Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread AnMaster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Maik Justus wrote: Hi, just for clarification: The leading slash has no influence, if a property if transferred over the MP-protocol (that is a hard-coded list). But if you use an absolute path instead of a relative, then the animation

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread AnMaster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 gh.robin wrote: On Wed 11 July 2007 10:18, Maik Justus wrote: Hi, just for clarification: The leading slash has no influence, if a property if transferred over the MP-protocol (that is a hard-coded list). But if you use an absolute path

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread gh.robin
On Wed 11 July 2007 10:18, Maik Justus wrote: Hi, just for clarification: The leading slash has no influence, if a property if transferred over the MP-protocol (that is a hard-coded list). But if you use an absolute path instead of a relative, then the animation depends only on the absolute

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread gh.robin
On Wed 11 July 2007 13:30, AnMaster wrote: gh.robin wrote: That is exactly what i wonder, with the increase of aircraft animations, there is , and will be, more and more, accurate animations, = for instance highly detailed gears with compression animation, struts, actuators,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread AJ MacLeod
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 12:59, gh.robin wrote: Compression animation is costly and not very useful to be seen in an MP environment, so it could be only seen on the user/pilot side. Is that really true though? Consider especially how many MP aircraft are visible at any one time; even at a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread Maik Justus
Hi Gérad, gh.robin schrieb am 11.07.2007 13:59: Compression animation is costly and not very useful to be seen in an MP environment, so it could be only seen on the user/pilot side. Now all animations are done on all MP aircrafts every frame. If the property is not transferred over the MP

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread John Denker
On 07/11/2007 07:26 AM, gh.robin wrote: Could it be possible , to limit the MP animation only to property surface position property/, the model creators will take care of i. When making the animations, he could decide if one specification is valuable for the pilot only or valuable for both

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-11 Thread Detlef Faber
Hi Maik, Am Mittwoch, den 11.07.2007, 14:42 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus: Hi Gérad, gh.robin schrieb am 11.07.2007 13:59: Compression animation is costly and not very useful to be seen in an MP environment, so it could be only seen on the user/pilot side. Now all animations are done

[Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-10 Thread AnMaster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Apart from that I wrote to the wrong thread... I checked the other patches I made for bad properties outside the main xml file and have as a result of that updated some patches: http://rage.kuonet.org/~anmaster/flightgear/mosquito.patch

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-10 Thread gh.robin
On Tue 10 July 2007 23:04, AnMaster wrote: Apart from that I wrote to the wrong thread... I checked the other patches I made for bad properties outside the main xml file and have as a result of that updated some patches: http://rage.kuonet.org/~anmaster/flightgear/mosquito.patch

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-10 Thread AnMaster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 gh.robin wrote: On Tue 10 July 2007 23:04, AnMaster wrote: Apart from that I wrote to the wrong thread... I checked the other patches I made for bad properties outside the main xml file and have as a result of that updated some patches:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Property path... again...

2007-07-10 Thread gh.robin
On Wed 11 July 2007 01:12, AnMaster wrote: gh.robin wrote: On Tue 10 July 2007 23:04, AnMaster wrote: Apart from that I wrote to the wrong thread... I checked the other patches I made for bad properties outside the main xml file and have as a result of that updated some patches: