no terrain intersection
no terrain intersection
load() base = /usr/local/lib/FlightGear/Scenery
Loading tile
/usr/local/lib/FlightGear/Scenery/w180n1879048190/w180n1879048191/5712
This is (most likely) caused by the current lack of crash protection in
JSBSim. What's happening here
Is the scenery server down?
Which one do you mean ?
My one is up, for all three services.
I meant the graphical scenery downloader at flightgear.org. Both the http
and ftp download methods had timed out on me several times. I got what I
needed, though.
Jon
Jon sent me some ideas by private mail, and they look workable -- it
really comes down to a judgement call about how frequently the
messages will be used. If they're relatively infrequent (say, less
than a few every second, as seems the case), then we should optimize
for ease of coding
You are not using JSBSim from JSBSim CVS are you?
No, from the FlightGear CVS. Is anyone able to fly the C172 from
today's FlightGear CVS (I know most of you Americans are away at
your Thanksgiving)?
I flew it today. I did a full checkout and rebuild of everything. Seemed to
work fine.
So then, to migrate changes in JSBSim.cpp to JSBSim.cxx is a manual
process??
This is not something one would normally do. JSBSim.cpp is sort of a
driver program that initializes an instance of FGFDMExec and then reads a
script or an initialization file and just runs (calls a FGFDMExec::Run()
Right engine won't start with fresh checkout from simgear and flightgear and
using JSBSim CVS files. Tried all combinations of misture, throttle, etc.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It appears as though we've been going too fast ! ;-) There seems to be a
few things that are not in sync. Maybe we need to hold off on new changes
for a few days and iron out the directory structure?
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
David M. is correct.
That drag would already be built into the coefficients, I'd expect.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
In fact, it you're going to fuss about a change in CG or drag when the
gear
cycles ( about 4-10 secs) then you should really do something about
realistic engine performance for a two or three hour cruise. Might I
suggest
some sort of random number generator, throw the dice for each engine,
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
or planes?
I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice
I think I
could come up with something.
Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say Planes (I could be
wrong, though ;-) I like to be PIC
Hmm. I got them. I don't know what could have happened.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Martin
Olveyra
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:01 PM
To: FlightGear Devel
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] And the CVS change notifications?
Both of them. It is ugly too see an empty airport. An airport filled not
only with buildings but also with planes on ground would bring an airport
to life.
Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any aircraft.
Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any aircraft.
You see aircraft three ways ...
Yes, of course. You are kind of biased, though - given what you want to do
with the sim. The scene - no matter which
So what exactly does blade element-ish mean? Is this sorta like a
realtime digital wind tunnel sorta thing? Thanks,
Nothing of the sort. But Andy appears to have a reasonable approximation for
subsonic, anyhow.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing
What's the problem you are having with the latest JSBSim? Have you done a
total update, yet, of the base package and FGFS? It's flying for me. If
there's an error I need to know about it. Maybe Curt is busy this weekend
and has not gotten synced. You can grab the latest from JSBSim CVS if you'd
I am crashing during initialization of the FDM with the call to
set_Euler_Angles() from FGInterface::common_init()
Maybe you could try setting a breakpoint in MSVC
and stepping into the code starting there.
Well, this is news to me. I updated this morning and run fine running from
CygWin. I
As I said in my post I too have no problem with Cygwin :-)
Oh, I missed that.
MSVC and MingW32, which uses the MS runtime math library,
are having problems though.
FWIW,
They are MUCH less forgiving to floating point 'problems'
then the math libraries that linux and Cygwin use.
Hang in
need to create fdm[4], etc. Also probably sooner rather than later,
John is going to want to be able to air drop his X-15 from our Cessna
310. :-)
Yes, there are some things in work that should *really* be nice that involve
multiple instances of JSBSim.
I am not against what David (or even
Paul Deppe wrote:
When compiling SimGear 0.0.16 with the latest Cygwin (Win2K) I get the
following compiler error. Has anyone else seen this? This is a clean
SimGear with ./configure; make.
Everything goes well until...
I've got CygWin (pretty much the latest, I think) and I
C'tors that don't initialize class members? Ought to have a good
reason for that
in the class documentation. Otherwise one is writing time bombs
in the code.
I believe most class members are properly initialized. There are some that
may not appear to be, though - that is, the vector and
I think we need a special case for engine off here.
Good catch.
I have changed some things in FGPiston (fixed) based on my limited
understanding).
void FGPiston::doManifoldPressure(void)
{
// DAVE: CHECK THIS
if (Running ) {
ManifoldPressure_inHg = MinManifoldPressure_inHg +
Norman wrote:
Please stick with 8.3 or else Win9X development will be 'hampered'
in a way that would be similar to what Unix development would
experience if we were to allow spaces in filenames.
I'll stay out of this one except to say that I don't stick with the 8.3 rule
in filenames and I
Behalf Of David Megginson
Thanks -- I'll fix that tomorrow, if people don't mind waiting. It's
an ANSI/non-ANSI C++ thing.
That would be great, David. Been very, very, busy today! And I am all
smiles, now.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
This is a call stack during JSBsim FG startup:
FGJSBsim::set_Euler_Angles( double phi, double theta, double psi )
fgic-SetPitchAngleRadIC(theta)
getAlpha()
solve(alpha,0)
GammaEqOfAlpha(double Alpha)
Because all velocity members are 0 ,
Jon,
No, that .infig.status is literally what I'm getting.
I don't have a file called Makefile.solo. Can you tell
me where to get that file? Thanks for your help, I've
been struggling with this over the weekend.
Mark
I guess the make dist action does not include the Makefile.solo's in
Jon Berndt is the artist, but I can't imagine that he'd have a problem
with us distributing it.
As long as the royalties are paid in a timely manner, I don't care. The cost
is .4 cents per use, rounded down on each one to the nearest penny.
[IOW, free ;-)]
Jon
I will mention, though, that you're infringing on my US Patent
#09860987, covering the use of bitmapped images for representing the
initiation of sequences of machine-encoded instructions stored on a
personal computing device. Please feel free to contact my law firm to
make appropriate
I don't see why moving the FCS out of JSBSim precludes your ability to
run the thing standalone. You could maintain your own tree
independant of FlightGear as you do right now (or just keep it in the
JSB tree next to the FDM). Alternatively, you could place it in
SimGear, which is designed
From: Andy Ross
In fact, this is a good example: a real F-16A (Dunno about the C)
flight control computer takes its input from a set of gyros and from
the position of the stick, and that's it
The F-16 DFCS (beginning with Block 40) - and I suspect to some degree also
the F-16A model - also
Martin.
P.S.: I _really_ believe it would be wise to separate FDM and FCS using a
clean interface - but this is different from the above ;-)
In JSBSim it already is. There appears to be a misconception that the FDM
and FCS are inappropriately linked together. In JSBSim the atmosphere,
That's actually a counter-example: this is all information that
FlightGear will have to have by default, but FDMs like JSBSim will not
(necessarily) -- since FlightGear owns the panel and the UI, it is the
component that tracks the position of every switch, stick, and so on.
JSBSim will need
- check whether JSBSim is actually applying the weight for the fuel
I believe we are. I'd be surprised if we are not.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
More specifically 'this' machine - Back at the end of 1999 this
latest-so-far pc (i hv 4 if i do not count those that just gather dust)
was a 'big store' off-the-shelf bargain 'package' with
'genuine intel' PIII at abt 500+ MHz. The mark is 'Unika', with only
64 MB RAM, but with a 256 MB
... Really, the FDM takes a very small amount
of computation time. Most of the time is spent in the display
routines, IIRC.
That is agreed. But i was making a point about how 'rocking' the ac
when the engine/mags are off (and 0 wind) cause the 'display' to be
re-done - that is a small
I'm getting a lot of positive responses in the booth to the current
feature set. The pilots in the bunch are well pleased with JSBsim.
That's a relief [ said Jon, not quite able to hide the slight surprise in
his voice]. Any particular comments made? I would suspect perhaps a comment
on
- Original Message -
From: John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Something that needs to be addressed before the next release
it the turn coordinator under JSBsim. Definitely a high visibility
problem.
Nearly everyone that demo'ed at LWCE picked up on that right away.
I thought that was
Hmm. I did a full update this afternoon and I stil get white runways.
Something wrong with the base package?
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Re: Nits
*
I'm confused. Then why did Melchior say he had no white runways at KEDW?
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Re: Nits
Jon S. Berndt writes:
Hmm. I did
Yes. JSBSim is now the default flight model.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: re: [Flightgear-devel] UIUC; Was: Release schedule for 0.7.9
fgfs --fdm=larcsim --aero=uiuc \
Wrong. It was an A320 where the display pilot (some time after
'first flight') switched off major protective modes of the FCS.
He did this to show that he could fly the A320 'party trick' of
a low, slow, high alpha pass with safety (due to FCS protection)
manually. He couldn't
Here is
The problem with Neural Nets, as I understand it, is that they
are regarded as non-predicatable. The only way to check that
they perform correctly in all circumstances is to check all
circumstances. The logic is effectively non-traceable (or
regarded as such).
I don't know, but there's a
I'm trying to put together an engineering display for the panels. At
This sounds really cool. What is it?
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
That's the same error I have on the C172 at simulator startup. FYI.
JSBsim C310 crashes the sim on gear retraction.
So ... this is an error?
This is the same message I get if I do this in real life.
;-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing
I'm only getting this with JSBsim right now. Maybe I've got something
screwed
up here anyone else seeing this? The symptom is that if I specify an
airport
that is not in scenery the simulation comes up correctly momentarily and
then
tries to load a tile and does the fatal bogus long/lat
Then again, if I were _really_ hacking, I'd write it in
Postscript, run it on a network printer and use its bright/dark
control to set the roll. Perhaps I could even get the ATIS text
to scroll on its display. :)
Now *that's* funny.
:-)
Jon
Please note that there is a difference between fgfs's internal
representation of wind, and the way it is set by the user. As an
engineer, I am partial to using 'to' vectors internally.
Yup, that is more mathematically correct.
IMHO, I think the way JSBSim does it is more consistent from
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right now on the FlightGear downloads page we have ready to run
binaries for Windows, Mac OS X, Debian, and Sgi.
If someone wants to contribute binaries for an additional platform
that would be very welcome as well.
Thanks,
Curt.
I'll have the
Bah humbug. Engineers, seeing that there were two incompatable
standards simply choose to break the one normally seen by people who
should be able to understand the problem and adapt. Obviously, in this
case, they chose the wrong group. :)
Ha! Someone made the suggestion that we are doing
From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is a to vector, by definition. Really, the
from convention applies to a 1-dimensional compass direction; I'm
not aware of anyone else trying to apply it to a 3D vector environment.
Ooh! Yeah, that is a good point about the 3D part of it. It's been a
From: Martin van Beilen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the same vein, it is a convention to report vertical winds as
'to' headings. Although vertical heading is binary, it is
reported as 'to-up', not 'from-down'. So if you want to stick to
the meteo conventions, your horizontal components should be
If you filter on certain frequencies you can hear satanic messages. Even
worse, if you play them backwards you hear Btitney Spears singing
Oh, great. I meant B_r_itney. This was not a Freudian slip. :-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
I had some tests with 0.7.9 source and today's CVS (_very_ nice panel),
with
0.7.9 base package and today's CVS, I tried different airports but the
'feature' is still there: Several models tend to bank to the left when the
stick is in the middle:
c172-larcsim does not
c172 does
c182 does
..for flight in other atmospheres (Mars, Venus, Jupiter, or in
fluids like water), which atmosphere model is easier to work from?
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
I started work some time ago on making JSBSim accept a different gravity
model. This was specifically
Go here:
http://sicuroengineering.com/
Click on Technology and Tools
Look for two familiar tools in their stable of simulation utilities.
Jon
--
Jon S. Berndt
Coordinator
JSBSim Project
http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:28:01 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The good news is that the JSBSim matrix support isn't
showing up on the radar screen any more.
Thanks to the work by Norman and Tony (IIRC). I think we
can still make some improvements in JSBSim and I want to
try
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:23:43 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ButtonName - Description of function
HDG - will switch heading hold over to the Bug.
Also need roll attitude hold which overrides heading
select.
Of course this means that it'll also be possible to hold
a pitch angle
I don't quite not how to respond here, except to point out that simply
isn't the case. The diff program was always meant to be human
readable from the very beginning. And it's gotten more so over time,
You just keep thinking this way...
Do you still program on punch cards too? ;-)
Jon
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:37:13 -0700
Boslough, Mark B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To answer my question, I got into the code and put in
a slow motion factor. I can now fly as slowly as I
want.
Can you send me your latest copy of the config file? I'll
get it into CVS.
Jon
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:04:26 -0800
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll certainly agree that the patch format is a good way to represent
the changes between two files -- but not to the extent that it is good
at communicating that information to humans. The simple fact is that
humans
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:10:14 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I'm being sneered at as a card-punching dinosaur
Not sneered at. Have you tried an IDE such as the one Tony
and others describe?
(by IDE jockeys who can't read man pages
because there isn't a toolbar button for
The JSBSim make file seems to be looking for src/FDM/JSBSim/JSBSim.cpp but
it actuslly exists as src/FDM/JSBSim/JSBSim.cxx renaming or symlinking the
file allows compilation to continue.
No. This was explained yesterday, too. JSBSim.cpp has been removed from the
FlightGear tree. JSBSim.cxx is
No. This was explained yesterday, too. JSBSim.cpp has been removed from
the
FlightGear tree. JSBSim.cxx is required. You need to do a CVS update of
your
FlightGear tree.
I had just before compiling.
However compilation *still* stops with:
c++: JSBSim.cpp: No such file or directory
David M. wrote:
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity). Is there any
standard unit abbreviation that conflicts with that and is useful for
flight simulation?
I am not aware of a standard, currently. However, we
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:13:34 -0500
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The prof would pose a question in one system and expect the answer
in the other. That borders on torture. I wish that all engineering
classes used metric only these days. Unfortunately, I'm sure it's not
the case.
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:11:28 -0500
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't speak for Tony, but my own opinion is that JSBSim
internals will likely always be in English units. However,
it would be prudent for us to allow inputs (via the config
file) and outputs (to the data log or
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David,
Have a look at c172.xml, you will need to add
a right aileron FCS component to c310.xml
Are we going to need to do this with each aircraft model?
:-(
Will we need to do this with flaps, slats, spoilers,
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:37:05 -0600 (CST)
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that particular source file is not entirely devoid
of comments. Here's they doxygen html docs for SGBinObject:
That reminds me, I was going to ask you if you were
keeping up the documentation using
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, don't you want to be able to try flying the aircraft with the left
flap unmovable (because the cable broke) and the right one moving ?
It's a popular failure mode on C172 ...
Malfunctions are a ways down the
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:39:04 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zero. The FDM needs, somehow, to provide this information to the 3D
model, no? Or are you expecting the 3D model code to figure it out on
its own from the /control tree? Wasn't the point of moving to
/surface-positions
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:00:17 -0600
Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've always been able to model this kind of stuff,
aerodynamically and control system-wise. My only concern
about all this was that we are being asked to provide
extra information in a particular format (that we won't
This is very likely the propeller for the C310 causing problems. My computer
should be repaired by the middle of this coming week, so I'll once again be
able to test things out. :-)
I may be able to build a script that reproduces it, though, in which case I
may get to it sooner.
Jon
-
OK, another one on my list. Could be as simple as a gearing constant in teh
config file.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 310 Model
Curtis L. Olson
Didn't Curt do some work some time ago and figure out that it was the
propeller model?
Jon
- Original Message -
From: Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [BUG] JSBSim: sudden plane crashes
*
, I'm not laughing ...
:-)
[you *are* joking, aren't you?!?!]
Jon
--
Jon S. Berndt
Coordinator
JSBSim Project
http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:27:16 -0800
John Wojnaroski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are pilots who have both solid engineering
backgrounds and advanced degrees and experience.
Such as test pilots. We could use a few on-staff! :-)
Jon
___
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:48:53 +0300
Roman Grigoriev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is not suitable for me
in addition I need to aply noise on this black and white
image
Intriguing. Can you tell us what this is about? I have a
hunch.
Jon
___
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:44:07 -0500
1) CHANGE THIS ASAP to at least print an error message
or
2) defend this hack publicly
Where is the code located?
=
There is some good news however
After discovering that the above was responsible for
unexplained crashing at startup with
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:47:37 +0300
Roman Grigoriev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys I implemented rendering Flightgear in black and white mode using
Geforce rendering combiners here is a sample jpeg
It's extremly usefull for simulating missile and bomb
camera views or for helicopter
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:00:28 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good news -- I'd like to encourge the FDM writers to query
separately for each gear now, at least for the wheels and skids (crash
points aren't as serious).
So, when querying, would we supply the lat/lon/radius
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:15:04 -0500
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who better then the FDM to know the offsets of the points to test for
contact. It certainly shouldn't be anything in the Scenery Module !!
Norman
Yep. I think all we (FDM) need is a function that returns
the terrain
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:55:10 -0600 (CST)
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... the gear extension angle and extension amount will move the
lon/lat of the contact point. Perhaps the differences won't be
significant enough to significantly change the resulting ground
elevation?
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:50:08 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And even so, it's not the *position* of the gear tip that is the
problem, it is the *direction* of the compression vector. An 20
degree difference from vertical (not a terribly uncommon AoA for a jet
touchdown, or bank
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:24:44 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the FDM guys would like it, it would be very easy to add some extra
fields to $FG_ROOT/materials.xml and make them available through the
scenery code. For example, we could provide parameters for magnitude
and
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:55:49 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What part of assuming a flat ground is not getting across? :)
I was trying to figure out where you got that 34% error
from.
If you are willing to assume a flat ground, then you already *have* a
valid and workable model
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:01:59 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh don't laugh. At LWCE Borland was giving away Kylix
which is basically
delphi ported to linux...and if i'm not mistaken that
uses something like
turbo pascal as its language. It's what they call a
RAD tool. Or is
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:42:27 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh... grab a calculator. Type 2, then 0, then sin. :)
The answer to this question:
How far from the original position is the tip of a gear strut at 20
degrees of AoA (or bank, or whatever)?
...is 34% of its length.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:51:33 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 3D model. Assuming vertical
gear compression is no closer to rendered reality than what we are
doing now. You'll get a tilt, but not a physically correct one.
It will be better than
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:29:05 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We either have to have scenery code that understands funny gear
trajectories or gear code that understands 3D collision
detection.
We can be fairly simple. If you want to do articulated
F-18 gear, be my guest. All I want
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:40:38 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's another ASCII diagram (please don't mock this one)
to try to explain:
This is actually pretty good for an ascii diagram and it
shows where the misunderstanding is coming onto play.
+
.\
.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:41:55 -0800
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you're seeing is the fact that, when you add flaps, you increase
the nose-down pitching moment of the wing. This happens,
qualitatively, because most of the lift you add gets
added at the back of the wing where the
Someone here uses gcc on IRIX, right? Anything to mention
as far as how well it works there? Compatibility problems
with anything?
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:17:20 -0600 (CST)
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh well, I've only been flamed by RMS (but that should at
least count for something, right?)
Are you kidding? If not, you can't get away with stopping
there. What's the story?
Jon
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:55:23 +0100
Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there used to be a lot of STL problems where Linux coders wrote non
standard compliant STL code that brok on MSVC. (They are not really to
blame as they have no chance to test their code on MSVC; and they are
Are we finding that inlining is unneccesary? I am
wondering if Tony and I need to un-inline most of our
currently inlined items? We have a lot of access methods
that simply return a private value. Those at least seem to
be classic cases for inlining. What's everyone else doing?
Jon
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:14:19 -0700 (MST)
Keith Wiley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 update.
You'd be much better off doing a
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:40:07 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There should be backup files in each folder (prefixed with .#).
Ummm, I'm not so sure about that. If CVS is able to merge
repository changes into your version of a file, no such
files are made. I believe these files are
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:26:47 -0600 (CST)
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm seeing (and this behavior did change
recently) is that the JSBSim C172 now requires
significant rightaileron/rudder to hold straight level flight, even at
full throttle, full speed, level flight. Even
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:15:56 -0600 (CST)
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon asked:
Does the same thing happen with the X-15 or C-182?
The effect is there with the C182, although maybe just a tiny bit
less. I don't see the effect at all with the X-15. That probably
points to the
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:08:59 +
Julian Foad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SimGear root includes metakit-2.4.2-32.tar.gz.
Version 2.4.3 is now available and fixes several
potentially serious bugs. I'm not saying Flight Gear is
affected by any of them (I have no idea) but I think it's
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:10:50 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a before picture of the DC-3 model in FlightGear:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/dc3-unsmoothed.png
Here is a shot from after my patch was applied:
1 - 100 of 513 matches
Mail list logo
