On Sunday 11 February 2007 09:02, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
On Sunday 11 February 2007 02:14, leee wrote:
I thought I'd give it another go, with debug on the pitch-hold controller
and waddya know - this time the pitch hold worked and the alt hold
failed.
Ok - so I set debugging on all
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:41 -0500, John Denker wrote:
On 02/11/2007 11:29 PM, Dave Perry wrote:
By the way, I agree that the current algorithm in altimeter.cxx is
wrong. This evening, I had time to look at your posted patch and I
think it would give the right hi.
It is, for now,
I'd have to go check exact property names, but you can set the lon/lat/elev
of the tower view to anything you like, then placing the tower vantage point
anywhere you want.
A 3d modeller could create a little flat rendition of their R/C model field
as a single object (or collection of objects)
On 2/12/07, Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd have to go check exact property names, but you can set the
lon/lat/elev of the tower view to anything you like, then place the tower
vantage point anywhere you want.
A 3d modeller could create a little flat rendition of their R/C model
* Phil Cazzola -- Sunday 11 February 2007:
Is there a reason that the Model Manager adds models to the root
of the scene graph instead of the models branch?
I assume that there was no model branch at all when this was
originally written by David(?). The model branch sounds like
the obvious
Hi,
Curtis has already hinted as to how the following may be done with his
remote FDM.
To my mind flightgear can be broken down into distinct plugin
modules. There is the FDM, the external world visualisation,the
cockpit input and output (ie joystick,pedals,switches and displays) and
possibly
On Monday 12 February 2007 17:54, Jim Campbell wrote:
Hi,
Curtis has already hinted as to how the following may be done with his
remote FDM.
To my mind flightgear can be broken down into distinct plugin
modules. There is the FDM, the external world visualisation,the
cockpit input and output
Hi,
I'm about to commit an F-18 newly created by Fabrice Kauffmann. I haven't
had a chance to setup a PLIB branch here and only have the OSG head. If I
commit this to the OSG branch, would someone out there be willing to do the
honors of committing it to the plib branch?
Thanks,
Curt.
--
leee wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 17:54, Jim Campbell wrote:
Hi,
Curtis has already hinted as to how the following may be done with his
remote FDM.
To my mind flightgear can be broken down into distinct plugin
modules. There is the FDM, the external world visualisation,the
cockpit input
Consider the following results of an experiment using fgfs:
alt: 662 mM: 0.0288 P: 99000.8462 T: 286.8563 rho: 1.1975
alt: 3462 mM: 0.0288 P: 89341.6721 T: 281.3920 rho: 1.1009
alt: 662 mM: 0.0289 P: 99000.8422 T: 256.9910 rho: 1.3404
alt: 3462 mM: 0.0289 P: 89341.6740
On Monday 12 February 2007 14:10, Curtis Olson wrote:
snip
Otherwise you are probably going to be wrestling with a complete
reachitecting of the entire FlightGear structure. Things like the property
system work great in a single thread application, but start to break down
when you split
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:33 -0500, John Denker wrote:
Overnight I thought of a non-disgusting way to optimize
the code. A new, muuuch better patch is now at:
http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/altimeter.diff
The new patch gets the right answer without calling any
transcendental functions.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 17:24 -0700, Dave Perry wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:33 -0500, John Denker wrote:
Overnight I thought of a non-disgusting way to optimize
the code. A new, muuuch better patch is now at:
http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/altimeter.diff
The new patch gets the
On 02/12/2007 07:24 PM, Dave Perry wrote:
This looks really slick,
:-)
... why is this patch good above the troposphere ( 100,000 ft.)? It
should give the same answer as the last patch, only much more
efficiently.
The tabulated numbers come from a three-layer model, namely
layers 0
I have made some more improvements to my 787 model.
http://www.golffoxtrotsierra.741.com/787.zip
Flash feature added from the CanberraBI8.
Landing gear bays less visible from a distance.
TriangleIntersect error addressed.
Hi John,
Thanks for answering my questions. I did not realize the interpolation
table was for the first three layers.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 21:18 -0500, John Denker wrote:
The tabulated numbers come from a three-layer model, namely
layers 0 through 2 as defined in the table at the front
While attempting to tryout latest 787 updates, I get this sample of
output errors during program initialization:
===
.
.
.
called from: tth_filter, line 90
called from: tth_filter, line 90
called from: tth_filter, line 90
called from: tth_filter, line 90
called from: tth_filter, line 90
On 02/13/2007 12:11 AM, Dave Perry wrote:
I can see how you generate a table that gives PA and C(s) for
layers with nonzero lapse rate. I assume you use equation (8) solved
for h to generate the table when lamda = 0.
Yes, equation 8, but I don't even need to solve for h.
That's the
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 14:10, Curtis Olson wrote:
Otherwise you are probably going to be wrestling with a complete
reachitecting of the entire FlightGear structure. Things like the property
system work great in a single thread application, but start to break
19 matches
Mail list logo
