[Flightgear-users] Adding Airports
Hello ,,, I was having troubles adding airports into flightgear under windows XP. I don't care about scenery, I just want the gps/route-mngr to be able to see it for waypoints... I need to setup a flight course around KIAD, so I added 4 ports, listed below. However, flightgear doesn't see them... I made sure I have the right file in airport folder as well :) ... Any ideas??? I didn't update any other file at this time, and lines 50 - 56 were added to see if the data made a diffence in getting it listed, but it did not :( Thanks ... Craig 1313 0 0 KONE Wash001 10 39.056475 -077.355950 01L0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13001 ATIS 51 12001 UNICOM 52 13001 CLNC DEL 52 13011 CLNC DEL 53 12001 GND 53 12011 GND 53 13011 GND 54 12110 TWR 54 12111 TWR 54 12801 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP 1313 0 0 KTWO Wash002 10 39.056475 -077.599250 01L 0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13002 ATIS 51 12295 UNICOM 52 13002 CLNC DEL 52 13502 CLNC DEL 53 12192 GND 53 12582 GND 53 13242 GND 54 12012 TWR 54 12582 TWR 54 12802 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP 1313 0 0 KTER Wash003 10 38.866350 -077.599250 01L 0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13003 ATIS 51 12295 UNICOM 52 13003 CLNC DEL 52 13503 CLNC DEL 53 12193 GND 53 12583 GND 53 13243 GND 54 12013 TWR 54 12583 TWR 54 12803 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP 1313 0 0 KFOR Wash004 10 39.866350 -077.355950 01L 0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13004 ATIS 51 12295 UNICOM 52 13004 CLNC DEL 52 13504 CLNC DEL 53 12194 GND 53 12584 GND 53 13244 GND 54 12014 TWR 54 12584 TWR 54 12804 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of T J Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 1:09 AM To: flightgear-users@flightgear.org Subject: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation I have the Let 410 Source Code and Aircraft Files Downloaded. I have extracted the aircraft files to the FlightGear Aircraft Folder. What do I do next? The instructions say to extract to Source Code Where is this (what folder?) I also dont't understand how to do this: Unpack the source code patch into your FG source directory. Some of the old files will be overwritten, some files will be added. Then rebuild FG by using commands ./configure make make install Could somebody please send me step by step instructions on how to do this and install the Let 410 aircraft. Many thanks. _ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] Adding Airports
Ha... It appears to be working now :) ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig E. Staples Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 3:35 AM To: 'FlightGear user discussions' Subject: [Flightgear-users] Adding Airports Hello ,,, I was having troubles adding airports into flightgear under windows XP. I don't care about scenery, I just want the gps/route-mngr to be able to see it for waypoints... I need to setup a flight course around KIAD, so I added 4 ports, listed below. However, flightgear doesn't see them... I made sure I have the right file in airport folder as well :) ... Any ideas??? I didn't update any other file at this time, and lines 50 - 56 were added to see if the data made a diffence in getting it listed, but it did not :( Thanks ... Craig 1313 0 0 KONE Wash001 10 39.056475 -077.355950 01L0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13001 ATIS 51 12001 UNICOM 52 13001 CLNC DEL 52 13011 CLNC DEL 53 12001 GND 53 12011 GND 53 13011 GND 54 12110 TWR 54 12111 TWR 54 12801 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP 1313 0 0 KTWO Wash002 10 39.056475 -077.599250 01L 0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13002 ATIS 51 12295 UNICOM 52 13002 CLNC DEL 52 13502 CLNC DEL 53 12192 GND 53 12582 GND 53 13242 GND 54 12012 TWR 54 12582 TWR 54 12802 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP 1313 0 0 KTER Wash003 10 38.866350 -077.599250 01L 0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13003 ATIS 51 12295 UNICOM 52 13003 CLNC DEL 52 13503 CLNC DEL 53 12193 GND 53 12583 GND 53 13243 GND 54 12013 TWR 54 12583 TWR 54 12803 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP 1313 0 0 KFOR Wash004 10 39.866350 -077.355950 01L 0.65 115110.0. 150 352355 02 0 3 0.25 1 50 13004 ATIS 51 12295 UNICOM 52 13004 CLNC DEL 52 13504 CLNC DEL 53 12194 GND 53 12584 GND 53 13244 GND 54 12014 TWR 54 12584 TWR 54 12804 TWR 55 12045 POTOMAC APP 55 12465 POTOMAC APP 55 12610 POTOMAC APP 56 12505 POTOMAC DEP 56 12665 POTOMAC DEP -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of T J Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 1:09 AM To: flightgear-users@flightgear.org Subject: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation I have the Let 410 Source Code and Aircraft Files Downloaded. I have extracted the aircraft files to the FlightGear Aircraft Folder. What do I do next? The instructions say to extract to Source Code Where is this (what folder?) I also dont't understand how to do this: Unpack the source code patch into your FG source directory. Some of the old files will be overwritten, some files will be added. Then rebuild FG by using commands ./configure make make install Could somebody please send me step by step instructions on how to do this and install the Let 410 aircraft. Many thanks. _ Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] Re: Compiling OpenAL under CygWin for Windows
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AJ MacLeod Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:38 PM To: FlightGear user discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Compiling OpenAL under CygWin for Windows On Thursday 03 November 2005 23:23, Bill Galbraith wrote: I tried to download this, but no permissions to do that. Can someone correct that? Sorry about that - I thought I'd sorted the permissions earlier, but obviously not. Should be fine now, shout at me if not... Cheers, AJ Thanks AJ. I d/l'ed it and was able to get it opened, although I already had Cygwin installed, and knew how to untar something. You might think about zipping it so that the average mouth-breather can open it and read it. Haven't had a chance to try it out, but I'll let you know if there are any suggested changes to your document. Have a great weekend. Bill ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 16:45 +1030, George Patterson a écrit : On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 19:08 +1300, T J wrote: I have the Let 410 Source Code and Aircraft Files Downloaded. I have extracted the aircraft files to the FlightGear Aircraft Folder. What do I do next? The instructions say to extract to Source Code Where is this (what folder?) I also dont't understand how to do this: Unpack the source code patch into your FG source directory. Some of the old files will be overwritten, some files will be added. Then rebuild FG by using commands ./configure make make install Could somebody please send me step by step instructions on how to do this and install the Let 410 aircraft. Many thanks. TJ, (Or whatever you name is) What about helping yourself? Given it is not a standard aircraft, give us a few details. Which version of Flightgear are you running? Which platform? As Shelton said yesterday to your original email on this subject, What is the Let 410 aircraft and where did you download it from? A web address would be helpful. :-) George Hi, George TJ is talking about the L410 coming from http://javky.rozhled.cz/ I gave an an answer to Shelton about it. Sheers -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Compiling OpenAL under CygWin for Windows
On Friday 04 November 2005 12:03, Bill Galbraith wrote: Thanks AJ. I d/l'ed it and was able to get it opened, although I already had Cygwin installed, and knew how to untar something. You might think about zipping it so that the average mouth-breather can open it and read it. Glad you got it (eventually!) I can easily repackage it, but I should reiterate that none of it is my work - all credit belongs to Kevin Jones... Haven't had a chance to try it out, but I'll let you know if there are any suggested changes to your document. Please do - you can either reply here or send suggestions direct to Kevin who is subscribed and has posted to this list... Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation
Hi Gerard Can you please explain again cause I could not make head or tail with your explanation. Thanks! Shelton. Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 16:45 +1030, George Patterson a écrit : On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 19:08 +1300, T J wrote: I have the Let 410 Source Code and Aircraft Files Downloaded. I have extracted the aircraft files to the FlightGear Aircraft Folder. What do I do next? The instructions say to extract to Source Code Where is this (what folder?) I also dont't understand how to do this: Unpack the source code patch into your FG source directory. Some of the old files will be overwritten, some files will be added. Then rebuild FG by using commands ./configure make make install Could somebody please send me step by step instructions on how to do this and install the Let 410 aircraft. Many thanks. TJ, (Or whatever you name is) What about helping yourself? Given it is not a standard aircraft, give us a few details. Which version of Flightgear are you running? Which platform? As Shelton said yesterday to your original email on this subject, What is the Let 410 aircraft and where did you download it from? A web address would be helpful. :-) George Hi, George TJ is talking about the L410 coming from http://javky.rozhled.cz/ I gave an an answer to Shelton about it. Sheers ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Regards Shelton. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Hi, Shelton: It's true that some of the aircraft are not well shaken-down. I'm heads-down in serious coding, and have been for months. JSBSim is undergoing a major upgrade. One of the things I really want to do when that settles down is to evaluate our aircraft models and refine or cull the ones that don't fly well. Feedback from users is valuable. What really helps the project, though, is more specific information about what is wrong with a plane. Is it documentation? What seems wrong about an aircraft? If you could take a few moments to fill in some details, that would be a valuable contribution to our efforts. Thanks! Jon Berndt Development Coordinator JSBSim Project ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Friday 04 November 2005 06:32 am, Shelton D'Cruz wrote: .. and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! A bit picky, aren't we? Let me know what your minimum requirements are and I'll put some more hours in. Be a part of the solution. Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! I think it depends on what sort of thing you prefer to fly. Are you interested in GA, Airliner, historic, or military flying? Personally, I'm generally interested in flying GA, with the occassional foray into military jets, so having a Cessna 150, 172 and 182 is great. Many of the military and historical planes are very high quality. The Spitfire is fascinating. I don't have much experience with the airliners, but the Concorde model is very good - with moving nose etc. However I think there is an issue that there are a large number of not-quite-perfect aircraft which can detract from the exceedingly high quality levels elsewhere. Many of them are no-longer in active development, and what they really need is a bit of extra polish - improving the panels/textures, fixing the minor bugs to bring them up to date with the capabilities of the latest level of FG. I'm currently working on improving the C182 so it is up to the same standard as the 152 and 172, and apart from everything else, it is giving me a great insight into the internals of FlightGear. -Stuart ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Friday 04 November 2005 12:32, Shelton D'Cruz wrote: The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? No, not really. You've not mentioned the Beaver, Hunter, Seahawk, Spitfire, Seafire, Hurricane, P51 and who knows how many others. Complaining that aircraft are mostly incomplete is not in the least bit helpful - if you think one of the FG planes is missing something (which, granted plenty of them are) then you are free to do something about it, like creating instruments or whatever for them. That's the _whole point_ of open source software - if you want to improve something, all you need to do so is there waiting for you. Yes, it requires a bit of effort - a lot, even. But if other people hadn't spent countless hours of their time putting in that effort, you wouldn't have anything to fly at all. Have a good look at the way these planes are put together - read the documentation which comes with FG, get yourself a copy of the Gimp, AC3D or Blender and enjoy the satisfaction of providing whatever you think is lacking in these planes... And pity the Citation - which is possessed. OK, there's a problem when flying overspeed with the Citation. Nothing is stopping you from putting together an alternative FDM using say JSBSim... I do mean all this in the most constructive of ways - your attitude is very common amongst people who are just starting to dabble with open source stuff, and I honestly hope that you get stuck in and help out. Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Joystick setup Question
On Friday 04 November 2005 01:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use jscal to configure my joystick everytime I want to play FG. Now is there a way to save these settings so that FG picks up the settings whenever it starts up? Like in a config file or as command run parameters? If you mean that you have an analogue stick and therefore have to calibrate it before using FG, this might help (Andy Ross' words from a previous post) So you do jscal -c /dev/js0 to calibrate your stick. Then jscal -p /dev/js0 calibrate-stick.sh to create a shell script that you can use to re-do the calibration in the future. Then, after the next reboot or whenever, sh calibrate-stick.sh to reproduce the calibration. Myself, I just calibrate my rudder pedals after every boot, it only takes a couple of seconds and fills in the time spent waiting for FG to start :-) AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Buchanan, Stuart wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! I think it depends on what sort of thing you prefer to fly. Are you interested in GA, Airliner, historic, or military flying? Personally, I'm generally interested in flying GA, with the occassional foray into military jets, so having a Cessna 150, 172 and 182 is great. Many of the military and historical planes are very high quality. The Spitfire is fascinating. I don't have much experience with the airliners, but the Concorde model is very good - with moving nose etc. However I think there is an issue that there are a large number of not-quite-perfect aircraft which can detract from the exceedingly high quality levels elsewhere. Many of them are no-longer in active development, and what they really need is a bit of extra polish - improving the panels/textures, fixing the minor bugs to bring them up to date with the capabilities of the latest level of FG. I'm currently working on improving the C182 so it is up to the same standard as the 152 and 172, and apart from everything else, it is giving me a great insight into the internals of FlightGear. -Stuart ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Perhaps we should track each aircraft's maintainer and more importantly, whether they are active or planning to be active with that AC soon. I think if we did that it would encourage people to step in and adopt planes. Even if a maintainer doesn't have a huge amount of extra time, they could still be an advocate and coordinate the work of other people on that AC. As it is now, I think there may be a reluctance to step on people's toes, so instead of finishing off an existing plane, people go out and start a new one which may or may not get completed. Meanwhile, planes that are in need of completion or updating to take advantage of new features become hangar queens. Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Josh PS, I'm still working on the B29 and Canberra, but having trouble getting FG to compile and run right. As soon as that happens I can make the final sprint to a v1.0 B29. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Friday 04 November 2005 07:29 am, Josh Babcock wrote: Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Ditch? This means they get kicked out of the FG hangar? Who decides? Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Josh wrote Perhaps we should track each aircraft's maintainer and more importantly, whether they are active or planning to be active with that AC soon. I think if we did that it would encourage people to step in and adopt planes. Even if a maintainer doesn't have a huge amount of extra time, they could still be an advocate and coordinate the work of other people on that AC. As it is now, I think there may be a reluctance to step on people's toes, so instead of finishing off an existing plane, people go out and start a new one which may or may not get completed. Meanwhile, planes that are in need of completion or updating to take advantage of new features become hangar queens. Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Josh PS, I'm still working on the B29 and Canberra, but having trouble getting FG to compile and run right. As soon as that happens I can make the final sprint to a v1.0 B29. Thanks for your efforts on these planes. I enjoyed having a circuit or two in the B-29 last night. Not the easiest beast to handle but I think it will be fun when complete. Problems I noticed included: the nose wheel retracts but the main gear stays down ground handling was unpredictable - sometimes no matter what I tried it would just go round clockwise like only the port engines were running - other times it was fine - diff braking helped but only slightly props don't turn - so I couldn't visually check which engines were running - all gauges and throttle positions seemed to suggest I had all 4 OK though. I havent much experience at this but if there is any help I can offer, please say. Regards Willie Fleming ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Dave Culp wrote: On Friday 04 November 2005 07:29 am, Josh Babcock wrote: Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Ditch? This means they get kicked out of the FG hangar? Who decides? Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d I guess we take a vote. Hadn't thought about that. Point is, they only go if they are unwanted. I'm not talking about taking away stuff that people want. Besides, I also still believe that stuff should never be taken out of CVS, maybe put into another tree to make it easier to not check it out with the rest of base, but still keep it around. I was talking in the context of the release packages. Maybe I misunderstood the original discussion. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:30 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : Hi Gerard Can you please explain again cause I could not make head or tail with your explanation. Thanks! Shelton. Sorry , i cannot tell more. You just need 1/ to download the right files ( i told you how to access and to choose) 2/ to patch FG source And .3/.to rebuild FG which will be dedicated to L410 only L410. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Friday 04 November 2005 07:54 am, Josh Babcock wrote: I guess we take a vote. Hadn't thought about that. Point is, they only go if they are unwanted. I'm not talking about taking away stuff that people want. OK. This sounds more like a poll. If anybody wants it, it stays. Besides, I also still believe that stuff should never be taken out of CVS, maybe put into another tree to make it easier to not check it out with the rest of base, but still keep it around. I was under the impression that this was already a goal of FG? The release would contain a few airplanes and all the rest would be available at the FG hangar. This will keep the gripes to a minimum, but I'm sure we'll still get some. Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation
Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:30 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : Hi Gerard Can you please explain again cause I could not make head or tail with your explanation. Thanks! Shelton. Sorry , i cannot tell more. You just need 1/ to download the right files ( i told you how to access and to choose) 2/ to patch FG source And .3/.to rebuild FG which will be dedicated to L410 only L410. If you aren't setup to build FlightGear v0.9.8 from source code, you won't be able to try the L410 right now. Curt -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:32 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Regards Shelton. Hi Shelton, Do you known the time spent by the authors to build the aircrafts, Being a user from the old times i could discover the progress on each a/c, i cannot give a specific good example without any risk to disappoint the others. If you are able to fly and to explain the characteristics of each one, so you are able to make one from yourself. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 15:11 +0100, Gerard ROBIN a écrit : Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:32 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Regards Shelton. Hi Shelton, Do you known the time spent by the authors to build the aircrafts, Being a user from the old times i could discover the progress on each a/c, i cannot give a specific good example without any risk to disappoint the others. If you are able to fly and to explain the characteristics of each one, so you are able to make one from yourself. In addition to: don't forget = FG is not a game Every a/c could be flyable in a MSFS standard, The target is to be as close as possible to the reality. Each author try to find the REAL characteristics, data, it takes time. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 08:54 -0500, Josh Babcock a écrit : Dave Culp wrote: On Friday 04 November 2005 07:29 am, Josh Babcock wrote: Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Ditch? This means they get kicked out of the FG hangar? Who decides? Dave I guess we take a vote. Hadn't thought about that. Point is, they only go if they are unwanted. I'm not talking about taking away stuff that people want. Besides, I also still believe that stuff should never be taken out of CVS, maybe put into another tree to make it easier to not check it out with the rest of base, but still keep it around. I was talking in the context of the release packages. Maybe I misunderstood the original discussion. Josh Hi Josh, I do not fully agree with your idea (about vote) , each a/c is the result of a specific work, each one has his own place in FG, from the most funny to the most serious. The variety makes the advantage. I remember an old A/C with a Tux piloting, i worry it has vanished from FG. When you are talking about stuff what do you mean? Do you mean that FG team must define a standard with a specific minimum to be done, to be acceptable? do you mean a jury must decide if that a/c is good or not? where is freedom? The quality of FG is coming from the FDM, as far as i know every existing a/c are correctly defined. Cheers -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Newbie qiestion/problem Please help!
I've installed several times Flight-Gear on AMD Duron 1600 / 512Mb DDR on Windows XP. The video card is Geforce 2 mx400 / 128Mb . The launcher works ok (the images have good rendering aspect 15fps) BUT the program fgfs is almost blocked from the start. The image change once at every 5-7 seconds. The same abou the maneu . if I move/click over the menu ,for example ,the event is processed after 6 seconds!!! What could be the reason for this extremely low performance?! I tried to start fgfs from command line , with no option , the same thing happens (low performance in event processing and rendering (1 frame /6 seconds)), with the default properties of course. Please help. TIA nick PS I intend the next step to compile the program and to create local maps. But I need first to start it working !!! _ Test your Internet Connection with As.Ro Speed Test High website revenue with just a simple Search Box ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: FlightGear CVS/Cygwin Install personnal offer
Georg Vollnhals wrote: Georg, come back to our time ASAP. It's still 2005 over here and we need all the time we can get. Thank you very much Erik - I really need *every* day of 2005 (if you knew my age it would be clear for you why ) but I'm actually sharing my PC with my son and in his age (13 years) time does not run fast enough! :-) Ok, now back in old 2005! Welcome back, how was 2006 like ;-) (Never mind, it would spoil the surprise) Erik ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: Helicopters in Flight Gear
* Georg Vollnhals -- Sunday 29 October 2006 01:31: 1. If *Melchior Franz* would like to create the very essential instruments like torque, N1/N2, TOT (turbine outlet temperature), fuel-pump switches (very essential for the BO105!) and (if possible) throttle levers (with starter buttons?) ... etc That's, of course, on my TODO list, along with textures, controls, animated (co)pilot, higher-poly interior. But as long as YASim's helicopter is basically just magic rotors that aren't driven by engines, further gauges are merely decorative, and thus don't have higher priority than animated crew. I'm also still waiting for usable SVG tools that are capable of rendering my already done instrument faces. (Inkscape 0.42.2 isn't.) m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Newbie qiestion/problem Please help!
On Friday 04 November 2005 15:25, nick c wrote: What could be the reason for this extremely low performance?! I tried to start fgfs from command line , with no option , the same thing happens (low performance in event processing and rendering (1 frame /6 seconds)), with the default properties of course. Make sure you have the latest drivers from the Nvidia website... there was a bug in some versions of the nvidia drivers which meant that runway lightning brought FG to a virtual standstill (even during the day). The latest nvidia drivers should work OK. Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Shelton D'Cruz wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! The B1900 is a Beechcraft, not a Cessna, and a twin engine commuter turboprop. Even interpreting cessna as a single engine light aircraft, the 1900 ain't. And I'm on record that the most fun, most instructive time I've had with FlightGear is practicing STOL techniques with the Harrier -- an aircraft with no 3D model nor cockpit. I guess I wasn't flying then. Thanks for setting me straight. Help or go home, basically. If you want eye candy and polish over fixability and variety, stay with MSFS. Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
The variety makes the advantage. I remember an old A/C with a Tux piloting, i worry it has vanished from FG. When you are talking about stuff what do you mean? Do you mean that FG team must define a standard with a specific minimum to be done, to be acceptable? do you mean a jury must decide if that a/c is good or not? where is freedom? The quality of FG is coming from the FDM, as far as i know every existing a/c are correctly defined. I think the aircraft are found in three different locations with different audience and expectations. 1) The standard aircraft distributed with a release. New users will immediately judge the quality of FG based on these and the default scenery. These really should be very high quality, while showing off the variety of simulations FG is capable of. I think should reduce the number of variants delivered as well. We really only need one C172 in the distribution. 2) The aircraft on the hangar page on the website. The current version and status information doesn't really seem adequate to set the expectations of new users, hence the complaints. Maybe we need to have two pages - one for production quality and one for in development? 3) CVS aircraft. I don't see any need to retire aircraft from this. Anyone compiling from CVS should be savvy enough to realize that some aircraft are going to be in better state than others. Obviously I should put my money where my mouth is. So, if we can come to a concensous on which aircraft will be in the default package of the v0.9.9 release, I'll pitch in and polish some up, adding text to the help section etc. -Stuart ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 07:38 -0800, Andy Ross a écrit : Shelton D'Cruz wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! The B1900 is a Beechcraft, not a Cessna, and a twin engine commuter turboprop. Even interpreting cessna as a single engine light aircraft, the 1900 ain't. And I'm on record that the most fun, most instructive time I've had with FlightGear is practicing STOL techniques with the Harrier -- an aircraft with no 3D model nor cockpit. I guess I wasn't flying then. Thanks for setting me straight. Help or go home, basically. If you want eye candy and polish over fixability and variety, stay with MSFS. Andy Hi Andy, I never told you precisely, so i do. Your work about Harrier was useful for me, in a private use i have converted a high detailed msfs model harrier GR7 so i do use your fdm. This an exemple where every a/c work is useful and must be delivered officially (not stored in a CVS tree only). -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
After loading up everything available in CVS there are a lot of flyable things available to play with in many different states of completion. I would suggest rather than ditching any of the current models, regardless of state, that a better organization of the existing models would be more useful. I built my self a tree within the Aircraft folder. In the Aircraft folder I leave the models I'm currently interested in using. That way they show up in the Windows launcher and it is not cluttered with 100's of IMHO unneeded items. I defined the following categories of aircraft. Fantasy - Santa, UFO etc Experimental - X-15, YF-23 etc GA- Citation, C-182 etc Gliders Commercial - 737, DC-3, etc Pre WWII Wright Flyer, Sopwith Camel, etc WWII - P-51, Spitfire, etc Post WWI - B-52, F-16 etc Most of the -set XML files have a Status from the author although I don;t know if there is a "standard" definition of the status's. A standard definition would also be useful. As far as the Base package I think it has a relatively small number of reasonably complete aircraft doesn't it? Ray Mc ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] How to modify ground textures in FlightGear ?
Hi, I'd like to know how I can modify the ground textures in FlightGear. Is there a good tutorial ? Regards, Damien. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] OH damien don't format your mail with animation
No animations please be simple. Thanks -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
I have started a page for each aircraft on the wiki http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/flight_gear/aircraft_wishlist.cfm where folks can leave comments on their favourite aircraft-models. I've phrased it thusly, though, being a wiki, please change it if you have better ideas :-) Aircraft-model titlethumbnail link to airliners.net Categories: Version: FDM: Status: Author/Maintainer: Features: To do: Help wanted? Yes please /No thanks==This bit is for the use of the author/maintainer only please. Please give your comments on this aircraft below. Please indicate if you think it is * just great - needs no further development * shows promise but needs further development - please be specific and say if you are willing to help * just needs a little tweaking - please be specific and say if you are willing to help * 'hanger queen' - stays in CVS but shouldn't be part of a release Im working through it now, starting to fill in the blanks, and weed out the aliases, though I think I'll be deleting the link to airliners.net and finding photos elsewhere. Is it OK to link the wiki to the thumbnails on the download page BTW? Please feel free to dive in and fill in info, links screenshots and comments. Hopefully after a week or so we'll get a feel for which aircraft are most popular and hopefully find more effort to finish some that are already started. Categories, I'm going to shamelessly steal from Ray Mc. Fantasy - Santa, UFO etc Experimental - X-15, YF-23 etc GA - Citation, C-182 etc Gliders Commercial - 737, DC-3, etc Pre WWII Wright Flyer, Sopwith Camel, etc WWII - P-51, Spitfire, etc Post WWI - B-52, F-16 etc Cheers Willie Fleming ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] OpenGL/Windows Knoppix
This is sent from Knoppix! The Toshiba: It would not find the image. What other numbers are there? The PC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] glxinfo name of display: :0.0 Xlib: extension XFree86-DRI missing on display :0.0. display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: No server glx vendor string: SGI server glx version string: 1.2 server glx extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context client glx vendor string: SGI client glx version string: 1.2 client glx extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context GLX extensions: GLX_EXT_visual_info, GLX_EXT_visual_rating, GLX_EXT_import_context OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 4.0.4 OpenGL extensions: GL_ARB_imaging, GL_ARB_multitexture, GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp, GL_ARB_texture_cube_map, GL_ARB_texture_env_add, GL_ARB_texture_env_combine, GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3, GL_ARB_transpose_matrix, GL_EXT_abgr, GL_EXT_blend_color, GL_EXT_blend_minmax, GL_EXT_blend_subtract, GL_EXT_texture_env_add, GL_EXT_texture_env_combine, GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3, GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias glu version: 1.3 glu extensions: GLU_EXT_nurbs_tessellator, GLU_EXT_object_space_tess visual x bf lv rg d st colorbuffer ax dp st accumbuffer ms cav id dep cl sp sz l ci b ro r g b a bf th cl r g b a ns b eat -- 0x22 16 tc 1 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None 0x23 16 tc 1 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 0 0 16 8 16 16 16 0 0 0 None [EMAIL PROTECTED] lspci :00:00.0 Host bridge: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 5950 :00:02.0 PCI bridge: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 5a34 :00:11.0 IDE interface: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 437a :00:12.0 IDE interface: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4379 :00:13.0 USB Controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4374 :00:13.1 USB Controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4375 :00:13.2 USB Controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4373 :00:14.0 SMBus: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4372 (rev 04) :00:14.1 IDE interface: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4376 :00:14.3 ISA bridge: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4377 :00:14.4 PCI bridge: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4371 :00:14.5 Multimedia audio controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 4370 :00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 NorthBridge :00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 NorthBridge :00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 NorthBridge :00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 NorthBridge :01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 5b60 :01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 5b70 :02:01.0 Communication controller: Lucent Microelectronics V.92 56K WinModem (rev 03) :02:03.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8139/8139C/8139C+ (rev 10) :02:04.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): VIA Technologies, Inc. IEEE 1394 Host Controller (rev 80) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 16 tc 1 16 0 r y . 5 6 5 8 0 16 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None 0x25 16 tc 1 16 0 r . . 5 6 5 8 0 16 8 16 16 16 16 0 0 None [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vendor: Generic Model: USB MS Reader Rev: 1.03 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 00 Attached scsi removable disk sde at scsi4, channel 0, id 0, lun 3 usb-storage: device scan complete ISO 9660 Extensions: Microsoft Joliet Level 3 ISO 9660 Extensions: RRIP_1991A cloop: Initializing cloop v2.02 cloop: loaded (max 8 devices) cloop: /cdrom/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX: 30344 blocks, 65536 bytes/block, largest block is 65552 bytes. ISO 9660 Extensions: RRIP_1991A Registering unionfs 20050921-1517 Freeing unused kernel memory: 296k freed Real Time Clock Driver v1.12 ACPI: Power Button (FF) [PWRF] ACPI: Processor [CPU0] (supports 8 throttling states) Linux Kernel Card Services options: [pci] [cardbus] [pm] usbcore: registered new driver hiddev usbcore: registered new driver usbhid drivers/usb/input/hid-core.c: v2.01:USB HID core driver Serial: 8250/16550 driver $Revision: 1.90 $ 14 ports, IRQ sharing disabled parport: PnPBIOS parport detected. parport0: PC-style at 0x378, irq 7 [PCSPP,EPP] 8139too Fast Ethernet driver 0.9.27 ACPI: PCI Interrupt :02:03.0[A] - GSI 20 (level, low) - IRQ 20 eth0: RealTek RTL8139 at 0xe0cfa000, 00:11:09:08:75:a4, IRQ 20 eth0: Identified 8139 chip type 'RTL-8100B/8139D' ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:14.5[B] - GSI 17 (level, low) - IRQ 17 NTFS driver 2.1.22 [Flags: R/W MODULE]. NTFS volume version 3.1. eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x45E1 NET: Registered protocol family 17 eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x45E1 Linux agpgart interface v0.101 (c) Dave Jones apm: BIOS version 1.2
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:47:37 + (GMT), Buchanan, wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The variety makes the advantage. I remember an old A/C with a Tux piloting, i worry it has vanished from FG. When you are talking about stuff what do you mean? Do you mean that FG team must define a standard with a specific minimum to be done, to be acceptable? do you mean a jury must decide if that a/c is good or not? where is freedom? The quality of FG is coming from the FDM, as far as i know every existing a/c are correctly defined. I think the aircraft are found in three different locations with different audience and expectations. 1) The standard aircraft distributed with a release. New users will immediately judge the quality of FG based on these and the default scenery. These really should be very high quality, while showing off the variety of simulations FG is capable of. I think should reduce the number of variants delivered as well. We really only need one C172 in the distribution. ..maybe. The C172 is well modelled and known etc for anything but sex appeal. ;o) 2) The aircraft on the hangar page on the website. The current version and status information doesn't really seem adequate to set the expectations of new users, hence the complaints. Maybe we need to have two pages - one for production quality and one for in development? ..here we can allow non-GPL plane links in a non-GPL hangar page, using the ugly P word, and those non-GPL guys stick in all the litigation prep work into each of all their planes, with an ugly big ass I accept all the contractual terms button to scare sane people home into GPL planes. 3) CVS aircraft. I don't see any need to retire aircraft from this. Anyone compiling from CVS should be savvy enough to realize that some aircraft are going to be in better state than others. ..these will have to be compatible with the GPL, or come from their own repository. Obviously I should put my money where my mouth is. So, if we can come to a concensous on which aircraft will be in the default package of the v0.9.9 release, I'll pitch in and polish some up, adding text to the help section etc. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:51:07 +0100, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 07:38 -0800, Andy Ross a écrit : Shelton D'Cruz wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! The B1900 is a Beechcraft, not a Cessna, and a twin engine commuter turboprop. Even interpreting cessna as a single engine light aircraft, the 1900 ain't. And I'm on record that the most fun, most instructive time I've had with FlightGear is practicing STOL techniques with the Harrier -- an aircraft with no 3D model nor cockpit. I guess I wasn't flying then. Thanks for setting me straight. Help or go home, basically. If you want eye candy and polish over fixability and variety, stay with MSFS. Andy Hi Andy, I never told you precisely, so i do. Your work about Harrier was useful for me, in a private use i have converted a high detailed msfs model harrier GR7 so i do use your fdm. This an exemple where every a/c work is useful and must be delivered officially (not stored in a CVS tree only). .._only_ under each works own license. My understanding is Microsoft's litigation policy and our GPL and our financial resources are not all that compatible. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Ok Guys I am going to test each aircraft and write down what is inadequate with that particular aircraft - from this I will put it in a HTML table format and will get it uploaded somewhere so everyone can see whats wrong with them and hence what needs to be done. So send me feedback with what you think is not right with the aircrafts you fly and I will compile them in a HTML document and upload it. Regards Shelton. On Friday 04 November 2005 06:32 am, Shelton D'Cruz wrote: .. and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! A bit picky, aren't we? Let me know what your minimum requirements are and I'll put some more hours in. Be a part of the solution. Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:48 +0100, Arnt Karlsen a écrit : Your work about Harrier was useful for me, in a private use i have converted a high detailed msfs model harrier GR7 so i do use your fdm. This an exemple where every a/c work is useful and must be delivered officially (not stored in a CVS tree only). .._only_ under each works own license. My understanding is Microsoft's litigation policy and our GPL and our financial resources are not all that compatible. ;o) Hi Ant, Don't fear, i know the diff between MS Windoze Licence and GPL. You probably noticed the Private Use . So, these a/c do not get out from my Drawer. That was mainly said to thank Andy for his work about FDM Harrier. And focus on the interest to keep official every work finished or not. Cheers -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Hi Gerard I greatly appreciate what the authors have done with the aircraft, but some of them are not up to the standard of flyable - I mean the other day I took off in one, forgot which one, and as I moved the hat switch to change views, the dash board moved along with it LOL - Hence I will test each one and compile a list. Regards Shelton Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 15:11 +0100, Gerard ROBIN a écrit : Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:32 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Regards Shelton. Hi Shelton, Do you known the time spent by the authors to build the aircrafts, Being a user from the old times i could discover the progress on each a/c, i cannot give a specific good example without any risk to disappoint the others. If you are able to fly and to explain the characteristics of each one, so you are able to make one from yourself. In addition to: don't forget = FG is not a game Every a/c could be flyable in a MSFS standard, The target is to be as close as possible to the reality. Each author try to find the REAL characteristics, data, it takes time. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Andy - I know the B1900D is not a Cessna Regards Shelton. Shelton D'Cruz wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! The B1900 is a Beechcraft, not a Cessna, and a twin engine commuter turboprop. Even interpreting cessna as a single engine light aircraft, the 1900 ain't. And I'm on record that the most fun, most instructive time I've had with FlightGear is practicing STOL techniques with the Harrier -- an aircraft with no 3D model nor cockpit. I guess I wasn't flying then. Thanks for setting me straight. Help or go home, basically. If you want eye candy and polish over fixability and variety, stay with MSFS. Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
and by the way guys, this is the impression I got from a new user - Regards Shelton. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Le samedi 05 novembre 2005 à 10:57 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : Ok Guys I am going to test each aircraft and write down what is inadequate with that particular aircraft - from this I will put it in a HTML table format and will get it uploaded somewhere so everyone can see whats wrong with them and hence what needs to be done. So send me feedback with what you think is not right with the aircrafts you fly and I will compile them in a HTML document and upload it. Regards Shelton. You are free to do what you want, and we are free to do what we want. Will you give a prize to the best one ? You should better spend your time to make your own a/c. Criticism is easy. Regards -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Oh well then I may as well not do it - and I am not critising - only commenting. Le samedi 05 novembre 2005 à 10:57 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : Ok Guys I am going to test each aircraft and write down what is inadequate with that particular aircraft - from this I will put it in a HTML table format and will get it uploaded somewhere so everyone can see whats wrong with them and hence what needs to be done. So send me feedback with what you think is not right with the aircrafts you fly and I will compile them in a HTML document and upload it. Regards Shelton. You are free to do what you want, and we are free to do what we want. Will you give a prize to the best one ? You should better spend your time to make your own a/c. Criticism is easy. Regards ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Hi Jon I would like to compile such a list so that newbies now exactly the status of each aircraft, however, others here don't think thats neccessary so I will give it a miss. Regards Shelton. As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Hi, Shelton: It's true that some of the aircraft are not well shaken-down. I'm heads-down in serious coding, and have been for months. JSBSim is undergoing a major upgrade. One of the things I really want to do when that settles down is to evaluate our aircraft models and refine or cull the ones that don't fly well. Feedback from users is valuable. What really helps the project, though, is more specific information about what is wrong with a plane. Is it documentation? What seems wrong about an aircraft? If you could take a few moments to fill in some details, that would be a valuable contribution to our efforts. Thanks! Jon Berndt Development Coordinator JSBSim Project ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
Ok thats good to know - how about stalls - how does it react? Shelton D'Cruz wrote: hi Ray The Citation, although very nice, is not really flyable - I stalled her the other day and could not come out of the spin. The Citation is actually one of my favorite airplanes to fly. It hits the published performance numbers pretty close in terms of climb rate, speeds, etc. Curt. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] PLEASE HELP-Let 410 Aircraft Installation
Ok thanks Gerard! Regards Shelton. Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 22:30 +1000, Shelton D'Cruz a écrit : Hi Gerard Can you please explain again cause I could not make head or tail with your explanation. Thanks! Shelton. Sorry , i cannot tell more. You just need 1/ to download the right files ( i told you how to access and to choose) 2/ to patch FG source And .3/.to rebuild FG which will be dedicated to L410 only L410. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
Shelton D'Cruz wrote: Ok thats good to know - how about stalls - how does it react? YAsim models some simple stalls. You definitely know when you've stalled. True life stall behavior is very difficult to model because it can be so different from aircraft to aircraft. There seems to be a small issue in YAsim with some strange behavior when your aoa goes a little past negative. I was looking at that last night and today, but quickly got in over my head. Hopefully Andy can figure this out without too much additional work. When you fly in the normal regimes you should almost never run into this problem. For whatever it's worth, some people like to hop into a sim and evaluate the flight dynamics model by taking it to the extreme edges of the flight regime before looking at anything else. If it feels right, the sim is great, if not the sim stinks. In this case, who here has stalled a Citation Jet? Who would know exactly how it reacts or doesn't react? How easy is it to recover in real life? If I told you it stalled exactly right would you be able to prove me wrong? If you told me it didn't stall right, could I prove you wrong? I'm not a full scale pilot, but I have flown a variety of R/C aircraft. They all have wildly different stall characteristics. So who knows... I think the YAsim Citation has a plausible stall but I have no way to say if it's anything close to realistic or not. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
Hi Willie Your WiKi is excellent! - I will add some comments to it. Regards Shelton. I have started a page for each aircraft on the wiki http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/flight_gear/aircraft_wishlist.cfm where folks can leave comments on their favourite aircraft-models. I've phrased it thusly, though, being a wiki, please change it if you have better ideas :-) Aircraft-model titlethumbnail link to airliners.net Categories: Version: FDM: Status: Author/Maintainer: Features: To do: Help wanted? Yes please /No thanks==This bit is for the use of the author/maintainer only please. Please give your comments on this aircraft below. Please indicate if you think it is * just great - needs no further development * shows promise but needs further development - please be specific and say if you are willing to help * just needs a little tweaking - please be specific and say if you are willing to help * 'hanger queen' - stays in CVS but shouldn't be part of a release Im working through it now, starting to fill in the blanks, and weed out the aliases, though I think I'll be deleting the link to airliners.net and finding photos elsewhere. Is it OK to link the wiki to the thumbnails on the download page BTW? Please feel free to dive in and fill in info, links screenshots and comments. Hopefully after a week or so we'll get a feel for which aircraft are most popular and hopefully find more effort to finish some that are already started. Categories, I'm going to shamelessly steal from Ray Mc. Fantasy - Santa, UFO etc Experimental - X-15, YF-23 etc GA - Citation, C-182 etc Gliders Commercial - 737, DC-3, etc Pre WWII Wright Flyer, Sopwith Camel, etc WWII - P-51, Spitfire, etc Post WWI - B-52, F-16 etc Cheers Willie Fleming ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
Hi Curt Yep good points - so besides the AOA issue, I think this jet is pretty much done. BTW - checked out your nice pics with you in the simulator - must have been a ball. Regards Shelton. Shelton D'Cruz wrote: Ok thats good to know - how about stalls - how does it react? YAsim models some simple stalls. You definitely know when you've stalled. True life stall behavior is very difficult to model because it can be so different from aircraft to aircraft. There seems to be a small issue in YAsim with some strange behavior when your aoa goes a little past negative. I was looking at that last night and today, but quickly got in over my head. Hopefully Andy can figure this out without too much additional work. When you fly in the normal regimes you should almost never run into this problem. For whatever it's worth, some people like to hop into a sim and evaluate the flight dynamics model by taking it to the extreme edges of the flight regime before looking at anything else. If it feels right, the sim is great, if not the sim stinks. In this case, who here has stalled a Citation Jet? Who would know exactly how it reacts or doesn't react? How easy is it to recover in real life? If I told you it stalled exactly right would you be able to prove me wrong? If you told me it didn't stall right, could I prove you wrong? I'm not a full scale pilot, but I have flown a variety of R/C aircraft. They all have wildly different stall characteristics. So who knows... I think the YAsim Citation has a plausible stall but I have no way to say if it's anything close to realistic or not. Curt. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Shelton D'Cruz writes: I would like to compile such a list so that newbies now exactly the status of each aircraft, however, others here don't think thats neccessary so I will give it a miss. If it's kept up-to-date, I'd love to see such a list, for two reasons: 1. I want to know if the missing things I'm seeing are flaws in my knowledge of aircraft and aviation, or in the model. 2. It might make a good list for volunteers to dive in on. Dan ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: So what do you fly?
Shelton D'Cruz wrote: Hi Curt Yep good points - so besides the AOA issue, I think this jet is pretty much done. BTW - checked out your nice pics with you in the simulator - must have been a ball. Thanks, I was pretty lucky to get a chance to go in there. I was able to shoot two approaches in the full motion A320. It's really awsome, especially with a bit of turbulence. Even though you know you are in a sim and are trying hard to remember that fact, the immersiveness of the whole thing is really hard to ignore. Something to aim for with FlightGear... :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Shelton D'Cruz wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Regards Shelton. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d well I have to put my 2 cents worth in .If you think the aircraft are crap ... how about helping out by giving us some of that aircraft knowledge you apparently have that we dont .That would be much more useful. Personally I like them all ,(Santa is great!) but for my own , finding the information for these aircraft isn't always easy.Maybe you could point out specific problems, then we would have a better idea of what to fix. Thanx ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Hi Syd No I don't think the aircraft are crap Regards Shelton. Shelton D'Cruz wrote: As I make my way down the list of so called Flyable planes, the only real contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's do we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! Quite disappointing in fact. You can forget about flying these: 737 Boeing 737 747 Boeing 747-400 (YASim) 747-100 Boeing 747-100 (JSBSim) A320 The others are mostly incomplete - anyone else find this as well? And pity the Citation - which is possessed. Regards Shelton. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d well I have to put my 2 cents worth in .If you think the aircraft are crap ... how about helping out by giving us some of that aircraft knowledge you apparently have that we dont .That would be much more useful. Personally I like them all ,(Santa is great!) but for my own , finding the information for these aircraft isn't always easy.Maybe you could point out specific problems, then we would have a better idea of what to fix. Thanx ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Hi Shelton Ok I will be first cab off the rank I would like to know what you find wrong with the 737 which you term forget about. As I am in the middle of an upgrade of that aircraft it will give me an opportunity to see if there are things I have missed. Also it will give us an insite into what you see as shortcomings with the aircraft as up untill now your comments have been pretty general. Shelton D'Cruz writes and by the way guys, this is the impression I got from a new user - Regards Shelton. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
Hi Innis This is what I get in the console when running the 737: This aircraft model is a BETA release!!! This aircraft model probably will not fly as expected. Use this model for development purposes ONLY!!! Regards Shelton. Hi Shelton Ok I will be first cab off the rank I would like to know what you find wrong with the 737 which you term forget about. As I am in the middle of an upgrade of that aircraft it will give me an opportunity to see if there are things I have missed. Also it will give us an insite into what you see as shortcomings with the aircraft as up untill now your comments have been pretty general. Shelton D'Cruz writes and by the way guys, this is the impression I got from a new user - Regards Shelton. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:33:25 +1000, Shelton wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Innis This is what I get in the console when running the 737: This aircraft model is a BETA release!!! This aircraft model probably will not fly as expected. Use this model for development purposes ONLY!!! ..the idea here is weed out the whining weenies and invite coders to fix it. Second step is identify as many errors as possible, and, fix them. ..as these errors get harder to spot, we move on to the flaws, and after those we can think about moving the 737 out of beta. Welcome onboard for a bumpy ride. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 08:16 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:33:25 +1000, Shelton wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Innis This is what I get in the console when running the 737: This aircraft model is a BETA release!!! This aircraft model probably will not fly as expected. Use this model for development purposes ONLY!!! ..the idea here is weed out the whining weenies and invite coders to fix it. Second step is identify as many errors as possible, and, fix them. Personally, There is nothing wrong with telling a user that the aircraft is a pre-release and is expected to have problems. ..as these errors get harder to spot, we move on to the flaws, and after those we can think about moving the 737 out of beta. Welcome onboard for a bumpy ride. ;o) First, I haven't seen that message in the CVS version of the 737. I took it for a quick flight and made a few turns. But as I couldn't find the airport again, I exited flightgear. Secondly, I'll blame turbulence for the bumpy ride. :-) George Patterson ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
