Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
--- Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So if we are more a non military sim lets put this HUD rubbish to bed. Unless everyone can agree that FG must be a civilian only sim I see little reason why we should not add features that support the military style aircraft. The only time you have a valid reason for complaining is if someone forces you against your will to add those features. You can't complain when someone does it out of their own will in their free time. No pilot models in the cockpit.Since these models consume about 1000 vertex each which is about 3 3d instruments.Would it not be better to have the instruments than the eye candy. Why not have both? My 3 year old PeeCee has plenty of horse power left and a flying aircraft without a pilot looks rather odd to me. If people don't like eye candy then let's make a way to switch it off but why take the eye candy away from people who want it? People use FG for many different reasons. Some are only interested in hardcore aspects like accurate instrument approaches and FDMs while others want to use FG just for the joy of flying. So if the todo list is to be realisitic should it not contain only the things that are missing on the real aircraft not a list of things that are neither available yet in FG (eg lighting) or never part of the real aircraft in the first place. Lighting is important. How can one use FG for night training at the moment if you can't see the ground properly? Why even bother with runway and taxiway lights then? I would love to see decent lighting added. End of Rant. Nice rant. ;-) Paul ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Hi Oliver Oliver C. On Saturday 06 November 2004 13:53, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All Just had a look on the seedwiki at the aircraft todo list. Who wrote that rubbish. Please do me a favour and don't call my work rubbish. Okay.But I guess you know now what it feels like to have your work,as you see it,unfairly criticized. Best Regards, Oliver C. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Hi Paul Paul Surgeon writes --- Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So if we are more a non military sim lets put this HUD rubbish to bed. Unless everyone can agree that FG must be a civilian only sim I see little reason why we should not add features that support the military style aircraft. The only time you have a valid reason for complaining is if someone forces you against your will to add those features. You can't complain when someone does it out of their own will in their free time. I was not saying that FG should be one or the other just that if a todo list is to be accurate then only those things that are part of the real aircraft,and are missing,should be on the list. If someone wants to take the 737 and put four 8lb thrust engines under it then go for it. End of Rant. Nice rant. ;-) Thanks.:-) Paul Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
On November 7, 2004 06:09 am, Paul Surgeon wrote: Why not have both? My 3 year old PeeCee has plenty of horse power left and a flying aircraft without a pilot looks rather odd to me. If people don't like eye candy then let's make a way to switch it off but why take the eye candy away from people who want it? People use FG for many different reasons. Some are only interested in hardcore aspects like accurate instrument approaches and FDMs while others want to use FG just for the joy of flying. Until someone writes a bone class that allows us to model characters more easily (using XML), having pilots in the cockpit is not going to happen. So if the todo list is to be realisitic should it not contain only the things that are missing on the real aircraft not a list of things that are neither available yet in FG (eg lighting) or never part of the real aircraft in the first place. Lighting is important. How can one use FG for night training at the moment if you can't see the ground properly? Why even bother with runway and taxiway lights then? I would love to see decent lighting added. There isn't much we (as modellers) can do about this. =( Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote : So if the todo list is to be realisitic should it not contain only the things that are missing on the real aircraft not a list of things that are neither available yet in FG (eg lighting) or never part of the real aircraft in the first place. Lighting is important. How can one use FG for night training at the moment if you can't see the ground properly? Why even bother with runway and taxiway lights then? I would love to see decent lighting added. There isn't much we (as modellers) can do about this. =( If modelers don't put emissive colors on their 3D instruments, or where they want to have light, lighting is not going to happend, and plane interiors will desperately stay dark at night. What they can't do is to have real emissive casting light and shadows on thing, but at least they can try to fake it. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Ampere K. Hardraade writes: Until someone writes a bone class that allows us to model characters more easily (using XML), having pilots in the cockpit is not going to happen. I don't know what XML has to do with it anyway see $PLIB / demos / exposer / src / bones.XXX Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Ampere wrote: Until someone writes a bone class that allows us to model characters more easily (using XML), having pilots in the cockpit is not going to happen. Ever used the Hunter, Seahawk, Comper Swift ? It's not easy, but it can be done. Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Fred wrote: Lighting is important. How can one use FG for night training at the moment if you can't see the ground properly? Why even bother with runway and taxiway lights then? I would love to see decent lighting added. There isn't much we (as modellers) can do about this. =( If modelers don't put emissive colors on their 3D instruments, or where they want to have light, lighting is not going to happend, and plane interiors will desperately stay dark at night. What they can't do is to have real emissive casting light and shadows on thing, but at least they can try to fake it. Emissive colours on textures? I don't know how to do that. But I was thinking of semi-transparent faces with an emissive color behind. When I finish with carriers/arrester wires I'll see how realistic that might be. There would be a vertex bill, of course. Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Vivian Meazza a écrit : Fred wrote: Lighting is important. How can one use FG for night training at the moment if you can't see the ground properly? Why even bother with runway and taxiway lights then? I would love to see decent lighting added. There isn't much we (as modellers) can do about this. =( If modelers don't put emissive colors on their 3D instruments, or where they want to have light, lighting is not going to happend, and plane interiors will desperately stay dark at night. What they can't do is to have real emissive casting light and shadows on thing, but at least they can try to fake it. Emissive colours on textures? I don't know how to do that. But I was thinking of semi-transparent faces with an emissive color behind. When I finish with carriers/arrester wires I'll see how realistic that might be. There would be a vertex bill, of course. Textures are modulate with the material property of the objects. How do you think light on bridges and towers are made ? No need of transparency anyway. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flightgear-devel- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederic Bouvier Sent: 07 November 2004 20:31 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant Vivian Meazza a écrit : Fred wrote: Lighting is important. How can one use FG for night training at the moment if you can't see the ground properly? Why even bother with runway and taxiway lights then? I would love to see decent lighting added. There isn't much we (as modellers) can do about this. =( If modelers don't put emissive colors on their 3D instruments, or where they want to have light, lighting is not going to happend, and plane interiors will desperately stay dark at night. What they can't do is to have real emissive casting light and shadows on thing, but at least they can try to fake it. Fred wrote: Emissive colours on textures? I don't know how to do that. But I was thinking of semi-transparent faces with an emissive color behind. When I finish with carriers/arrester wires I'll see how realistic that might be. There would be a vertex bill, of course. Textures are modulate with the material property of the objects. Yes, I know. How do you think light on bridges and towers are made ? Like the lights in the Hunter/Seahawk instruments No need of transparency anyway. Hmm, I don't think that will do. White numerals by day, illuminated by red at night, and black faces. I was thinking of making the white figures semi-transparent with a selectable white (non-emissive) /red (emissive) background. Unless you would care to do a demonstration of another method... Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
On November 7, 2004 03:12 pm, Norman Vine wrote: Until someone writes a bone class that allows us to model characters more easily (using XML), having pilots in the cockpit is not going to happen. I don't know what XML has to do with it anyway see $PLIB / demos / exposer / src / bones.XXX Norman We still need someway of attaching models to the bones. On November 7, 2004 03:19 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: Ampere wrote: Until someone writes a bone class that allows us to model characters more easily (using XML), having pilots in the cockpit is not going to happen. Ever used the Hunter, Seahawk, Comper Swift ? It's not easy, but it can be done. Vivian The problem is if it is not easy, it won't be done. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Ampere K. Hardraade writes: On November 7, 2004 03:12 pm, Norman Vine wrote: Until someone writes a bone class that allows us to model characters more easily (using XML), having pilots in the cockpit is not going to happen. I don't know what XML has to do with it anyway see $PLIB / demos / exposer / src / bones.XXX Norman We still need someway of attaching models to the bones. Try the application You might be pleasantly surprised Granted it's files aren't XML .. just plain old ASCII :-) Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Hmm, I don't think that will do. White numerals by day, illuminated by red at night, and black faces. I was thinking of making the white figures semi-transparent with a selectable white (non-emissive) /red (emissive) background. Unless you would care to do a demonstration of another method... If your texture is semi transparent, your object will be transparent. Do you mean you would put another one behind ? If your material color is pure emissive white ( 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 ) modulated with your texture, then black area would stay black while red areas would become emissive red, just because 1 x c = c ( I mean modulation is a multiplication, so modulating with with is multiplying with one ). If your texture is back and white, modulate with diffuse white for day and emissive red at night, but still, no transparency required. You would only modulate the alpha channel and have your dial transparent. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Fred wrote: Hmm, I don't think that will do. White numerals by day, illuminated by red at night, and black faces. I was thinking of making the white figures semi-transparent with a selectable white (non-emissive) /red (emissive) background. Unless you would care to do a demonstration of another method... If your texture is semi transparent, your object will be transparent. Do you mean you would put another one behind ? Yes, that was my plan. If your material color is pure emissive white ( 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 ) modulated with your texture, then black area would stay black while red areas would become emissive red, just because 1 x c = c ( I mean modulation is a multiplication, so modulating with with is multiplying with one ). If your texture is back and white, modulate with diffuse white for day and emissive red at night, but still, no transparency required. You would only modulate the alpha channel and have your dial transparent. I don't think that is very different to my method. I was going to arrange the texture to have semi-transparent numerals while the black face would be non-transparent. Behind would be selectable white/emissive red surfaces. I think that would work, and I know how to do it ... your method sounds attractive, and would be very effective for needles, but how is it implemented in xml? Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
On Saturday 06 November 2004 13:53, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All Just had a look on the seedwiki at the aircraft todo list. Who wrote that rubbish. Please do me a favour and don't call my work rubbish. How many 747's,737's,DC10 and the like have you seen with HUD's.So why is it considered to be a must on these aircraft.If we are going for realism then nearly all commercial aircraft do not have HUD's along with 99% of all other non military aircraft.So if we are more a non military sim lets put this HUD rubbish to bed. The aircraft todo list was created somewhere between Dec. 2003 and Jan. 2004 (later it was put on the seedwiki page) at that time those mentioned planes had nearly no cockpit instruments, so a virtual HUD was a must when you need to know your heading, speed and altitude. The HUD is also very practical when you are in an outside view. There's nothing wrong with removing the HUD from those aircrafts, but before that, please complete the 3d cockpits. Aircraft don't have lighting of one kind or another.Since as far as I am aware this is because FG currently has no such lighting and that night lighting can only be achived by using emissive material on objects we want to see at night.Is this not the way the 3D instruments are made to show at night.Please correct me if I am wrong. The fact that FlightGear doesn't have aircraft lightning support doesn't matter. When FlightGear is ready for aircraft lightning support this list can be usefull to complete the aircraft lightning of each aircraft step by step. So the rule is: First write everything down, that is a bug or missing and then remove it later when it is fixed. Jet blast not visible.Untill FG can model heat haze then on commercial aircraft this cant be modeled. Same rule mentioned above applies to here. Nozele doesn't change shape with thrust.Never saw one that did(other than the Concord(notice a pattern here)). Nearly all military jets do this. An example aircraft is the F16. The F16 in FlightGear can't do that at the moment. If you never saw a F16 in real life, you can also look at the F16 in the flight simulator Falcon 4.0, there this nozzle effect is visualized. Flaps move with reverse thrust.Maybe you can tell me what aircraft that happens on other than military. The thing what i meant with this are the speed brakes at the engines of the big airliners (747, 737 etc.) that are used when thrust is on reverse. The bad description is because of the fact, that my english is not the best, so if you can do better please fix this in the aircraft todo list. The textures are not quite right.If that is the case fix them if you think they can be improved and I will be the first to conratule you.But don't say that is a problem with the model or the way it flies. There was a texture problem on the 737 in some of the earlier FlightGear versions. This has been fixed in one of the later version but the aircraft-todo list wasn't upgraded. Please, if you fix some bug in FlightGear mentioned in the aircraft-todo list, then upgrade the aircraft-todo list too. And as everbody knows texture quality is governed by the size. And everybody knows that more eye candy can attract more volunteers for this open source project. There's nothing wrong with adding a couple of more textures to the aircrafts. Modern videocards have plenty of video memory (64 MB and upwards) and only a little amount is used by flightgear today. The only rule to abide is the correct balance between eye candy and performance. No pilot models in the cockpit.Since these models consume about 1000 vertex each which is about 3 3d instruments.Would it not be better to have the instruments than the eye candy. I think both are important and 1000 vertex more is not a lot for a modern computer with a modern graphic card. So if the todo list is to be realisitic should it not contain only the things that are missing on the real aircraft not a list of things that are neither available yet in FG (eg lighting) or never part of the real aircraft in the first place. An aircraft without a pilot can't fly. (No, you need more than an autopilot and where not talking about drones :) ) Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] The Rant
Oliver C. wrote: The fact that FlightGear doesn't have aircraft lightning support doesn't matter. Any idea if.someone is working on this? Landing at night without lights is quite frustrating. Almost as frustrating as the lack of aircraft shadows (no, there is no need for a cannon like OpenRT to produce shadows, is there?). ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
