet, as
it's based more on unstable than stable, with new versions of
software being brought forward much more quickly than with Debian.
LeeE
--
Create and Deploy Rich I
're working on to something like the
rudder; you can then check that the gear extend & retract and
linkage compression animations etc. animate correctly by just
using the rudder control; because you have to run to full sim to
check your a
On Tuesday 03 February 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * LeeE -- Tuesday 03 February 2009:
> > Do you still get problems if you set the windspeed to zero?
>
> Yes. With pretty much the same sliding speed.
>
> m.
That's interesting, and a bit at odds with wh
On Tuesday 03 February 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * LeeE -- Tuesday 03 February 2009:
> > Have the people having bad problems with this tried increasing
> > the values for the & gear sub-elements?
>
> Yes, of course. I really, really hope that I haven't forg
On Tuesday 03 February 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * LeeE -- Tuesday 03 February 2009:
> > Have the people having bad problems with this tried increasing
> > the values for the & gear sub-elements?
>
> Yes, of course. I really, really hope that I haven't forg
creating a model animation utility using the
model handling code already in FG and adding an interface to it.
Not a trivial job, in terms of time required, but all the model
loading, visualisation & presentation and animation code already
exists.
LeeE
-
with the brakes on.
This suggested to me that the slippage problem only related to
sideways movement of the wheels.
Have the people having bad problems with this tried increasing the
values for the & gear sub-elements?
LeeE
--
On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > From: LeeE [mailto:l...@spatial.plus.com]
> >
> >
> > How difficult would it be to make available multiple versions
> > of FDM, which could then be specified in the aircraft
> > configuration? The approp
ns of
FDM, which could then be specified in the aircraft configuration?
The appropriate FDM (UIUC/JSBSim/YASim/Balloon) has to be loaded
after the aircraft config has been read, so why can't an
appropriate version of
1 - 100 of 366 matches
Mail list logo
