Hi Curt,
Wanted to make sure I was familiar with all the functions in the autopilot
code before making a lot of changes. So to that end I did some work on the
gui interface to the waypoint stuff and checked out the waypoint following to
make sure it is still working.
Description of changes:
Th
Hi Curt,
Minor patch to prop picker.
Description of change:
Property sort now leaves "." and ".." at top of subdirectory list in their
expected sequence.
Tar file of changed module (current with CVS as of 03-03-2002 13:18):
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/proppicker-20020303.tar.gz
Best,
Jim
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> >
> > We have a lot to thank Bill Gates for, including the way he
> > (especially) and others got under Richard Stallman's (and others)
> > skin with their shrink-wrap revolution.
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As far as I'm concerned, the outside view is purely for entertainment
> since there is nothing realistic about hanging a couple dozen feet behind
> the aircraft in the open air, operating the controls remotely.
Hmmm "purely" is one of those tricky words. T
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> the instrument panel, dubious maneuvers apply a brown overlay to
> the passenger seats ...
hehe...what's the property for that?
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightge
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> I don't think this is an easy option, at least not with a true 3D
> model wrapped around the viewer. We'll have to find a more robust
> solution. To start, I can make the depth buffer 0.1 only when the
> interior model view is enabled, so no one lo
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> David,
>
> Assuming all of this is being drawn via plib/ssg then you could put
> all the geometry in a separate ssgRoot node and call ssgCullandDraw()
> on this root after everything else has been rendered. We have a
> couple ssgRoot's already so
Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Well it turned out to be more of a piece on open source gaming in
> general and they didn't do much more than show the website. They did,
> however, have good things to say about FG and the exposure was really
> cool.
>
Oh well. One of my websites appe
Hi Mark,
What I do is update occaisonally (once or twice a week sometimes more) and
keep an eye on the logs (the web based ViewCVS is handy too) in order to know
what others are working on. Before sending in code I'll update to current CVS
again and make sure things still work. It is much easie
Noticed that the c310 has its wheels below pavement. Is it ok to readjust the
models for a recent change or is this a temporary? Or am I the only one :-)?
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailm
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Noticed that the c310 has its wheels below pavement. Is it ok to
> > readjust the models for a recent change or is this a temporary? Or am
> > I the only one
>
> Which FDM? There are three (cou
Hi Curt,
Actually it was me. Glad you like it :-D John and I did some testing and
tweaking into the wee hours last night.
The original model was built by Chris Lampard and released to GPL with his
permission. I basically did quite a bit of hacking on the geometry mostly to
get animated parts
Oops forgot the screenshot:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/bluecanoe-takeoff.png
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Cameron Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Chris has done some other[1] great work as well. Any chance he'd be
> willing to relicense any other models? ;-) His King Air C90A model
> looks[2] really great.
>
> Anyway, be sure to send Chris an extra 'Thank You' note. This is
> excellent stuf
This is a start on the U-3A panel. Without a picture to go by, I'm just
winging it with some older style 310 panel pics. If anyone has any ideas
I need them. Good pics of instruments from the era or better yet the
instruments themselves would be great :-)
File:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs
Sounds like it'd be useful for debugging aircraft and autopilot configs too.
Best,
Jim
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Tony Peden writes:
> > In my day job, my own experience has been that
> > real-time plotting is useful when you know exactly
> > what you are looking for and you
To fully support this there is a new fucntion call:
FGSimpleSound *sample = new FGSimpleSound("filename");
mgr->add(sample, "name");
should be replaced by:
FGSimpleSound *sample = mgr->add("name", "filename");
But the old behaviour is still supported with one minor change, sou
FWIW thought I'd make a few comments on the new 3D view stuff, realizing that
it is still being worked on.
While the commercial sims give a 3D feel to the cockpit they aren't always
attempting to be true models.
In this screenshot from fs2k, note that while the perspective (eye to panel)
is ok,
when they should. Which means they'll now play when needed a second time.
This file contains a patched fg_sounds.cxx file:
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/fg_sound-patch-20020309.tar.gz
Best,
Jim
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>>>
> To fully support this there
Wolfram Kuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I agree, full 3D is the way new sims work and FGFS should have that as
> well and not implement now a feature that was state of the art some
> years ago.
Fly! is a 3D cockpit. I was talking about usability, and IMHO it is a more
usable panel because of i
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As far as I can figure out, there are only three situations we need to
> deal with in the viewer code:
>
> 1. Looking away from a known position.
> 2. Looking towards a known position from a known distance and
>angle(s).
> 3. Looking from one known
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> In every case, we want to be able to specify offsets for all six
> degrees of freedom. I think that it makes sense to put all of this in
> a single, configurable viewer class, rather than having separater
> viewer_lookat, viewer_rph, and (eventually
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > Fly! uses a 3D cockpit. They use 2D for most of the
> > instrumentation, switches and knobs, and 3D models for the things
> > that really need it like levers.
>
> I have no experi
Jonathan Polley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The preferences file is not FDM specific at all. The contents of
> > preferences.xml in the base package are for the most part self
> > explanatory,
>
> I have to beg to differ on this one. For those few command line arguments
> that I have used,
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Megginson writes:
>
> > 3. The orientation is incorrect when the view is not straight forward
> > and the plane is not flying level (waiting for a fix from me, but I
> > don't understand matrix math well enough) -- that means that when you
>
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> FlightGear now has the ability to produce multiple logs, each
> recording the value of user-selected properties at a user-defined
> interval. Details are available in docs-mini/README.logging; Here's
> a simple example that logs the rudder and aileron
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > This seems to pretty much correct the problem. Part of the problem
> > is that rotations are occuring at the firewall (model origin) which
> > seems a little un-natural inside the cockpit. T
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> functions, and object methods. I think that I'm the only one using
> variable pointers (panel.cxx) static functions (fg_props.cxx), and no
If I'm reading this correctly...I am using them in the autopilot code and the
pilot-offset-not-to-be-confused-wi
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So I say lets take a little time and discuss or 'High Level'
> conceptualization
> and the possible ramifications of the possible way of doing things before we
> just tear things apart just to fix the 'current crisis'
>
> Object derivation can help a LOT h
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
> >
> >Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >> So I say lets take a little time and discuss or 'High Level'
> conceptualization
> >> and the possible ramifications o
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> It is not mutable by anything but the mouse code. I want a hat swtich
> to change view direction. This is not even vaguely possible with the
> current implementation (especially if you refuse to read properties
> from the mouse code -- properties are all
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > > Wolfram Kuss writes:
> > > > Are r,p,h relative to the plane or the current view?
> >
> > I imagine two RPH vectors: the main vector (which would in some cases
> > be the orientation of the plane) and the offset vector, which
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > - we have a pilot view point offset from the CG. Right now this is
> > handled in the view code, but perhaps this would make more sense to
> > move to some code specific to the instance of the current
> > aircraft.
>
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I figured out how to tweak the view position in the (very rough) 3D
> cockpit, so that the runway is now visible during taxiing and
> takeoff. As before, use
>
> fgfs --aircraft=c172-3d
>
> to try it out.
>
Nice seats too :-)
___
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > I'm just about to commit a massive series of changes that converts all
> > the .xml files to more standard .ini files. Oh, shoot, I meant to
> > save that announcement for 4/1/2002. :-)
>
> We have to coordinate bette
Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Don't laugh, yourself! ;-) I've used C++Builder since
> v1.0 and it's an awesome tool. It is waaay RAD. I'm
> excited that they ported Delphi to Linux, and the C++
> version is due soon. In a former job we used it for
> developing a *major* gas measu
Marcio Shimoda writes:
> Does anybody have a tutorial describing how to create the ac
> models?
Yes, here is one.
http://www22.brinkster.com/wtailgunner/tut/.%5Csample.html
I've got Blender too but haven't tried using it yet for anything "real" yet.
It is possible to convert work back and
If I was going to add blinking lights to the model animation code, how would I
do the timing?
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > If I was going to add blinking lights to the model animation code,
> > how would I do the timing?
>
> This is still on my TODO list, together with LOD and other conditional
> hiding a
Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That would be nice, but even something simple that puts the viewpoint 200
> ft above the runway behind the aircraft would be great to start with. That
> view is a help when building and testing the new aircraft models. It also
> makes the sim well-p
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Michael Selig writes:
>
> > That would be nice, but even something simple that puts the viewpoint 200
> > ft above the runway behind the aircraft would be great to start with. That
> > view is a help when building and testing the new aircraft mod
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Talking about views.
> Currently when looking around in the cockpit you turn around a single
> point (if I recall it correctly). Wouldn't it be nessercary to actually
> incoorporate the eye distance from the middle of the head into that
> action (and
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If something doesn't make sense, or seems out of place, there's no
> harm in asking ... perhaps the author will look at the 'cruft' and say
> oh yea, nothing valuable there, we can axe it. But perhaps the code
> is there is for valid reasons and it's
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I realize that this is a 'religous' issue and a 'tough' problem but IMHO
> it is a major obstacle to FGFS code evolution
>
It is a tough problem to solve, but I haven't found it to be much of a problem
reading fgfs code (have seen much worse). Maybe I'm
Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Jim Wilson -- Sunday 17 March 2002 19:09:
> > Interesting note, the top item on the list, "Racer" is not GPL or
anything
> > close to opensource ( see http://www.racer.nl/legal.htm ). It also
uses the
> > fmod l
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> positive... we really go no where when we are busy flaming each other
> and there has been really too much of that going on lately.
>
On that note I propose we dump this thread (known as: ARGG!) now and
continue the discussion under different hea
Both projects look very interesting. I've got only have one decidedly
irrelevant question. Phillip, I always thought that was you in these
pictures: http://www.flightgear.org/Projects/ALTAIR/ . But now I see:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dcswww/Admin/staff/HTML/prs94.html . So who is the
guy in the
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Here are some tests I just ran, for 100,000,000 accesses of a double
> property (I ran each on a few times then picked the most typical user
> time; there was little variation anyway):
>
> Tied to object methods: 5.880 sec
> Internal (access only):
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > Tony reported back to the list on a more organic test -- he un-inlined
> > the most common inline methods in JSBSim, and discovered a slight (but
> > not exciting) speed *increase*.
>
> Actually, my interest would be in a differ
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> FWIW for vertical virtual panel
> added 3 lines to Panel.cxx to get and multiply panel matrix by
> gui_quat_ matrix
> added 5 lines to viewer.cxx < add gui_quat_matrix and a get function >
> removed line from viewer_rph.cxx and viewer_lookat.cxx t
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > While I don't see a direct improvement in framerate I notice a real
> > effect on the screen update. The old behaviour had a small bump in the
> > update every second or so, while the new code elliminates that.
>
> This doesn't make
Here's a backtrace on this.
Best,
Jim
#0 0x82ddfba in SGPropertyNode::clear_value (this=0x9747f90) at props.cxx:464
464 delete _value.string_val;
#1 0x82de8e0 in SGPropertyNode::~SGPropertyNode (this=0x9747f90, __in_chrg=3)
at props.cxx:672
#2 0x806c0e0 in FGComparisonCondition::
With the newly accessible JSBSim properties I was able to gleen this data
when the c310 does its supersonic lawn dart thing. Not sure exactly what the
numbers mean, but 30983 lbsft sounds like a lot in a light twin.
fbx-prop-lbs = 40.363084
fby-prop-lbs = 0.00
fbz-prop-lbs = 0.00
l-pro
Jon Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
engines/engine[0]/rpm = 2700
engines/engine[1]/rpm = 2700
> What was the RPM reading?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Wilson
> > Sent: Wedne
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm suggesting that we start with
> nothing (or almost nothing) inlined, then inline only what can be
> proven to help through profiling and timing tests -- uninlined until
> proven necessary, rather than inlined until proven unnecessary. This
Sounds
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > Here's a backtrace on this.
>
> I've just checked in some minor fixes to props.cxx in SimGear, and
> swapping panels (with 's') in FlightGear is working again. Thanks.
>
Here it is John.
Description:
Wilson's new u3a panel. It's not very accurate. Haven't found a picture yet.
The shape and layout is fairly close and looks ok. Also linked to c310
default sound.xml and changed model so the props aren't so syncrhonous to look
weird.
File:
http://www.spiderbark.co
Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The changes from yesterday turned my framerate at KSFO from about
> 10 to 1 per second. Ten is already painful enough, and that with
> clouds and panel turned off. But one is a bit weak and makes fgfs
> virtually unflyable. (I've only got a 266MHz proces
Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Jim Wilson -- Friday 22 March 2002 13:23:
> > Are you using Linux? I'm using a V3 but its on a 100mhz motherboard (750 mhz
> > processor) and I'm seeing an increase at KSFO. It slowed down to 10 to 15 fps
> > a
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It's working fine for me, in terms of framerate. Still getting a bunch
> of segfaults with teleport and attempts to change the loaded panel.
>
Update SimGear rebuild/install it. Then do a complete rebuild of flightgear.
This will fix it. I tried to shor
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Alex Perry writes:
>
> > It's working fine for me, in terms of framerate. Still getting a bunch
> > of segfaults with teleport and attempts to change the loaded panel.
>
> When did you last update? I check in a fix for changing the panel
> yesterd
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've put together a quick scenery overlay for the entire w130n30 chunk
> around the Bay area, with runway lighting for all the airports. You
> can download it here (temporarily):
>
Just did a quick test, I can see Hayward but Oakland is very dark. M
There should be backup files in each folder (prefixed with .#).
Best,
Jim
Keith Wiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I want to keep my flightgear project up to date, but I also want to be
> able to undo a cvs update if I decide I don't want to be using the version
> I end up with after a cvs upda
Norm,
Your viewer/model work looks great. I've been doing some major work in there
myself the last few days and what you've done will fit in well. If it's ok
with you, I'd like to merge them in with what I've got over the next couple
days. Currently where I am at is I've removed a ton of junk a
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Since these routines only run once or twice per iteration of the loop
> They really don't have to be 'super optimized' and I think my method
> of handling them as 3x3 and just filling in the 4th row and column
> by 'inspection' is probably good enough.
>
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> One problem I saw is that if you pitch up/down the view from the
> 'inside the cockpit' view and then switch to an external view, the
> aircraft model itself is left at the 'view' pitch offset which is
> incorrect.
>
Strange, I didn't notice that on
Hi David,
Tonight I'll be looking adding in Norman's new patches and working on a
couple minor glitches in the viewer.
I'd also like to make the change I mentioned earlier of getting the reference
position data (from a property path) that is set in viewmanager.
For example:
Now it does this:
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David,
>
> I'm getting a compile error in model.cxx with the latest cvs. There
Curt,
Same thing here. I sent the same message to David about an hour ago. If you
roll back the very last change in just model.cxx you can build and it works.
Best,
Let me clarify what I just said. The bug is still there, but the program
otherwise builds and works :-)
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Geoff McLane writes:
> > Also have noted a few changes of, like -
> > 318 !> if ( fgGetString("/sim/startup/units") == "meters") {
> > to
> > 318 > but am i missing something here? To compare 2
> > different strings will always be non-zero
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I hacked model.hxx to make the compiler happy. David, I think you
> must have just missed committing your changed version of model.hxx.
>
> Ok, everything compiles and links, but now when I try to run I die in
> metakit trying to look at the runways
Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> PS.
> 5. On the non-3D panel, the transparent instrument panel is still doing
> the viewport incorrectly. Oddly, the non-instrument panel viewport is fine.
>
A few mini-panels were screwed up after a bug fix a couple weeks ago. The
default transparent m
Hi Eveybody,
The text document linked below outlines a format for view configuration
using the new viewer. The interface and backend that could support this is
pretty much done. The only thing left is to finish the viewmanager, hence
this document.
Overview:
The "config" branches should be set
Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Something I've thought would be useful (but don't know how
> feasible it is to implement) would be for a user to be
> able to configure where [s]he looks while "in the
> pattern". It would be nice to enable some kind of
> "auto-look" kind of feature th
Wolfram Kuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I indeed think it is very important while landing to be able to look
> ahead or look at the landing spot with the press of a key. In RL, my
> head swivels between those two views, especially while in base. Don't
> know whether some AI or much user defined
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've started texturing the interior of the C172 3D model. Here are
> some shots:
>
> http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/interior-1.png
> http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/interior-2.png
>
> To get the latest, update the base package from CVS the
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Do Normans changes get applied automatically, or do I have to do it
> myself? There seem to be some nice features and it would be a pitty to
> have them left out.
>
> Erik
Which ones? I did a lot of work on the viewer around the time he
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think I just got the conformation from both you and David.
> It's a bit hard to tell if they get applied, when the patches are sent
> to the list and nobody responds.
>
> Erik
cvs logs?
Best,
Jim
___
Flig
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Yeah, but they don't move ...
>
Sounds like an "easy" animation. :-)
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
This patch creates a seperate scene graph for the cockpit. The near plane is
only moved up when in the interior (pilot) view. This is because with
rounding (I presume) it the visible ground is a bit up higher than it is with
the older nearplane setting. Not much, but it is enough to bury the wh
It looks like somehow the panel is locking the the offset adjustments. So
that if you move into the back seat the panel comes with you.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightge
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This patch creates a seperate scene graph for the cockpit. The near plane is
> only moved up when in the interior (pilot) view. This is because with
> rounding (I presume) it the visible ground is a bit up higher than it is with
> t
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >This patch creates a seperate scene graph for the cockpit. The near plane
> is
> >only moved up when in the interior (pilot) view. This is because with
> >rounding (I presume) it the visible ground is a bit up higher than it is
> with
> >the older nearpl
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Your changes to put the panel in a scene graph are the big part of the
> solution. Really, the panel should be drawn immediately after the
> aircraft model, with the same matrix environment. If you can get this
> put together (forgive me if you already have
Would it be ok with everyone to add the values for the two near and far plane
settings to preferences.xml? I'd like to be able to use them in makeing
eyepoint and model origin translation adjustments.
Norm, where did you get that "magic" number? I know its got something to do
with the near valu
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Your changes to put the panel in a scene graph are the big part of the
> > solution. Really, the panel should be drawn immediately after the
> > aircraft model, with the same
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> The default use to be wrap in horizontal and not be able to go pass
> straight-up or down. I am assuming that this behaviour was generally
> acceptable as there was VERY little < or none > discussion as to it's
> short comings on the list
>
Yes, actua
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
> >
> >Norm, where did you get that "magic" number? I know its got
> >something to do
> >with the near value, or length of depth vector, but if you can
> >give me the
&g
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> fgfs --aircraft=c172-3d
>
> the use the mouse to scroll the view downwards. At first I thought
> that the model was just sitting too low on the runway, but the problem
> vanishes when I make the 3D model clip plane the same as the scenery
> one.
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> I could care less about those folks running FGFS in a window
> this is a FlightSIM and the operative word is FRAMERATE
> which any windowing system KILLS.
>
If you got a real operating system ;-) that runs X you'll find there's a very
small difference
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have no problem with adding them to the property tree, but I suspect
> that they will be both model- and view-specific,
Well I hope not. I've got an idea, hang on a bit.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel
Ok this did the trick. Thanks Andy for setting me straight :-)
Description:
Clear frame buffer and render model after rest of 3D scene. This has a
small frame rate cost (YMV). But who thought 3D cockpit would be cheap?
If anyone has a better idea, have at it!
Files:
http://www.spiderbark.com/f
David,
Just did some more careful testing and I see little or no frame rate loss
with the depth buffer clear. Also you can change the near plane to 0.1
and get rid of the "sunroof" (so I don't have to make up another set of
patches.
Thanks,
Jim
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/cockpitsg-updat
Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> c310-vfr-panel.xml says:
> ...
> Aircraft/c310/c310-panel-11.rgb
> Aircraft/c310/c310-panel-12.rgb
> ...
>
> but there are no such textures. Have they been forgotten to upload,
> or are they simply not done yet?
>
They are in cvs now.
Best,
Jim
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have come up with a kludge (not a proper fix) for the lack of
> smoothing in AC3D models in PLIB. The AC3D loader is the only one
>
Very nice! Just patched it to plib-1.4.1 here and it worked great.
Best,
Jim
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> The thing is that the default bindings have to be for something. If
> you're rebinding anyway, then changing the 'squared' feature isn't a
> lot of extra work. I find that the squared feature makes an enormous
> difference in usability for regular
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >
> > The thing is that the default bindings have to be for something. If
> > you're rebinding anyway, then changing the 'squared' feature isn't a
>
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Well I haven't done that. Ideally (perhaps not a good word :)) the
> > panel code would get the orientation from the FGModel class and a
> > panel XYZ from the model's xml file. We really don&#x
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > > Sure we do (but implicitly; see below). That's the whole point of a
> > > scene graph -- objects draw themselves into their own coordinate
> > > system, and their &quo
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Nope; just the matrices. The panel knows that if it runs an airframe
> coordinate through teh modelview and projection matrices, it'll get
> screen coordinates in the range [-1:1]. Just invert that matrix and
> we can go from screen coordinates to airframe,
1 - 100 of 1964 matches
Mail list logo
