On Thursday 29 November 2007 16:34, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 14:44 schrieb Hans Fugal:
Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
and set it to the lowest valid value.
*To:* FlightGear developers discussions
*Subject:* Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11
some testresults
How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone
can just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than
filling my in box
It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are
in danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a
vote? We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the
rest of the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is
worth fighting.
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis
Olson
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:52 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some
testresults
I'm just a little surpised that the version
On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek,
instead of an I will make the next
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a
On Nov 30, 2007 7:11 AM, AnMaster wrote:
As timore said on IRC:
timoore If we skip 0.9.11, then the terrorists have won
Wow, I didn't realize the terrorists had such strong feelings about our next
version number! :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text:
How about /0.x.y/ where /x/ and /y /can be variables and everyone can
just choose their favorite or preferred numbers rather than filling my
in box with discussions of which number comes after/ z/.
Lee
P.S. The correct answer is /z + 1/.
Richard Bytheway wrote:
It seems to me that we are
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee
Duke
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:14 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Prerelease 0.9.11 some
testresults
How about 0.x.y where x and y can be variables
Anything other than 0.9.11 means both the terrorists and the tunnel vision of
the USAians have triumphed.
And BTW as far as most of Europe is concerned a serious terrorist outrage
occured 11-9-2001 and 9-11 is just a set of numbers.
This is not the place for politics however (which I am happy
Hi,
during the last days I tested FG 0.9.11 Pre using several different
scenarios, of course related to my personal interests and therefore only
a subset of FG's possibilities.
Generally spoken, this is a very stable running version on my system
(OpenSUSE 10.2). I could not see any big problems,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
4. 3D clouds crash
Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after
closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not
run.
Do I remember right that this is an older problem and depending on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Anders Gidenstam wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
4. 3D clouds crash
Selecting 3D clouds in the rendering menu crashes FlightGear after
closing the window. When used as a startup parameter FlightGear does not
run.
Do I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
[...]
2. Triangle distorted sky also with Anthrax GUI
Although using the Anthrax-GUI, the sky gets triangulated when using a
submenu with (orange???) input-fields. This triangle distortion
disappears immediatly after
Hans Fugal schrieb:
Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a
simple fix, and that there's really no excuse not to do it.
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 14:44 schrieb Hans Fugal:
Is there not a way to sanity check the cloud cache size in the plib
version before going ahead and segfaulting? Like notice that it's 0
and set it to the lowest valid value. It seems that this would be a
simple fix, and that there's
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
3. Winter textures (partially) broken (same for OSG version)
That was IIRC caused by Erik's texture cache, which saved several
megabytes formerly wasted texture memory, which is an important
improvement. He knows about the breakage of his season
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it
has some problems:
Oh, and it doesn't respect the true glide slope angle. It always
uses 3 degree, although some have 3.5. (But then again, I'm not
sure if fgfs makes a difference, so
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
That would be easy, but I haven't even committed it, because it
has some problems:
Oh, and it doesn't respect the true glide slope angle. It always
uses 3 degree, although some have 3.5. (But then again, I'm
On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz wrote:
There are some things I noticed and two suggestion:
-If I check show fps - it does not appear.
I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to
reset FGF for viewing the fps
Are you sure you're using the exact --geometry setting you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
There are some things I noticed and two suggestion:
-If I check show fps - it does not appear.
I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or to
reset FGF for viewing the fps
FPS counter show nice here but I
* Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
- stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting
up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli
is in the air the stutters disappear [...]
Sounds like the effect that volumetric shadows have, on any
complex aircraft near ground, not
I did not use any shadows- still haveing a to weak pc
I remember something heard about that the cause lies
into the collision detect for the ground
Hopefully Tim well be soon ready- can't wait to see
it! :-)
regards
HHS
--- Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
* Heiko Schulz --
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the
upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named gstunnel.nas.off or
something like that?
Better fix the problems that can be fixed and put it as regular file. :-)
I made the script
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
- stutters with any helicopters at the ground- lifting
up is a big problem cause to the stutters. If the heli
is in the air the stutters disappear [...]
Sounds like the effect
--- AJ MacLeod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
schrieb:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 20:38:15 Heiko Schulz
wrote:
There are some things I noticed and two
suggestion:
-If I check show fps - it does not appear.
I have to enlarge and to downsize the window, or
to
reset FGF for viewing the fps
Are
On Nov 29, 2007 2:56 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
I would strongly disagree with that - with every respect for those who
were
affected by the events you mention, it's only a set of numbers (not even a
date, in any recognisable format), and since 0.9.11 comes right after
0.9.10,
it's only logical
On jeu 29 novembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the
upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named gstunnel.nas.off or
something like that?
Better fix the problems that can be fixed
* Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are an arbitrary
set of numbers [...]
No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was
clear that people consider a sane version number more important
than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11
gerard robin schrieb:
On jeu 29 novembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
Could you imagine to put this nasal file into the Nasal folder of the
upcoming release *deactivated*, ie. named gstunnel.nas.off or
something like that?
--- Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
* Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are
an arbitrary
set of numbers [...]
No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread
it was
clear that people consider a sane version number
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
gerard robin schrieb:
It is not Autopilot, however it is an help to pilot, it could
be in the autopilot item
Yes, maybe.
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I
On Thursday 29 November 2007 21:54:05 Curtis Olson wrote:
But then most people seem to also follow that up with very strongly held
opinions about what the version number should be. As we've seen from just
a few postings in this thread, there is a variety incompatible, yet
strongly held
On Nov 29, 2007 4:13 PM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was
clear that people consider a sane version number more important
than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of the incident.
I think your message at least confirms my point that
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set
the wind with [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Then I tried to make it easier from the
startup and switch the property on with
Georg Vollnhals schrieb:
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
* Georg Vollnhals -- Thursday 29 November 2007:
First to say, I made some testflights at EDDW and it works fine if I set
the wind with [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Then I tried to make it easier from the
startup and switch the property on
On Thursday 29 November 2007 23:25, Curtis Olson wrote:
[snip...]
How about I say it this way ... our version number system has become
too tedious and ponderous. And are you suggesting that a 10 year old
mature software product can't be allowed a v1.0 version number? It's
never going to be
* Curtis Olson -- Friday 30 November 2007:
[...]
So if you have a problem, please state it clearly
The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with
38 matches
Mail list logo
