[Flightgear-users] Anyone using AMD64 CPU successfully run FG CVS/0.9.9?
Hi, I have AMD64 CPU on this machine, I think I did all the right things, but cannot run FG normally. Has someone run FG successfully on a AMD64 machine? Please enlighten me. Thank you very much, I have been fighting with the problem for over one week. Please tell me what Linux you are using, 32bit for 64bit. - Qiang __ 赶快注册雅虎超大容量免费邮箱? http://cn.mail.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
I downloaded 0.9.9 source code and compiled on this AMD64 3000+ computer, with Ubunut for Amd64 version. The compilation is fine. But the application quit after loading scenary objects. The error is: *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (!prev): 0x09f8ce70 *** I have the latest CVS backpackage, FG and SG. Hi. If you're confident you built things OK and are still getting this error, then I suggest you post it to the developers' list, where the developers are more likely to see it and respond to it. I'm about to switch to an AMD64-based machine, and FG is supposed to run on AMD64 just fine; so I'm curious to see if you can get this fixed. -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
Hi All, Some background: I live in Edinburgh, Scotland, and sometimes go to the USA on business, where I get an flying lesson if I have time. Partly this is just purely for the fun of flying, and partly as preparation for getting a pilots license in the next couple of years - probably in the UK. Spending time on FG certainly helps - I took the plane right down to the flare on my second lesson (though I'm sure the instructor was helping ;) One thing that is obvious is that though I'm familiar with the systems and even manage to keep my head out of the window (apparently a common problem with sim-pilots moving to the real world), I have problems with coordinated flight. So, is the FG pedal support/sensitivity good enough on planes like the c172p for a set of CH pedals to be a worthwhile investment? On a more general note - has anyone else been using FG for (informal) personal training purposes and have experiences/advice to share? Looking forward to some interested answers! Regards, -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] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
Stuart, This is the first time I've replied to this group. I'd like to be more active. I'm very interested in numerical methods and flight simulation and flying in general. I'm a Certified Flight Instructor in the USA. In my opinion rudder pedals would be very useful for helping future training in a real aircraft. Make sure you read up on P Factor and adverse yaw. If you understand these concepts and understand how the rudder plays then you will have a good background for the real aircraft. Dave P David F. Pinella, P.E., AeroLogic www.aerologic.com - Original Message - From: Buchanan, Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:43 am Subject: [Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life? Hi All, Some background: I live in Edinburgh, Scotland, and sometimes go to the USA on business, where I get an flying lesson if I have time. Partly this is just purely for the fun of flying, and partly as preparation for getting a pilots license in the next couple of years - probably in the UK. Spending time on FG certainly helps - I took the plane right down to the flare on my second lesson (though I'm sure the instructor was helping ;) One thing that is obvious is that though I'm familiar with the systems and even manage to keep my head out of the window (apparently a common problemwith sim-pilots moving to the real world), I have problems with coordinated flight. So, is the FG pedal support/sensitivity good enough on planes like the c172p for a set of CH pedals to be a worthwhile investment? On a more general note - has anyone else been using FG for (informal) personal training purposes and have experiences/advice to share? Looking forward to some interested answers! Regards, -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 begin:vcard n:PINELLA;DAVID fn:DAVID PINELLA url:www.aerologic.com org:AeroLogic; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] end:vcard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Official FG Snapshot
Le lundi 12 décembre 2005 à 17:50 -0600, Dave Culp a écrit : Ah yes, forgot about that one. Here are two more screenshots with shadows and more spherical contrail elements as Gerard suggested. I think it looks better without the contrails. Anyway these are posted for amusement only. I don't expect to get the contrails looking nice any time soon. (They do look nice from a suitable distance and angle :) I'll try the billboard idea next. http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/refuel-f16-004.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/refuel-f16-005.jpg Some longer-range shots: http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/refuel-f16-006.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/refuel-f16-007.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/refuel-f16-008.jpg BTW, with 5 contrails going at once there are about 635 AI objects in the contrails. Dave Sure contrail with distance and angle are nice. About model within shadow, it is not easy to get a got effect, the shadow is not smooth ( that is the process). -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
Le mardi 13 décembre 2005 à 13:29 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I downloaded 0.9.9 source code and compiled on this AMD64 3000+ computer, with Ubunut for Amd64 version. The compilation is fine. But the application quit after loading scenary objects. The error is: *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (!prev): 0x09f8ce70 *** I have the latest CVS backpackage, FG and SG. Hi. If you're confident you built things OK and are still getting this error, then I suggest you post it to the developers' list, where the developers are more likely to see it and respond to it. I'm about to switch to an AMD64-based machine, and FG is supposed to run on AMD64 just fine; so I'm curious to see if you can get this fixed. -c Why developers don't read user-mail! You just teach something new. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
So, is the FG pedal support/sensitivity good enough on planes like the c172p for a set of CH pedals to be a worthwhile investment? Yes, although I find the response of the pedals a bit too sensitive; also, the absense of the force feedback sucks. Still better than the keyboard. V. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 13:43, Buchanan, Stuart wrote: One thing that is obvious is that though I'm familiar with the systems and even manage to keep my head out of the window (apparently a common problem with sim-pilots moving to the real world), I have problems with coordinated flight. Isn't that always the way at first? I've only ever flown gliders a few times so am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but... So, is the FG pedal support/sensitivity good enough on planes like the c172p for a set of CH pedals to be a worthwhile investment? FG joystick (and therefore rudder pedal) support is really excellent, IMO - you can tune practically any setup to your liking. For myself, fed up with lack of rudder control when flying with an ordinary joystick, I built a set of rudder pedals which pretty much transformed my flying experience in FG. I went out of my way to make decent sized pedals with a reasonable action (not like some of the plans that are floating around on the net which are more like tractor throttle pedals). I have never seen a set of CH pedals in the flesh as it were so I can't say what kind of action they have or how nice they are to use. I can say that having rudder pedals is a big improvement - you get your legs thinking instead of just being stuck there uselessly - I can only see that can be a good thing for someone learning to fly IRL. No point in trying to twist the control column to get the rudder to move in most planes :-) Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: Segmentation fault, version 0.9.9
* olaf -- Tuesday 13 December 2005 18:48: Fatal error: Failed to open file at fgfs (received from SimGear XML Parser) WHAT SHALL I DO ?? Thanks for helping Find out which file it complains about: $ strace -fF -eopen fgfs 21|tee fgfs.log Then check the logfile and see which XML file it couldn't open. Should look something like this: open(/foo/bar.xml, O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) After that we think about *why* it couldn't open that file. File permissions? File doesn't exist? ... m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Segmentation fault, version 0.9.9
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:48 am, olaf wrote: (no debugging symbols found) Fatal error: Failed to open file at fgfs (received from SimGear XML Parser) WHAT SHALL I DO ?? DON'T STRIP THE BINARY !! CHECK TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE XML FILES YOU NEED !! Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 17:26, AJ MacLeod wrote: I have never seen a set of CH pedals in the flesh as it were so I can't say what kind of action they have or how nice they are to use. I can say that having rudder pedals is a big improvement - you get your legs thinking instead of just being stuck there uselessly - I can only see that can be a good thing for someone learning to fly IRL. No point in trying to twist the control column to get the rudder to move in most planes :-) I got hooked on CH's products after I got a usb Flight yoke for next to nothing during Linuxtag 2001 in Germany. A year later or so, during my stay in the USA, I decided to extend the system with a pair of pedals, which I can highly recommend. My personal use of FlightGear tends toward showing a serious interest getting to know the real procedures, but with an occasional gaming touch, and also occasional test runs during bug hunts. If you're a bit more of a serious user than I am, than I can highly recommend the CH yoke/panel combination. I'd say you'd need them (or any custom-build pedals) if you want to seriously practice cross-wind landings, and stuff like that. The main disadvantage is that they come without force-feedback, but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, IMHO Cheers, Durk ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Will pedals help me fly better in real life?
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 21:26, Durk Talsma wrote: The main disadvantage is that they come without force-feedback, but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, IMHO The problem is that most rudder pedal setups battle as is to stay put. A proper force feedback system that can simulate a total hydraulic failure in a 737 would require both the pedals and your chair to be bolted to the floor and those plastic pedals certainly wouldn't stand up to that sort of force. Even a few kilograms of force would require some proper fixtures. And the cost of servo motors and circuitry put the price up something horrible. Even proper force feedback sticks cost a lot more and I'm not referring to those joysticks that vibrate but are also labeled force feedback. I think the imagination is always going to be a lot cheaper. Paul ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
回复： Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtim e error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
I just like to know, if I'm the only person who's using AMD64 among the FG users... If anyone has successful experience with AMD64 and FG please notify me. Or I have to switch to Cygwin :( --- Gerard ROBIN [EMAIL PROTECTED]写道: Le mardi 13 décembre 2005 à 13:29 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I downloaded 0.9.9 source code and compiled on this AMD64 3000+ computer, with Ubunut for Amd64 version. The compilation is fine. But the application quit after loading scenary objects. The error is: *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (!prev): 0x09f8ce70 *** I have the latest CVS backpackage, FG and SG. Hi. If you're confident you built things OK and are still getting this error, then I suggest you post it to the developers' list, where the developers are more likely to see it and respond to it. I'm about to switch to an AMD64-based machine, and FG is supposed to run on AMD64 just fine; so I'm curious to see if you can get this fixed. -c Why developers don't read user-mail! You just teach something new. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d __ 赶快注册雅虎超大容量免费邮箱? http://cn.mail.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: 回复： Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 R untime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
Dai Qiang wrote: I just like to know, if I'm the only person who's using AMD64 among the FG users... If anyone has successful experience with AMD64 and FG please notify me. FlightGear builds and runs out of the box for me on Fedora Core 4, x86_64. I've been busy and my CVS tree is a few weeks out of date, but I don't see this particular issue (double-free bugs are usually pretty easy to spot) in the version I have. Are you building with SDL or Glut? CVS plib or a release? Which OpenAL version? Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: 回复： Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
--- Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]写道: Dai Qiang wrote: I just like to know, if I'm the only person who's using AMD64 among the FG users... If anyone has successful experience with AMD64 and FG please notify me. FlightGear builds and runs out of the box for me on Fedora Core 4, x86_64. I've been busy and my CVS tree is a few weeks out of date, but I don't see this particular issue (double-free bugs are usually pretty easy to spot) in the version I have. Are you building with SDL or Glut? I used freeglut-dev. CVS plib or a release? Which OpenAL version? plib relase 1.8.4, and the latest version of libopenal-dev Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d __ 赶快注册雅虎超大容量免费邮箱? http://cn.mail.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: 回复： Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 06:25 IST, Dai Qiang wrote: I just like to know, if I'm the only person who's using AMD64 among the FG users... If anyone has successful experience with AMD64 and FG please notify me. Or I have to switch to Cygwin :( I am running Kubuntu 5.10 amd64 version. I do not have any problem with flightgear so far. -- Cheers! kitts ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 0.9.9 Runtime error on Ubuntu Amd64 version
Hi. If you're confident you built things OK and are still getting this error, then I suggest you post it to the developers' list, where the developers are more likely to see it and respond to it. Why developers don't read user-mail! You just teach something new. Well, I wouldn't say developers don't read flightgear-users. I would say that a post is *more likely* to be read and acted upon by developers in -devel than in -users. The fraction of the developers that read -devel is higher than the fraction of the developers that read -users; and the fraction of the developers that read -devel thoroughly is higher than the fraction of the developers that read -users thoroughly. That's true in in most open source projects I've had anything to do with. For example, there are some (very few, but some) Debian developers that poke around in the debian-user mailing list from time to time, but almost none that try hard to read it thoroughly (these days, I'm not aware of any at all, in fact). Cheers, -c ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
