Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Would it be possible to have FlightGear automatically download a schedule from the Internet? Regards, Ampere On June 10, 2004 04:27 pm, Durk Talsma wrote: > I'd rather spend my time on > writing some code to autogenerate these flightplans than manually typing in > the position of all these waypoints. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
On Thursday 10 June 2004 03:16, Alex Romosan wrote: > Durk Talsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm only a bit dissapointed that nobody's yet reported actually > > _seeing_ one of MD11's take off. :-) :-) > > i just did :-) took off from SFO and followed it for a couple of hours > to the canadian border (i guess i was bored). a few nits: when i sped > up the game (by pressing the 'a' key) the md11 didn't speed up (so > this was a quick way of catching up with it). second, although it > initially climbed to about 22000 feet, by the time i stopped following > it it was down to about 16000. normal airliners fly at about 4 so > this is probably a bug in the planning. third, i was flying the t38 The reason for this is that there's a *huge* gap in waypoints between the KSFO departure and the EHAM arrival. IIRC, the last waypoint in the KSFO departure should be crossed at 22000 ft, but then the next waypoint is the first of the EHAM arrival, which should be crossed at 7000 ft, causing the aircraft to start decending immediately after leaving KSFO airspace. Adding a few waypoints might help here, but personally, I'd rather spend my time on writing some code to autogenerate these flightplans than manually typing in the position of all these waypoints. > anyway, i took some pictures along the way, you can find them at: > http://caliban.lbl.gov/fgfs-md11/ > Cool! Once we have a more completed model, a few screenshots like these would make a nice addition to the website. (hint :-)) Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Josh Babcock wrote: > What about putting a node in the model xml defining what type of radar > return the object would produce (cross section size and transponder > y/n) and then having whatever code positions the object in the scene > graph also register the radar data in the property tree? That opens > up the possibility of ground clutter and even navigation by ground > radar. I was thinking about this recently. I think ground radar can come really close just by drawing the existing terrain with special textures. Things like water are flat and reflect the radar beam specularly, and are thus mostly black (maybe with a few fickering dots to represent wave caps). City textures should have lots of bright spots representing the vertical sides of buildings. Forests will be somewhere in the middle, etc... We can play with the existing OpenGL lighting environment to get proper reflectivity from the large scale terrain geometry, and the buildings and whatnot can just be "drawn" into the radar buffer the same way. It's likely going to be a lot of work, and have a significant performance impact (you're rendering almost all the geometry twice per frame, albeit into a much smaller framebuffer). But I don't see why it wouldn't work... Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Andy Ross wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: > The radar display is currently limited to three (or four, I can't > remember) aircraft hard coded in the configuration file. Changing that > requires Nasal to be able to position a textured quad somewhere in > screen space or additional C++ code to handle all situations. Trust me, we *really* want to avoid doing screen rendering in a scripting language. :) What might be a better idea would be to come up with an intermediate "radar objects" representation in the property tree that gets managed by a nasal script. Or best of all would be for the radar to use the AI system to track aircraft positions. Or even the ssg scene graph so it can show ground detail... That's how it's done now. The AIModel objects update their own radar information in the property tree (under /ai/models). But the number of animated aircraft blips is limited (see data/Aircraft/Instruments/radar.xml). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Andy Ross wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: > The radar display is currently limited to three (or four, I can't > remember) aircraft hard coded in the configuration file. Changing that > requires Nasal to be able to position a textured quad somewhere in > screen space or additional C++ code to handle all situations. Trust me, we *really* want to avoid doing screen rendering in a scripting language. :) What might be a better idea would be to come up with an intermediate "radar objects" representation in the property tree that gets managed by a nasal script. Or best of all would be for the radar to use the AI system to track aircraft positions. Or even the ssg scene graph so it can show ground detail... Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel What about putting a node in the model xml defining what type of radar return the object would produce (cross section size and transponder y/n) and then having whatever code positions the object in the scene graph also register the radar data in the property tree? That opens up the possibility of ground clutter and even navigation by ground radar. The latter would really require a way to translate btg data into a radar paint to be complete, but building and ship reflections would be a nice start. You could also use the same system for weather radar. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Erik Hofman wrote: > The radar display is currently limited to three (or four, I can't > remember) aircraft hard coded in the configuration file. Changing that > requires Nasal to be able to position a textured quad somewhere in > screen space or additional C++ code to handle all situations. Trust me, we *really* want to avoid doing screen rendering in a scripting language. :) What might be a better idea would be to come up with an intermediate "radar objects" representation in the property tree that gets managed by a nasal script. Or best of all would be for the radar to use the AI system to track aircraft positions. Or even the ssg scene graph so it can show ground detail... Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Alex Romosan wrote: this is probably a bug in the planning. third, i was flying the t38 but the md11 didn't show up on the radar (the two 737's did, as well as some other plane unknown plane). There are the two 737's from the demo scenario and there should be an A-4 when taking off in the T-38. The radar display is currently limited to three (or four, I can't remember) aircraft hard coded in the configuration file. Changing that requires Nasal to be able to position a textured quad somewhere in screen space or additional C++ code to handle all situations. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: New Scenery - a few notes
Durk Talsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm only a bit dissapointed that nobody's yet reported actually > _seeing_ one of MD11's take off. :-) :-) i just did :-) took off from SFO and followed it for a couple of hours to the canadian border (i guess i was bored). a few nits: when i sped up the game (by pressing the 'a' key) the md11 didn't speed up (so this was a quick way of catching up with it). second, although it initially climbed to about 22000 feet, by the time i stopped following it it was down to about 16000. normal airliners fly at about 4 so this is probably a bug in the planning. third, i was flying the t38 but the md11 didn't show up on the radar (the two 737's did, as well as some other plane unknown plane). this probably has something to do with the md11 model. speaking of the radar, i find it strange that my plane shows up on the radar in the centre. anyway, i took some pictures along the way, you can find them at: http://caliban.lbl.gov/fgfs-md11/ --alex-- -- | I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active | | advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with | | automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion | | and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. | ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
