[I think this didn't get through yesterday, so I'm resending.]
Because of problems with the plane I had originally booked, I ended up
doing circuits in my club's Cessna 172R, precisely the plane we're
modelling. Here are some notes:
1. I love the panel and especially the avionics. Since I was
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:13:22 -0400,
John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm seeing some indications that one of our win32 people
may be infected with W32.Klez.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This would be a good time to update virus dats and
have a mcafee.
...and
What are these indications ?
-Fred
- Original Message -
From: John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:13 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Possible virus alert
I'm seeing some indications that one of our win32 people
may
On Monday 29 April 2002 07:46 pm, Jon Berndt wrote:
In order to test JSBSim compilation across different platforms, I've
been
giving some initial thought to use of the sourceforge compile farm. Does
anyone here have any experience with that? Good idea? No?
This *is* cool. I tried it:
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 9:42 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
What are these indications ?
-Fred
Messages with klez attachments and forged from headers with
list participant addresses.
- Original Message -
From: John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
John Check writes:
Messages with klez attachments and forged from headers with
list participant addresses.
Yes, having my return address spoofed by someone's Outlook was the
last straw for me. At risk of offending some of my corporate
customers, I've modified my .sig as below.
All the
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 11:36 am, David Megginson wrote:
John Check writes:
Messages with klez attachments and forged from headers with
list participant addresses.
Yes, having my return address spoofed by someone's Outlook was the
last straw for me. At risk of offending some of my
All Outlook users should install security patches from Windows Update.
Version 5 has serious flaws and start automatically any attachement when
a message is previewed.
John is right, these viruses fetch their victims in every mail folders.
By the way, do you inform specifically possible
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 12:05 pm, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
All Outlook users should install security patches from Windows Update.
Version 5 has serious flaws and start automatically any attachement when
a message is previewed.
John is right, these viruses fetch their victims in every mail
I've been experimenting with a simple tree model in FlightGear.
Here's the result:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/tree.png
The tree consists of a 32x64 RGBA texture mapped onto three sets of
back-to-back rectangles at 120-degree angles to each other. From any
given viewing angle (other
Jon,
This is fixed by Darrell Walisser's patch.
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~walisser/fg/fgdev.tar.gz
The file contains patches for both SimGear and JSBSim. The gcvt() call is
replaced by a glorified call to snprintf(). From the diff file:
+#ifdef __APPLE__
+/* Not all systems have
Here's a patch to model.cxx that restores the proper rotation speed of
the propeller spin.
It just replaces the single 1/6 constant with one that is
(hopefully) more clearly derivable from basic principles. The
original number was off by a factor of 3/25; maybe something got
I started integrating the UIUC stuff into Aircraft/
and part of Michaels strategy is a Aircraft/UIUC
for the UIUC configs.
While we're at it how about moving the Aircraft-yasim
directory the same way? Comments?
TTYL
J
___
Flightgear-devel mailing
Here is one you will all like. It appears as if MSVC does not define
snprintf() in any of its headers, but it does have _snprintf() with the
same parameter list. RG!
In JSBSim/FGFCS.cpp, I had to add a #define to map _snprintf() to snprintf(
) in order to get the latest CVS updates
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There are obviously some aerodynamic changes in the 172R as well as
the more obvious powerplant and panel changes. Our JSBSim model uses
mostly the standard 172/182 coefficients that Roskam provides, but
these are probably wrong for the 172R.
A
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 7:33 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There are obviously some aerodynamic changes in the 172R as well as
the more obvious powerplant and panel changes. Our JSBSim model uses
mostly the standard 172/182 coefficients that Roskam
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What about overhead? Should I plop one more rectangle on the top?
You don't usually look straight down from a plane, but it will happen
during aerobatics.
Hmmm...it'd be hard to make that not look weird from some angle.
Best,
Jim
Jon Berndt writes:
can you use a sphere?
That's a lot of triangles for each tree.
Oh, blast it! That's right. OGL has no real sphere.
Jon
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 8:52 pm, David Megginson wrote:
John Check writes:
I started integrating the UIUC stuff into Aircraft/
and part of Michaels strategy is a Aircraft/UIUC
for the UIUC configs.
While we're at it how about moving the Aircraft-yasim
directory the same way?
A while ago, Alex suggested that we would be better modelling the
172M/N/P (I think), since those are more common. In retrospect, I
agree, for a slightly different reason -- I don't think that we have
access to the right numbers for a 172R.
Actually, I suggest we fork the C172 into a
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 17:24, Jonathan Polley wrote:
Here is one you will all like. It appears as if MSVC does not define
snprintf() in any of its headers, but it does have _snprintf() with the
same parameter list. RG!
In JSBSim/FGFCS.cpp, I had to add a #define to map
John Check writes:
I'd prefer Aircraft/Aero/whatever. When you think about it, everything in a
Aircraft/whatever directory except the jsb config file is cosmetic.
A clear division there is a good thing
That sounds great, actually, as long as we don't end up with a plane
named the Aero
Jim Wilson writes:
That might work...was even thinking about at the bottom so you'd
only really see it from above.
That might actually be the best idea, but it will make placement very
sensitive (I usually sink models slightly into the ground to avoid
gaps).
All the best,
David
--
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 10:04 pm, David Megginson wrote:
John Check writes:
I'd prefer Aircraft/Aero/whatever. When you think about it, everything
in a Aircraft/whatever directory except the jsb config file is cosmetic.
A clear division there is a good thing
That sounds great,
On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Tony Peden wrote:
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 17:24, Jonathan Polley wrote:
In JSBSim/FGFCS.cpp, I had to add a #define to map _snprintf() to
snprintf(
)
Sorry about that.
Does it make sense to have _snprintf() instead of snprintf()? I tried
defining
I'd prefer to get away from using _snprintf, snprintf, or whatever. The
only reason we use them (IIRC) is to limit the length of an output string.
This can be done in other ways, such as using the string class. Since they
would not be used in performance critical areas, maybe that's an option?
26 matches
Mail list logo
