* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 07 April 2005 08:30:
> * Ampere K. Hardraade -- Thursday 07 April 2005 06:00:
> > On April 6, 2005 05:18 am, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > > It's just a waste of CPU cycles and then,
> >
> > Something along these lines may be able to free up those CPU cycles:
>
> Huh? WHA
I think I see what you mean, but my intention is to make a .NET project that is
coherent with the GNU makefiles so that I could fully use all the wonderful .NET
functionnalities is it too much ? ;)
Comments ?
David
--- Message d'origine ---
> De : Gerhard Wesp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> À : Flig
Asking for how to fix the compilation problems would have been a little
smarter, wouldn't it? Probably you don't have the glut headers installed.
No, they are installed in /usr/include/GL and also into the X11
includes. Infact I have the problem only with that file. Bytheway, you
didn't answer
darko wrote:
No, they are installed in /usr/include/GL and also into the X11
includes. Infact I have the problem only with that file. Bytheway, you
didn't answer to my question: which exact version of GLUT I need to
compile FG?
You will need the very latest (at least 3.7.x)
Erik
___
* darko -- Thursday 07 April 2005 10:26:
> >Asking for how to fix the compilation problems would have been a little
> >smarter, wouldn't it? Probably you don't have the glut headers installed.
> >
> No, they are installed in /usr/include/GL and also into the X11
> includes. Infact I have the prob
Hi there,
I get errors running FG under Windows in debug mode :
assertion failed in ctype.h in isspace cause a character was not in the range
0..255. Running in debug mode I saw that the problem happened during airports
loading because of the copyright character. I modified simgear/misc/strutils.
Quoting BONNEVILLE David:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I get errors running FG under Windows in debug mode :
> assertion failed in ctype.h in isspace cause a character was not in the range
> 0..255. Running in debug mode I saw that the problem happened during airports
> loading because of the copyright chara
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Yes. Did you read somewhere that I would answer all questions? If so,
this was a lie and you should complain to the author. :-P
don't worry, I'm a developer too, brother ;-)
Anyway: I would use freeglut from here: http://freeglut.sf.net/
This is (almost fully) compatible
* darko -- Thursday 07 April 2005 11:43:
> don't worry, I'm a developer too, brother ;-)
Sometimes I miss the obvious. :-)
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-deve
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:13, Josh Babcock wrote:
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message
> >>Be warned, racy but authentic nose art...
> >
> > ..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o)
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, this is an excellent opportunit
* Steve Hosgood -- Thursday 07 April 2005 13:58:
> FlightGear is basically a video game.
BS! No matter how much you detest it, it's still a simulator. Yes, it has
shortcomings, and yes, in some areas we lack reliable data. But this doesn't
make it a game. (Where is the "gameplay". How do you enter
Steve Hosgood probed:
> However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be,
> FlightGear is basically a video game.
Don't feed the trolls, folks.
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.o
BONNEVILLE David wrote:
> I think I see what you mean, but my intention is to make a .NET
> project that is coherent with the GNU makefiles so that I could
> fully use all the wonderful .NET functionnalities is it too
> much ?
Don't feed the trolls, folks. :)
(OK, that probably wasn't an inte
Steve Hosgood wrote:
Interactive history is certainly far better than dry facts in books, but
we'd have to be careful how we "spread historical information".
FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying
experience alive. The trouble is, AFAIK *no* airplane currently model
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> >AFAIK *no* airplane currently modelled
> >in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine.
> >
>
> I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to point out that FlightGear has a
> lot of stuff built in for those that want to move
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 13:24, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Steve Hosgood -- Thursday 07 April 2005 13:58:
> > FlightGear is basically a video game.
>
> BS! No matter how much you detest it, it's still a simulator.
I *knew* I'd get flamed by Melchior!
I don't detest FG, it's a fine bit of work. True
* Steve Hosgood -- Thursday 07 April 2005 17:48:
> I *knew* I'd get flamed by Melchior!
Hey, you can count on me! (And I was only flaming back.)
m. ;-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailma
Steve Hosgood wrote:
> Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being
> discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in
> FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently)
> empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and phy
Martin Spott wrote:
To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon
real data. Right ?
I think this is always the case. Take the B-29 for instance. Josh has
obviously done a ton of research to get the dimensions and proportions
down exactly right ... that's a key compo
Steve Hogood wrote:
> Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being
> discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in
> FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently)
> empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and physi
Martin Spott wrote:
To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon
real data. Right ?
Yes, the C172p. At least and the F-104, F-15 and F-16 are based on
windtunnel data. The T-37 is partially based on flight test data.
And Both the Fokker 70/100 and Fokker 50 use available
Andy Ross wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Jim Wilson wrote:
> > > 4) Fixed rpm/power numbers under the prop tags. They need to be
> > >scaled back according to the gear ratio. Someone with a better
> > >understanding of mech engineering might be able to explain why the
> > >BHP on the prop
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
> thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
> control doesn't reduce the power enough. I reasoned that there was too
> much boost with the throttle closed, (currently set at 10%,
> AFAICS). 10% of
Andy Ross wrote:
Steve Hosgood probed:
However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be,
FlightGear is basically a video game.
Don't feed the trolls, folks.
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.f
Steve Hosgood wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:13, Josh Babcock wrote:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message
Be warned, racy but authentic nose art...
..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o)
Yeah, this is an excellent opportunity to spread
Andy Ross wrote
>
> Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
> > thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
> > control doesn't reduce the power enough. I reasoned that there was too
> > much boost with the throttle closed, (currently
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:16:08 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andy Ross wrote
>
> >
> > Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > > However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
> > > thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
> > > control doesn't reduce the
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:37:31 +0200, Arnt wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:16:08 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Andy Ross wrote
> >
> > Working on it right now. BTW the Merlin had a Roots type
> > displacement compressor.
..apologies al
On April 7, 2005 03:09 am, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> Your standard Nasal
> key binding skeleton with one commented out line would do (literally)
> nothing to solve this problem. But maybe I just didn't understand your
> performance enhancement!? Are you suggesting that we replace all nasal
> key bind
Arnt Karlsen wrote
>
> > Andy Ross wrote
> >
> > >
> > > Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > > > However (and there's always a however), I can't land the
> > > > thing. Closing the throttle and pulling back the propeller pitch
> > > > control doesn't reduce the power enough. I reasoned that there was
> > >
Both. To be more accurate, anything in the vicinity of the aircraft's
flightpath.
From: Mathias Fröhlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] can flightgear give distances from aircraft
toa nearb
> From: Steve Hosgood
>
> FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying
> experience alive. The trouble is,
>AFAIK
That is right. You don't know.
> *no* airplane currently modelled
> in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine.
> I'm *not* k
On Donnerstag 07 April 2005 23:37, Michael Matkovic wrote:
> Both. To be more accurate, anything in the vicinity of the aircraft's
> flightpath.
There is no generic intersection test routine available.
But you can find the locations of the other aircraft/ships/whatever in the
property tree under
33 matches
Mail list logo
