Hi Gijs,
On Monday 18 January 2010 06:50:03 pm Gijs de Rooy wrote:
PS: Durk, it might be nice to share atleast a week-of-release with us, so
we know how much time we can work on fixing our stuff before the release...
You're right. Our deadline for code and data submissions is tentatively set
Hi,
You're right. Our deadline for code and data submissions is tentatively set
to
Sunday, 24 January 2010, 18:00 UTC. That is, I'm planning to start tagging
the
data repository sometime after 7:00PM CET.
Sounds o.k.
After that, we're allowing ourselves approximately one week to build the
Hi Heiko,
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 09:58:26 pm Heiko Schulz wrote:
Final release just after a week testing without official RC-candidates?
Whooo very brave! :-(
Please note that there is currently a second release candidate available for
windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 11:08:59 pm Durk Talsma wrote:
Please note that there is currently a second release candidate available
for windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for window was skipped to
stay synchronized with the mac release candidates:
Also note that Tat has already made two
- Durk Talsma a écrit :
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 11:08:59 pm Durk Talsma wrote:
Please note that there is currently a second release candidate
available
for windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for window was skipped
to
stay synchronized with the mac release candidates:
Hi Durk,
Please note that there is currently a second release
candidate available for
windows. (Based on a build by Fred). RC1 for window
was skipped to stay
synchronized with the mac release candidates:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~dtalsma/fgsetup-2.0.0-RC2.exe.torrent
Also note that
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 22:01 +, Heiko Schulz wrote:
I'm sure it is easy, then the aircrafts has to be:
-under GNU GPL to fit into the Base package (So David Culp's aircrafts can't
be included)
-in CVS already - the Lockheed Lockheed L1049h (the h-version!)is not yet
included
The tu154b model isn't GPL and its FDM has to be replaced with another
file(included) to work with CVS. Works fine here.
--
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and
Hi,
Very well done!
Great comparison!
Regarding 737-900ER: it has a cockpit- but the wrong cockpit.
It uses the cockpit of a 777, wich is completly wrong. I don't think this one
will be a good idea.
Cheers
HHS
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam
Hi,
Scott wrote:
To help discussion, I've tried to list all the contemporary airliners and
give some
idea of how much functionality (for flying) is implemented.
If we look at your status numbers, only the Concorde and 777-200ER are
considered
to be fairly completed. As the concorde
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:50:03 +0100, Gijs wrote in message
snt101-w625f7235e7a7337b02a20d3...@phx.gbl:
Hi,
Scott wrote:
To help discussion, I've tried to list all the contemporary
airliners and give some idea of how much functionality (for
flying) is implemented.
If we look at
I'll place a vote after some thought, but I'd like to mention there are a few
aircraft that don't really fit the existing categories, but yet are excellent
aircraft to represent FG.
- Large multi-engine (or historic airliner) : Lockheed L1049h Constellation
- Seaplane : Grumman Goose (there's
Hi Peter,
I'll place a vote after some thought, but I'd like to mention there are a
few aircraft that don't really fit the existing categories, but yet are
excellent aircraft to represent FG.
- Large multi-engine (or historic airliner) : Lockheed L1049h Constellation
- Seaplane : Grumman Goose
Peter Brown wrote:
- Carrier Aircraft : T-2C or F-4N (while the F-14 is carrier capable, Dave
Culp has some excellent aircraft that don't fit the omnipowerful jet fighter
category)
Keep in mind that the aircraft from Dave's hangar are not GPL compatible
and hence could not be added to the
14 matches
Mail list logo
