On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:17:48 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Metzler wrote:
I've been waiting to post this until after the release went out,
hoping there'd be more discussion when things were a tiny bit calmer .
. .
Over time, various people have done a lot of work on ground
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:17:48 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that (now that we have a separate Objects directory) it is
possible quite easily to add a command-line option to disable the static
scenery objects.
Fair enough. But with ground structures that
Chris Metzler wrote
Sent: 31 July 2004 23:14
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] CVS - problem
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:11:29 +0100
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I downloaded FGFS cvs this morning. There appears to be an error in
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Is that from a recent download? I updated again this morning, and still
get
166 if(cap 1) { continue; }
1 still doesn't seem to work with JBS models.
I also have 1. Are you dowloading with the cvs client or with
the flightgear.org viewcvs application. In the
Jon Stockill wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon Stockill wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
My personal opinion would be to get everything at one place,
preferably (but not necessarily) in a separate CVS branch at
flightgear.org just like the world wide scenery right now. That
would be easiest for everybody
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:44:19 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Erik
(Ever used the bicycle to cycle up a steep hill?)
..is overhang steep enough? ;-)
(or did you mean hangover ..?)
:-)
On a bicycle?
..yup. Classic case of _find_-a-way and
Chris Metzler wrote:
Fair enough. But with ground structures that are installable separately,
it's possible for a user to pick and choose what to install. For example,
someone could wish to see a set of landmarks in Paris, but not the
buildings at Orly (wanting smoother framerates during
Erik Hofman wrote:
Boris Koenig wrote:
You're right in saying that most of the base package is unlikely to
change THAT significantly, I think - so it would really make
sense to provide means to upgrade from any base to the latest base
version.
You might get disappointed ...
Erik, in order to
Boris Koenig wrote:
Erik, in order to determine how feasible it would be to even
further extend tardiff.pl in one way or the other it would
be useful to know what _major_ changes to the FlightGear base
package are planned, or at least likely to occur within the
near future, so things like
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frederic Bouvier
Sent: 01 August 2004 09:24
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] CVS - problem
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Is that from a recent download? I
Sorry for cross-posting, didn't intend to do so, was probably
caused because this topic comes originally from the users list.
Erik Hofman wrote:
Boris Koenig wrote:
The most likely changes are updated (and new) aircraft 3d model related
files. The rest is not very predictable. It comes as things
Erik Hofman wrote:
The most likely changes are updated (and new) aircraft 3d model related
files. The rest is not very predictable. It comes as things go ...
weird, this seems to be related to the mailing list application
(pipermail ?) - I did indeed only send the posting to the
devel-list, but
Boris Koenig wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
The most likely changes are updated (and new) aircraft 3d model
related files. The rest is not very predictable. It comes as things go
It might be useful if such changes could be documented - at least the
more significant ones, do you usually make
Boris Koenig wrote:
weird, this seems to be related to the mailing list application
(pipermail ?) - I did indeed only send the posting to the
devel-list, but it (as well as all replies to it !) shows up
on the users-list as well, seems to be mailheader related,
because it was a reply to another
Ron Lange wrote:
Thank you Durk! I hope that someone is making a patch of the final base
package soon...;-) then I'll get out of trouble.
Hi Ron !
I haven't yet received any sources/links for the *original*
(old) FlightGear (pre)-release packages, so the patch I am
providing here now is based on
Vivian Meazza writes:
Frederic Bouvier writes:
Is that from a recent download? I updated again this morning, and
still get
166 if(cap 1) { continue; }
1 still doesn't seem to work with JBS models.
I also have 1. Are you dowloading with the cvs client or
with
As the 0.9.4 release is still available via ftp from flightgear.org
I created a patch from 0.9.4final to 9.9.5final, the patch has a total
size of 23 MB (hey, still about only 1/4th of the actual download !)
and can be obtained at:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Boris Koenig wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
The most likely changes are updated (and new) aircraft 3d model
related files. The rest is not very predictable. It comes as things go
It might be useful if such changes could be documented - at least the
more significant ones, do you
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:26:48 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:44:19 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Erik
(Ever used the bicycle to cycle up a steep hill?)
..is overhang steep enough?
166 if(cap 1) { continue; }
1 still doesn't seem to work with JBS models.
What? I could not figure out from the posts what wasn't working with the JSBSim models
(is
that what you meant by JBS Models?)
Jon
I also have 1. Are you dowloading with the cvs client or with
the
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:35:06 +0200, Boris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As the 0.9.4 release is still available via ftp from flightgear.org
I created a patch from 0.9.4final to 9.9.5final, the patch has a total
size of 23 MB (hey, still about only 1/4th of the actual download !)
and
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:35:06 +0200, Boris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As the 0.9.4 release is still available via ftp from flightgear.org
I created a patch from 0.9.4final to 9.9.5final, the patch has a total
size of 23 MB (hey, still about only 1/4th of the actual
* Sam -- Sunday 25 July 2004 18:33:
can anybody give me an advice how to implement new view
inflightgear: a combination of cockpit and chase view - so that the
plane would be looked at from behind (like in chase mode) but at the
same time viewport behaviour would be the same as in cockpit - i
Erik Hofman wrote:
For what it's worth, FlightGear 0.9.5 for IRIX is available [...]
Great, thanks !
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
Jon Stockill wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Solaris/Sparc is currently building - but it takes a while on an old
Sparc20 :-)
Ouch
Which compiler are you using? If it's one of the free ones I've got an
Ultra 1 here I could run build it on in future, although I doubt it'd be
much good
Martin Spott wrote:
GCC-3.4.1 for Sparc hardware isn't that bad anymore but I'd be still
interested in trying out the commercial compiler by Sun,
For what I've heard gcc is often the better option on Solaris because of
(code) incompatibilities with gcc. I must admit, that was about four
years
Boris Koenig schrieb:
Hi Ron !
Hi Boris,
The patch from 0.9.5-pre2 = 0.9.5-final (~1 meg) is obtainable at:
http://flitetutor.sourceforge.net/mlist/base-patches/fgfs-base-patch-9.9.5-PRE2__0.9.5.FINAL.tgz
thank you very much!
Please let us know if there are any problems, but these
would then
* Chris Metzler -- Sunday 01 August 2004 09:10:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:17:48 +0200 Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Metzler wrote:
Franz Melchior did [...]
Actually it's Melchior Franz.
Dangit. I assumed the reverse order because I know someone with Franz
as a first name,
Ron Lange wrote:
Hmm...the only way to confirm a successful patch is to diff against the
final base-package, but that is the case I try to avoid ;-)
I forgot to mention that tardiff has meanwhile support for automatic
creation/comparison of checksums, hence it should be possible for you
to
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 07 July 2004 00:36:
I have commited a first stab at a Concorde model, first created by
Melchior and the further enhanced by Thierry [...]
Actually, I didn't create the Concorde model. I only did the first
conversion to ac3d and rgb and some trivial optimization.
Hallo Boris,
Boris Koenig schrieb:
More precisely the file with the checksums for 0.9.5final is at:
http://www.geocities.com/sandreas41/data/fgfs-base-0.9.5.md5.gz
I've just patched with this file and everything seems to be right.
Danke nochmal
Ron
___
Erik Hofman wrote:
For what I've heard gcc is often the better option on Solaris because of
(code) incompatibilities with gcc. I must admit, that was about four
years back and I haven't followed Sun/Solaris much in the mean time.
Yeah ;-)
The GCC-3.4.x release notes mention even binary
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:32:31 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already explained this to Jon, but I was really aiming at a two
stage approach. Maintaining can be done using CVS. Making it available
for users could be done like downloading the terrain data right now:
Using a
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 21:21:47 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 07 July 2004 00:36:
I have commited a first stab at a Concorde model, first created by
Melchior and the further enhanced by Thierry [...]
Actually, I didn't create the Concorde
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 20:31:49 +0200, Boris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
one other thing: I mentioned already that I didn't have the original
pre-release available to create that patch, meanwhile
Stewart Steven have released a patch that's based on the _original_
pre2-release, which
David Megginson wrote:
I cannot reproduce it on my system:
fgfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] --aircraft=j3cub
I put on the parking brake (who'd have thought the J3 Cub had a
parking brake?) and tried moving all of the control surfaces. They
had no effect on the aircraft, either with the engine on or
36 matches
Mail list logo
