Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > 7) Add pitching and rolling deck capability
>
> ..heave too.
>
Someone like to write a Ship Dynamic Model? :-)
Regards
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listin
Mathias Froelich has also got some work underway, so we can add to the
schedule
> project schedule:
>
> 1) Derive a new AICarrier class (me, just did it)
> 2) Refine the carrier visually (Vivian, doing it now)
> 3) Make the decks solid.
> 4) Improve FDM gear reactions to accomodate moving
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 October 2004 02:26, Curtis Olson wrote:
People were also impressed with the time of day modeling and
day/night/dusk effects.
You just reminded me of something I wanted to ask.
Is the "enhanced lighting" in FG still under construction?
It's based on an OpenGL ex
David Culp wrote:
Hi Erik,
I was wondering if the "enable" and "path" properties for the submodel system
should be moved out of "/sim/systems/submodels" and into "/sim/submodels"
instead. This will complete the migration out of the Systems code.
Cvs is now updated to put the submodel code under
Boris Koenig wrote:
Well, everybody who wants to give it a try can now do so easily: I've
made a quick stab at it this morning, because I was messing around with
the corresponding files anyway.
I've committed this patch in a slightly modified form:
--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,producti
JSBSim will report only (for config file format v2.0) "RELEASE" as:
UNRELEASABLE
ALPHA
BETA
RELEASE (or PRODUCTION)
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Hofman
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:38 AM
> To: FlightGear developers
Hi all,
RE: FG MAC OS 10.3 binary
Can anyone help with such a beast? Have tried the 0.9.3 (from
Wally's World) and 0.9.4 binary (FlightGear-0.9.4.tgz) with
the current 0.9.6 scenery base, thank you for these, but no
go ... even when the 'version' file is altered to match!
Says missing Navaids/defa
Jon Berndt wrote:
JSBSim will report only (for config file format v2.0) "RELEASE" as:
UNRELEASABLE
ALPHA
BETA
RELEASE (or PRODUCTION)
I think ALPHA and UNRELEASABLE are the same for FlightGear (unless you
refer to unreleasable as non-GPL compliant, in which case I don't even
want to see it :-) )
> Jon Berndt wrote:
> > JSBSim will report only (for config file format v2.0) "RELEASE" as:
> >
> > UNRELEASABLE
> > ALPHA
> > BETA
> > RELEASE (or PRODUCTION)
>
> I think ALPHA and UNRELEASABLE are the same for FlightGear (unless you
> refer to unreleasable as non-GPL compliant, in which case I do
On 28 Oct 2004, at 11:57, Geoff McLane wrote:
Can anyone help with such a beast? Have tried the 0.9.3 (from
Wally's World) and 0.9.4 binary (FlightGear-0.9.4.tgz) with
the current 0.9.6 scenery base, thank you for these, but no
go ... even when the 'version' file is altered to match!
I had this pr
> > project schedule:
> >
> > 1) Derive a new AICarrier class (me, just did it)
> > 2) Refine the carrier visually (done, set to Erik for upload to cvs)
> > 3) Make the decks solid.
> > 4) Improve FDM gear reactions to accomodate moving "ground" (Mathias)
> > 5) Improve FDM to include externa
> 3) Make the decks solid.
> 9) Make island solid
Here's how I think we can solidify the decks and island. First we need to
define some rectangles (2? 3? a variable list?).
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/decks.jpg
Each rectangle is defined in the carrier config file, in carrier body
David Culp wrote:
>
> > 3) Make the decks solid.
> > 9) Make island solid
>
> Here's how I think we can solidify the decks and island. First we need to
> define some rectangles (2? 3? a variable list?).
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/decks.jpg
Mathias Froelich ahs done some work
On Mittwoch 27 Oktober 2004 23:01, David Culp wrote:
> > Yep. I guess this means that the "ground" position and velocity
> > vectors will need to be passed in to the FDMs. I'd also recommend
> > against passing in orientation and rotational velocity vectors at the
> > moment - first do the steady l
On Mittwoch 27 Oktober 2004 22:18, David Culp wrote:
> The current AI objects are not solid, so landing on the carrier is
> impossible until we solidify the deck. One way to do this will be to
> define the deck(s) as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but
> maybe more. When the user a
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 00:59, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> On October 27, 2004 04:18 pm, David Culp wrote:
> > One way to do this will be to define the deck(s)
> > as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but maybe more.
> > user aircraft gets close to the deck (using radar range
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 15:36, David Culp wrote:
> When the aircraft gets close (say 1 mile, <300 feet) the carrier will start
> checking to see if the aircraft position is within any of the reactangles.
> This will require a lot of coordinate transformation, and it would be good
> to get the
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 18:36, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Mathias Froelich ahs done some work for areas on the ground, and if I
> understand his code correctly (I'll send a copy to you) he uses triangles.
> I would favour that solution anyway, because it is easy to divide the deck
> into triangle
Matthias Froelich wrote:
> This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
> just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be to
model the braking force as a *distance* over which the aircra
Hi Andy !
Thanks for answering my Nasal inquiry several weeks ago,
regardless of your "vacation" - Hope you've had a good
time in Japan ;-)
Andy Ross wrote:
I'm honestly looking for something to get me back into FlightGear
development. I can do the YASim integration if you guys have an
interface r
Andy Ross wrote:
> Matthias Froelich wrote:
> > This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
> > just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
>
> What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be to
> model the braking force as a *
Using that method, it is going to be a pain modelling deck with more complex
geometry. I can't imagine how much work it will take to create a ski jump.
It will be easier in the long run to define an object in a model file as the
solid deck.
Ampere
On October 28, 2004 09:36 am, David Culp wrot
On Thursday 28 October 2004 07:17 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> Using that method, it is going to be a pain modelling deck with more
> complex geometry. I can't imagine how much work it will take to create a
> ski jump.
>
> It will be easier in the long run to define an object in a model file a
Can't.
a) I'm not a programmer, so I will break things.
b) I don't have FlightGear installed, as I am still trying to get direct
rendering to work on my ATI 9200 in Linux. ;-)
Ampere
On October 28, 2004 08:34 pm, David Culp wrote:
> Thanks for your input. Forward your code to Erik.
>
>
> Dave
24 matches
Mail list logo
