Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
While compiling on IRIX I get the following error:
[...]
To be honnest I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do here.
The hash table needs two blocks allocated: one to hold the table nodes
and one to hold the top-level table of "column" pointers. F
Russell Suter wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I would recommend doing a net search for CLOD (continuous level of
detail) and ROAM (I forget what that stands for.)
Real-time Optimally Adapting Meshes.
Sorry forgot the page:
http://www.cognigraph.com/ROAM_homepage/
--
Russ
Conway's Law:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I would recommend doing a net search for CLOD (continuous level of
detail) and ROAM (I forget what that stands for.)
Real-time Optimally Adapting Meshes.
--
Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure of a system tends to mirror the
structure of the group producing it."
-- Mel
Is anybody using atlas ( http://atlas.sourceforge.net/ )? I'm
interested in using something like this with the flightgear
aircraft overlayed on the map. Anybody out there do anything
like that before???
--
Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure of a system tends to mirror the
structure of the group pr
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 18:16, Russell Suter wrote:
Is anybody using atlas ( http://atlas.sourceforge.net/ )? I'm
interested in using something like this with the flightgear
aircraft overlayed on the map. Anybody out there do anything
like that b
Andy Ross wrote:
Plonk. Does anyone with a real clue have an answer for this?
Andy
Daunting but I'll give it a go:
For the 2.4 kernel the utility to identify the correct drivers is
/sbin/hotplug.
You can do a man on hotplug or check out the project web site:
http://linux-hotplug.sourceforg
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
That reminds me, I still
want to try tying two cats together back to back and dropping them to
see what happens.
I'm sure the ASPCA will be interested is such experiments... ;)
--
Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure of a system tends to mirror the
structure of the group produ
That's gotta be faked. I don't think even a Onyx 3000
InfinitePerformance could provide
that kind of frame rate. If so, I really gotta know...
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Hof Markus wrote:
nice layout... is this a faked frame rate? ;-)
if not pretty good. how come?
Probably because Eric runs on
Erik Hofman wrote:
Russell Suter wrote:
That's gotta be faked. I don't think even a Onyx 3000
InfinitePerformance could provide
that kind of frame rate. If so, I really gotta know...
It's not fake ...
It's just that the framerate counter doesn't stop in paus
Erik Hofman wrote:
Okay, good to know. So what kind of SGI do you run on and what kind
of frame rate do you
get?
That's not fair! You would laugh at me :-D
Nope. Never at you, but maybe with you... :-D
(O2 RM5200/300Mhz at 2 ~ 10 fps but waiting to put a 900Mhz CPU in
there which will
Erik Hofman wrote:
Russell Suter wrote:
It's been a while since I've worked on SGI equipment. I'm familiar
with the O2 but I don't know what the video capabilites are.
The hardware accelerated OpenGL compares roughly to a TNT2.
Performance can increase when using a fa
True, and at the moment it's probably the worst place in FlightGear
(performance wise). But it's hard to ask someone to give me the
framerate for another controlled situation.
Startup at KSFO is default.
By the way, is this with all of the buildings, etc?
--
Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure
Martin Spott wrote:
Russell Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] I'm curious because I have a
friend that does research on a Cessna 172 simulator
that has an Onyx/IR with 3 channels. His simulator models are crap and
his visual database is worse. I'm trying to talk
Erik Hofman wrote:
Russell Suter wrote:
True, and at the moment it's probably the worst place in FlightGear
(performance wise). But it's hard to ask someone to give me the
framerate for another controlled situation.
Startup at KSFO is default.
By the way, is this with
mat churchill wrote:
That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped from the MS Scenery add-ons?
Some info here:
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/terragear-devel/2004-January/000859.html
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2004-January/00692
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Russell Suter wrote:
mat churchill wrote:
That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped
from the MS Scenery add-ons?
Some info here:
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/terragear-devel/2004-January/000
Mally wrote:
Russ
I'm not planning on redistributing the work. The work would be for a
client of mine
who is trying to upgrade their simulator's visual database...
Are you sure that doesn't count as redistributing?
Not if they buy the images and I simply provide the labor...
--
Ru
Excellent! Congratulations!
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I want to share some news that I'm very excited about.
For February and March I am being paid 50% time by ATC Flight
Simulators (http://www.atcflightsim.com) to do some work for one of
their specific projects.
Looks like they use columnated
David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what this is for. I can (and probably should)
export the C.G. position for the view code to use appropriately. But
the VRP stuff seems like a double-correction. It's basically
identical to the view center offset stuff, isn't it?
Andy Ross wrote:
Russell Sutter wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what this is for. I can (and probably
should) export the C.G. position for the view code to use
appropriately. But the VRP stuff seems like a double-correction.
It's basically ide
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:07:05 -0800
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adding the VRP is yet another mechanism, basically a direct analog of
the view offset stuff on the FDM side. I just don't see the need. If
we decide the VRP is the right way to do it, we should chuck th
Andy Ross wrote:
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Can the view offset or rendering code (whatever it is that draws the
3D aircraft models) move the origin of the set of vertices that
defines the model per-frame so that the CG aligns with that reported
by the FDM?
Well, yes, because they're just prop
One other point and then I'll shut the heck up. In the case of military
aircraft with loadouts,
you'll want to consider the visual transition between a missile on the
rail and flyout as an
example. When we first implemented this kind of thing, the missile
looked fine on the rail
but when fired
Norman Vine wrote:
Russell Suter writes:
I don't think that's what he means. I took him to mean that the visual
model
origin is translated to the CG every frame. If that's what you mean,
you really
don't want to do that. That's a matrix transform for e
Jon Berndt wrote:
So,
instead of defining some arbitrary frame, _we_use_an_industry_standard_,
which is the structural frame that the manufacturer defines, when available.
It is always (in my experience) X positive aft, Y positive right, with the
origin being seemingly arbitrary.
I wouldn't g
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:23:56 -0700
Russell Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
But then, the FDM still has to report where the FDM is in a common
reference frame.
Exactly! At my company, we call this the control point and we have
standardized
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:22:15 -0800
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Can the view offset or rendering code (whatever it is that draws the
3D aircraft models) move the origin of the set of vertices that
defines the model per-frame so that the CG align
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:30:35 -
"Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon, I forget, what exactly is the reason for defining a VRP in the
config file? I thought that JSBSim already knew where the nose was.
We normally track:
- Initial empty weight CG
- Dynamic CG (
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:33:43 -0700
Russell Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Although I strongly agree that JSBSim reporting a fixed point
relative to the aircraft is good, I'm not
particularly thrilled with the point you have chosen. I am more than
happy
Uncle!
Jon S Berndt wrote:
I don't see any advantage to your approach.
By your responses, you give me no indication that you even understand
what I'm saying.
I seem to be alone in my dissent anyway... What you are planning will
work just fine.
--
Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure of a system te
Jon Berndt wrote:
so I'm game to take
the Nike approach and Just Do It.
That's probably wise.
I did _think_ I understood what you were
saying, though, and still wish I understood your approach.
I think it better that I scrape up some time somehow and implement
the meta file approach. It's
Jim Wilson wrote:
Vivian Meazza said:
I'm about halfway through generating a 3d cockpit for the Seahawk model -
are you going to move the origin of the model? I'd like a heads up, it will
probably affect how I go about the rest of the work.
If the model is already animated (and/or cock
Jim Wilson wrote:
Russell Suter said:
I suspect these properties are applied anyway -- even if they are zero. I
don't know if these are applied per frame or if they are applied once to
the model. In the latter case, you can ride the toll road all day and only
have to pay the toll
Jon Berndt wrote:
FWIW _all_ this patch does is allow the specification of a static
location for
the FDM to report aircraft position at in JSBsim. Previously it
was reported
from the current center of gravity.
That's exactly right. Furthermore, if the VRP is set to the empty weight CG
for
Josh Babcock wrote:
Personally, I think the nose VRP makes a lot of sense. I think people
are trying to make this a lot more complicated than it is. It's just
a simple solution to a small problem. I vote Yea.
The only thing important here is that the reported position from the FDM
is fixed
Jon Berndt wrote:
No. No. No. No. There need not be a prior agreement. The 3D modeler
uses whatever origin suits. It appears in many cases that's the nose.
Yes, yes.
There has to be an understanding of the difference between the frames of
reference (FDM and 3D model). If we are provi
Jon Berndt wrote:
I mean no disrespect, nor do I question your ability. But, you don't
seem to entirely understand the power of the offsets property. If the
FDM reports a position, say the nose, as you intend to do. Now say that
the 3D model has the origin at the tail. All is not lost. As
Norman Vine wrote:
Mathias Fröhlich writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Also I can not find in the code the mechanism that will rotate the AirCraft
about any point other then the point returned by
Object.getBSphere()->getCenter() as adjusted by the translation WRT the VRP
which appears to be set
Norman Vine wrote:
Mathias Fröhlich wwrites:
On Sonntag, 15. Februar 2004 10:49, Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
I give up. Sort of.
I hope you don't!
No need to IMHO. I think we now have an excellent solution.
Could someone file a patent request for this?
Ther
Norman Vine wrote:
Jon Berndt writes:
Could this be solved if the "camera viewpoint" looked at the CG instead of
the VRP? What is being done, now?
The camera viewpoint need not necessarily be either or any fixed point
i.e. the camera should be free to look around :-)
What is required is
Jon Berndt wrote:
It didn't seem so obvious when you said this:
If we are providing the position of the nose,
and the 3D model has some arbitrary origin (that's *not* the
nose) then it's not gonna work.
Yes, that probably didn't help matters. In this lengthy and convoluted
thread it's prob
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
On Sonntag, 15. Februar 2004 19:26, Norman Vine wrote:
And all required 'corrections' that the model does not rotate around the
nose but around the dynamic center of gravity are automatically included.
Please reread my earlier post on necessary steps for rotatin
Norman Vine wrote:
Russell Suter writes:
The IG shouldn't be used to position the 3D model. If it being used,
that's wrong.
By IG I am assuming you mean Image Generator, and you have to
understand how the things are drawn or else you are bound to get
surprised at least occ
Norman Vine wrote:
Russell Suter writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Simply stated the problem is that inorder to rotate an object about an arbritrary
point you *must* do the equivalaent of the following
1) translate object so that it's 'rotation point' is at the 'point of
Jim Wilson wrote:
Does anyone have a formula handy for calculating the flight path of an
aircraft in true degrees (direction of travel as opposed to the airframe
heading)? My guess is that it'd be a matter of doing something with the
lon/lat from the previous frame. Maybe there's something sim
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Hi, quick announcement ... baby! Amelia Esther, 8lbs 1oz, born 6:12am
this morning,
Most Excellent!
less than 1 hour from first contraction to delivery. 12 minutes from
arrival at the hospital to delivery.
Even better for Mom!
All the best to you, mom, and family.
Andy Ross wrote:
Major A wrote:
BTW, does anybody know at what angle planes (other than the Harrier)
usually approach aircraft carriers?
Pitch attitude angle or glide slope angle? Pitch depends a lot on the
aircraft, somewhere between 8-12° is typical.
I've read some
I have the same problem with my Inspiron 8200. I see the following messages
when I startup:
WARNING: slScheduler: Needs a sound card that supports 8 bits per sample.
Audio initialization failed!
I traced it down to plib. In the slDSP::open method, in slDSP.cxx
bps=16 and
stereo=1. The slSchedul
Jon Berndt wrote:
Jim wrote:
Before we get too worked up about this... It has absolutely
nothing to do with modeling the aircraft. It is only a reference
point for positioning the 3D model in the scene. All the nose is,
sans pitot tubes and other items that are not centered,
David Megginson wrote:
Lee Elliott writes:
> Ships sounds like a great idea and shouldn't be too difficult to
> implement (not that I'm volunteering). Someone mentioned carrier
> landings recently didn't they? :)
That's harder -- we'll have to do some work to make sure that the
planes on the ca
Here's a way to use the gnu compiler. It uses the SGI
assembler for the backend though...
http://freeware.sgi.com/
Martin Spott wrote:
Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course not. Erik's crappy compiler doesn't seem to find it
strange that a function doesn't return anything. :->
Actually, that would be a change to our Constitution - Article II,
Section I.
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:04:28 -,
"Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Lee Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
"better politician
Don't worry. The esteemed Senator from Utah, Warren Hatch is proposing
a
Constitutional Amendment to change just that, along with other things,
I'm sure...
Tony Peden wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:20, David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden writes:
> Is Arnold not a citizen?
>
Tony Peden wrote:
It looks like you need to be a citizen, 35 or older, and a resident of
at least 14 years. Arnold probably quailifies.
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 12:07, Russell Suter wrote:
Actually, that would be a change to our Constitution - Article II,
Section I.
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 1
Did I say Warren, I meant Orrin...
Don't worry. The esteemed Senator from Utah, Warren Hatch is proposing
a
Constitutional Amendment to change just that, along with other things,
I'm sure...
Tony Peden wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:20, David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden write
Although interesting, this is certainly not typical! If you want to
know about
aircraft that typically operate on a carrier:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/powerhouse/airwing.html
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST)
Jon Stockill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tony Peden wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Christopher S Horler wrote:
Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier?
The E-2C (or the cargo version of the same plane) is probably the
biggest that currently operates from U.S. carriers.
I guess that depend
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2003 18:41, Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST)
Jon Stockill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote:
I think S-3 Viking.
C130
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/hist
Lee Elliott wrote:
I've got an idea that the (R)A-5B Vigilante was one of the largest and
heaviest carrier based a/c.
Heaviest, that is if you consider a full load. At almost 80,000 lbs,
max takeoff weight,
you could be right.
--
Russ
Conway's Law: "The structure of a system tends to mir
Tony Peden wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 19:12, Russell Suter wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Christopher S Horler wrote:
Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier?
The E-2C (or the cargo version of the same plane
Jim Wilson wrote:
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Tony Peden writes:
> Is Arnold not a citizen?
>
> "No person except a natural born citizen,
He is not a natural-born citizen.
> or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of
> this Constitution,
He was not a
David Megginson wrote:
David Culp writes:
> Ok, I got the Saratoga moving across San Fransisco bay at 30 knots.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/saratoga_SFO_bay.jpg
>
>
> It can't be landed on because the deck is not solid (however you can fly
> inside and grab lunch). Is there a w
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Vivian Meazza -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 15:31:
BTW, how do I resurrect the USS Saratoga? Mathias and I are beginning work
on arrester wires.
FWIW: we could have better than the Saratoga. We've got permission to
redistribute the cvn-68(?; Truman?) with fgfs under G
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Russell Suter -- Wednesday 27 October 2004 21:06:
BTW, the above picture is of the Truman (CVN-75). CVN-68 is the
Nimitz.
OK. (The model contains numbers for several carriers of the Nimitz class, to
select via fgfs property. ;-)
Very nice! So, this has been
64 matches
Mail list logo
