I've recently tested the DG-101G which is (I think) the first JSBSim
glider I've been flying in Flightgear. I've noticed a rather strange
issue:
In Local Weather, I added some amount of turbulence around a thermal
proportional to the strength to simulate the fact that a thermal is not a
laminar ri
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 14:45 +0300, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> I've first suspected that something is fishy with the DG-101G, but since
> I've flown all sorts of aircraft through the thermals (as a side note,
> it's really interesting that the F-16 instrumentation allows nicely to
> trace the t
Hi Thorsten,
I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
release, but comments below.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:30 AM,thorsten.i.renk wrote:
>> 2) As it stands, it's very difficult for a new user to understand the
>> difference between Local Weather and Global Weather. let alone h
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:33 AM, wrote:
>> Sounds logical to me ...the double weather systems are a bit of
>> nuisance , would be nicer, in my opinion , if they could be combined
>> in a single dialog but not sure if that's possible.I use real
>> world weather anyway , so i never use those s
> Note that the JSBSim environment model is in the middle of a major
> overhaul so I wouldn't make too much of it at this point. It would be
> more interesting to see how it compares after the rewrite.
>
> Erik
The architecture is, but it should not affect the environment modeling.
Also, the new
On Monday, July 11, 2011 05:37:06 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
> release, but comments below.
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:30 AM,thorsten.i.renk wrote:
> >> 2) As it stands, it's very difficult for a new user to understa
Hi.
I am an undergraduate student from IIT, working on a project where I
have to make some changes to the flightgear code to fly an MAV.
I sucessfully compiled flightgear 0.9.11 (i havent used cvs/svn/git)
in MSVC 2008
on Windows 7
When i try to run the Flightgeard.exe file, i get the message -
Ba
Hi,
>Base package check failed ... Found version [none] at: \FlightGear
> Please upgrade to version: 0.9.11
This indicates that you did not set $FG_ROOT properly. It should point
to your data directory.
> I couldnt get the data zip file of 0.9.11.
> so i used data of 2.0.0 and changed
> Stuart wrote:
>
> 1) Currently there is a wireframe option on the Rendering menu. While
> it's of moderate interest to developers, I don't think it's really of
> any interest to the average user. I'd like to move this option to the
> Debug menu.
The reason I added it is that we got quite some
Le 11/07/2011 14:37, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:37:15 +0200
> From: Melchior FRANZ
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Base Package branch,
> master, updated. 0b8dee0f4611f0e90478f48d58951995fbe87069
> To: flightg
* BARANGER Emmanuel -- Monday 11 July 2011:
> You placed them under the GPL and it's the very principle of this license.
You completely miss the point. This has nothing to do with the license.
It used to be an unwritten law that contributing an aircraft (or other
subsystem) meant to *give*, not to
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:55:09 +0200
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * BARANGER Emmanuel -- Monday 11 July 2011:
> > You placed them under the GPL and it's the very principle of this
> > license.
>
> The license only meant
> that anyone could fork an aircraft, not that everyone could mess with
> the maint
Now I have to clarify: I assume Thorsten just did what he does since
a while: fix bugs. Which is great. He probably either thought the
bo105 is no longer maintained, or didn't know the (now obsolete?)
maintenance principle. But there were certainly no bad intentions.
What I'm more concerned about
Am 11.07.2011 14:47, schrieb Jon S. Berndt:
>> Note that the JSBSim environment model is in the middle of a major
>> overhaul so I wouldn't make too much of it at this point. It would be
>> more interesting to see how it compares after the rewrite.
>>
>> Erik
>
> The architecture is, but it should
Am 11.07.2011 14:37, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
> release, but comments below.
What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind
of unified weather system. It does not really make sense for an average
Hi,
I have a discussion with the current maintainers of the Catalina which
is going completely into the wrong direction.
I think they feel offended by our current feature-freeze state of the
fgdata tree and I fail to explain that to them.
They are French, I am German and we communicate in Englis
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Am 11.07.2011 14:37, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
>> Hi Thorsten,
>>
>> I think we've gone beyond what can be done for the upcoming
>> release, but comments below.
> What I'd really love to see in the mid-to-long-term range is some kind
> of unif
Hi all,
our first phase of the release progress will end this Sunday with the
creation of the release branch.
Because pilots are unable to perform tasks with more than one step
without having a checklist, I have created one for the branching process at
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Relea
Am 11.07.2011 22:05, schrieb Stuart Buchanan:
> [For a moment I thought this post was from Thorsten Renk, and got _really_
> worried ;) ]
Hehe - apologies for having so many T(h)orstens around here. The parents
of the mid 60s were not very creative with names...
>
> Do you see this as a problem wi
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> To make sure, our streams are in a consistent state when I create and
> tag the branches, please make sure not to push _any_ commits to simgear,
> flightgear and fgdata after Sunday, July 17th 2011 08:00 UTC until
> further advice ( hi Gene :-) ).
Luck
Le 11/07/2011 21:07, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
> Message: 9 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:55:09 +0200 From: Melchior FRANZ
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel
> Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5 To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Message-ID:
> <201107111955.11
Hey Guys,
The era of respect is only over if people choose to abandon it. I think we
can all hope for something better than that.
Let me summarize how things generally have worked and (I believe) should
work.
An author of an aircraft (or a section of code) generally enjoys a certain
level of ow
On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:05:07 AM BARANGER Emmanuel wrote:
> have you tested the script of Pierre NEGRE ? :
> http://rene16.dyndns.org/run/ (import/export .AC for Blender 2.58)
Where can this be found? The web page is in French (I think) and I don't find
any links to the AC3D plug-in. I thou
23 matches
Mail list logo
