Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sailing Ships (was Re: Tides in FlightGear?)

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2...>]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:21:31 -0400, GWMobile wrote in message 
<1149178935.2E095058@...>:

> The water surface could then just be a specialized cloud layer.

..in a way, it is.  ;o)

..has anyone tried this idea by now?

-- 
..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.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Introduction to community and Autopilot Replacement

[Curtis L. Olson <curt0001@fl...>]

Jeff McBride wrote:

>I have done the same thing on a similar university project. Our
>solution has been to use the FGNetCtrls interface to FG and write a
>gateway application that would interface our UAV flight control
>computer (via serial port) to FG (via TCP). This allows us to do
>hardware-in-the-loop testing of the autopilot system. If preferable,
>you could also implement the flight control laws in a PC application
>and "fly" the FG model via a TCP connection.
>
>Actually, flightgear has proven to be a versatile tool for our
>project. It is also good as a visualization system (either live during
>flight or for post-mission replay). Once you figure it out,
>communication with FG is pretty easy. I've just created a C# class to
>handle all I/O to FG, and can drop it in where needed.
>

And if you are using FlightGear as a visualization system for your UAV 
(either live or replaying the data) you can turn on multiplayer mode and 
inject yourself into the multiplayer system.  I'm doing that right  
now.  If you want to see my university's uav in action, go to 
mpmap01.flightgear.org right now and click the check box next to the 
Rascal-1 call sign.  I'm looping the data and will probably continue 
looping it for the rest of the day.  We don't have a wireless internet 
connection that available at our flying field, but some day if we are 
able to rig something up, we'll be able to inject our live flight data 
into the multiplayer system which and others could come fly [virtually] 
with us.  That would be kind of a neat trick.

Curt.

-- 
Curtis Olson        http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project  http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text:        2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Light inside the cockpit

[Jim Wilson <jimw@ke...>]

The P51D model has this.  There is a dimmer switch on the console panel j=
ust right of center.  In order to set up general lighting in the cockpit =
you simply need to group the objects that need to be lit together and app=
ly a low level of "emissive" output via material animation".

This technique won't be precisely correct because it totally lacks shadin=
g,  but the effect is reasonably accurate due to the low light level, and=
 of course it makes it possible to see the inside of a cockpit at night.

Best,

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado <gad@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 1. Jun 2006 13:30 -0400
> To: flightgear-devel@...
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Light inside the cockpit
>=20
> Hello all
>=20
> I was fliying at night yesterday and found that is very dificult to see
> the controls inside de cockpit. I think that would be nice to have a
> inside cockpit light or somethig similar. Can we switch on/off position
> lights?
>=20
> Another issue I was seeing is that on SMP computers, one of the
> processors is always idle. Are you using threads?
>=20
> The latest version 0.9.10 crashes a lot on amd64, should I report gdb
> backtraces?
>=20
> The simulator is great. I really love this. Great job.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado - Ingeniero en Inform=E1tica
>         [ Seguridad & Medios de pago ]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>=20

--=20
Jim Wilson
Kelco Industries
PO Box 160
Milbridge, ME 04658
207-546-7989

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Introduction to community and Autopilot Replacement

[Jeff McBride <mcbridejc@gm...>]

On 6/1/06, Jimmy Coley <flyingcadet@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, first let me introduce myself.  I am Jimmy Coley, a student at the
> University of West Florida (UWF).  I have been using simulators since MSFS98
> was first released, and Now I have migrated over to FG.  My outdated website
> about me can be found at http://www.students.uwf.edu/jrc27 (will be updated today
> or tomorrow) .
 [Snip...]
> My question to the community is this, Are there pros and cons to each method
> that I don't know about, and does anybody know of a different approach that
> might be better/easier?
>
>

I have done the same thing on a similar university project. Our
solution has been to use the FGNetCtrls interface to FG and write a
gateway application that would interface our UAV flight control
computer (via serial port) to FG (via TCP). This allows us to do
hardware-in-the-loop testing of the autopilot system. If preferable,
you could also implement the flight control laws in a PC application
and "fly" the FG model via a TCP connection.

Actually, flightgear has proven to be a versatile tool for our
project. It is also good as a visualization system (either live during
flight or for post-mission replay). Once you figure it out,
communication with FG is pretty easy. I've just created a C# class to
handle all I/O to FG, and can drop it in where needed.

-Jeff

Jeff McBride
Master's Student, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Virginia Commonwealth University

Re: [Flightgear-devel] v0.9.10 fails with error message

[Don Oliver <doliver30@ya...>]

--- Jim A <wholezoo@...> wrote:

> ---- Don Oliver <doliver30@...> wrote: 
> > Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it, but no
> change
> > here.
> > 
> > I did solve it by deleting the flightgear entry in
> > Documents and Settings,all flightgear folders and
> > re-installing.
> > 
> > So, the problem appears to have been the Documents
> and
> > Settings entry.
> > 
> > Don
> > 
> 
> Glad you're up and running, Don.
> 
> Here's an earlier reply from me that got rejected as
> spam for some reason.  (maybe spam assassin is
> smarter than I thought!)  :-D
> 
>
...........................................................................................
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Ron Jensen [wino@...] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:54 PM 
>  
> > > Now fails with only the following errors: 
> > > Error reading properties: 
> > > Failed to open file at C:/Documents and 
> > Settings/Don.ANTEC/Application 
> > > Data/flightgear.org/autosave.xml (reported by
> SimGear XML Parser) 
> > 
> > This is not a problem.  The file autosave.xml will
> be created 
> > for you the first time FGFS successfully exits. 
> It will 
> > update itself every time you quit FGFS. 
>  
> In theory, maybe.... :-) 
>  
> FWIW, my first try at 9.10 required me to have an
> "autosave.xml" file.  Else, 
> FGFS would immediately abort.  That may be fixed
> now.  If not, try creating an 
> autosave.xml file manually, put in one line "<?xml
> version="1.0"?>, and save the 
> file to the appropriate place (maybe an empty file
> would work, too?).  Also, 
> check any pre-exsiting fgrun.prefs file while you're
> there to make sure all the 
> paths are correct (this is for the FGRUN wizard, if
> you ever use that).  
> Finally, I  commented out the <presets> section in
> the preferences.xml, because 
> I was getting aborts due to not having loaded
> scenery matching what was in 
> <presets>.  (I'm sure I could have also changed the
> values there, also). 
>  
> There may have been a fiew other tricks, too, to get
> started.  Once you get 
> through them all, you're all set. 
>  
> Jim 
> 
>
.....................................................................................
> ADDENDUM:  I tested today without an autosave.xml
> file, and no abort....just a warning. 
> 

Jim,
Thanks for your response. It appears that there are
several things that can trip up an installation, and
the uninstall program that comes with flightgear does
not deal with these.

The safest procedure seems to be to remove all
references to FlightGear. Well, maybe not *all* - I
found a lot of entries in the registry, and decided
not to try anything there. :-)

Don

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Introduction to community and AutopilotReplacement

[Berndt, Jon S <Jon.Berndt@es...>]

How did you design your autopilot? Do you have a block diagram of the
signal flow?
=20
Jon

	Hello, first let me introduce myself.  I am Jimmy Coley, a
student at the University of West Florida (UWF).  I have been using
simulators since MSFS98 was first released, and Now I have migrated over
to FG.  My outdated website about me can be found at
 http://www.students.uwf.edu/jrc27 (will be updated today or tomorrow) .
	=20
	As a self-appointed project, I have been looking into adapting
FG to test the UWF uav that the Electrical and Computer engineering
department has been working on, aka the Pheonix.  So far, I have
identified two possible ways of integrating the Pheonix's autopilot
software to be tested on the FG platform, but I feel that I don't have
the experience to judge how this can be done.  The autopilot is written
in ANSI C.=20
	=20
	First approach was to write a Nasal script in FG so that the
code for the Pheonix could be copy and pasted into FG and then setting
up the autopilot menu to allow for activating the copied code as the
autopilot control software. From how I see it, this might be the better
choice. =20
	=20
	The second approach is to write a driver so that FG will
interact with the computer as a "virtual hardware," and thus would allow
for us to compile the actual autopilot program and have it running on
its own.  To get FG to recieve the commands being generated by the
program, another driver would be written to recieve the commands.=20
	=20
	My question to the community is this, Are there pros and cons to
each method that I don't know about, and does anybody know of a
different approach that might be better/easier?

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Introduction to community and Autopilot Replacement

[Stefan Seifert <nine@de...>]

Jimmy Coley wrote:
> My question to the community is this, Are there pros and cons to each 
> method
> that I don't know about, and does anybody know of a different approach 
> that
> might be better/easier?

FlightGear supports a few I/O protocols. Why not use them for 
communication of FG and your standalone auto pilot?

Nine

[Flightgear-devel] Introduction to community and Autopilot Replacement

[Jimmy Coley <flyingcadet@gm...>]

Hello, first let me introduce myself.  I am Jimmy Coley, a student at the
University of West Florida (UWF).  I have been using simulators since MSFS98
was first released, and Now I have migrated over to FG.  My outdated website
about me can be found at http://www.students.uwf.edu/jrc27 (will be updated today
or tomorrow) .

As a self-appointed project, I have been looking into adapting FG to test
the UWF uav that the Electrical and Computer engineering department has been
working on, aka the Pheonix.  So far, I have identified two possible ways of
integrating the Pheonix's autopilot software to be tested on the FG
platform, but I feel that I don't have the experience to judge how this can
be done.  The autopilot is written in ANSI C.

First approach was to write a Nasal script in FG so that the code for the
Pheonix could be copy and pasted into FG and then setting up the autopilot
menu to allow for activating the copied code as the autopilot control
software. From how I see it, this might be the better choice.

The second approach is to write a driver so that FG will interact with the
computer as a "virtual hardware," and thus would allow for us to compile the
actual autopilot program and have it running on its own.  To get FG to
recieve the commands being generated by the program, another driver would be
written to recieve the commands.

My question to the community is this, Are there pros and cons to each method
that I don't know about, and does anybody know of a different approach that
might be better/easier?

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Light inside the cockpit

[Dave Culp <davidculp2@co...>]

On Thursday 01 June 2006 12:30 pm, Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado wrote:
> I was fliying at night yesterday and found that is very dificult to see
> the controls inside de cockpit. I think that would be nice to have a
> inside cockpit light or somethig similar. Can we switch on/off position
> lights?

Some of the aircraft have instrument lighting.  I don't know if there are any 
flood lights though.


Dave

[Flightgear-devel] Light inside the cockpit

[Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado <gad@ag...>]

Hello all

I was fliying at night yesterday and found that is very dificult to see
the controls inside de cockpit. I think that would be nice to have a
inside cockpit light or somethig similar. Can we switch on/off position
lights?

Another issue I was seeing is that on SMP computers, one of the
processors is always idle. Are you using threads?

The latest version 0.9.10 crashes a lot on amd64, should I report gdb
backtraces?

The simulator is great. I really love this. Great job.



--=20
Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado - Ingeniero en Inform=C3=A1tica
        [ Seguridad & Medios de pago ]

Re: [Flightgear-devel] v0.9.10 fails with error message

[Jim A <wholezoo@ch...>]

---- Don Oliver <doliver30@...> wrote: 
> Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it, but no change
> here.
> 
> I did solve it by deleting the flightgear entry in
> Documents and Settings,all flightgear folders and
> re-installing.
> 
> So, the problem appears to have been the Documents and
> Settings entry.
> 
> Don
> 

Glad you're up and running, Don.

Here's an earlier reply from me that got rejected as spam for some reason.  (maybe spam assassin is smarter than I thought!)  :-D

...........................................................................................
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ron Jensen [wino@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:54 PM 
 
> > Now fails with only the following errors: 
> > Error reading properties: 
> > Failed to open file at C:/Documents and 
> Settings/Don.ANTEC/Application 
> > Data/flightgear.org/autosave.xml (reported by SimGear XML Parser) 
> 
> This is not a problem.  The file autosave.xml will be created 
> for you the first time FGFS successfully exits.  It will 
> update itself every time you quit FGFS. 
 
In theory, maybe.... :-) 
 
FWIW, my first try at 9.10 required me to have an "autosave.xml" file.  Else, 
FGFS would immediately abort.  That may be fixed now.  If not, try creating an 
autosave.xml file manually, put in one line "<?xml version="1.0"?>, and save the 
file to the appropriate place (maybe an empty file would work, too?).  Also, 
check any pre-exsiting fgrun.prefs file while you're there to make sure all the 
paths are correct (this is for the FGRUN wizard, if you ever use that).  
Finally, I  commented out the <presets> section in the preferences.xml, because 
I was getting aborts due to not having loaded scenery matching what was in 
<presets>.  (I'm sure I could have also changed the values there, also). 
 
There may have been a fiew other tricks, too, to get started.  Once you get 
through them all, you're all set. 
 
Jim 
 .....................................................................................
ADDENDUM:  I tested today without an autosave.xml file, and no abort....just a warning. 

Re: [Flightgear-devel] v0.9.10 fails with error message

[Don Oliver <doliver30@ya...>]

--- Ron Jensen <wino@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 20:13 -0700, Don Oliver wrote:
> > Hi All,
> [snip]
> > 
> > Now fails with only the following errors:
> > Error reading properties:
> > Failed to open file at C:/Documents and
> > Settings/Don.ANTEC/Application
> > Data/flightgear.org/autosave.xml
> > (reported by SimGear XML Parser)
> 
> This is not a problem.  The file autosave.xml will
> be created for you
> the first time FGFS successfully exits.  It will
> update itself every
> time you quit FGFS.
> 
> > unexpected tag 'fdm_config' found in YASim
> aircraft
> > description.
> > 
> > Using the default model Cessna 172P Skyhawk (1981
> > model), and the default airport KSFO
> 
> This is bizarre, since the Cessna 172P Skyhawk is
> not a YASim aircraft
> and fdm_config is a tag from JSBSim.  I can
> reproduce this using a
> command line of "fgfs --fdm=yasim"  
> 
> Try launching fgfs from a command line window, or
> make sure whichever
> frontend you are using is not trying to force an
> FDM.  Also make sure
> that you don't have an .fgfsrc file (what is the
> windows name for this)
> forcing an FDM choice.
> 
> Ron
> 
Ron,

Thanks for the suggestions. Because everything was
working with v0.9.9, I thought that it should run by
just installing v0.9.10.

I did solve it by deleting the flightgear entry in
Documents and Settings,all flightgear folders and
re-installing.

So, the problem appears to have been the Documents and
Settings entry.

Don

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [Flightgear-devel] v0.9.10 fails with error message

[Don Oliver <doliver30@ya...>]

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it, but no change
here.

I did solve it by deleting the flightgear entry in
Documents and Settings,all flightgear folders and
re-installing.

So, the problem appears to have been the Documents and
Settings entry.

Don

--- dene maxwell <dene_maxwell@...> wrote:

> Hi Don
> 
> I seem to remember there was a problem like this a
> few months ago(can't 
> remember if it was devel or user list), possibily a
> search will help. I 
> remember because I replied with a very simplistic
> suggestion of copying your 
> "prefences.xml" to the  C:/Documents and
> Settings/Don.ANTEC/Application 
> Data/flightgear.org folder but a much better
> suggestion was made by one of 
> the developers....
> 
> I'm sure the other reply will be in the archives
> somewhere but try mine just 
> in case eh? ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> :-D ene
> 
> 
> >From: Don Oliver <doliver30@...>
> >Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions 
> ><flightgear-devel@...>
> >To: flightgear-devel@...
> >Subject: [Flightgear-devel] v0.9.10 fails with
> error message
> >Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I uninstalled a working version 0.9.9, then used
> the
> >FlightGear uninstall before installing v0.9.10
> >
> >Failed with a list of errors.
> >
> >Again uninstalled, and found that the FlightGear
> >folders and files were still there, so deleted all,
> >and again installed v0.9.10
> >
> >Now fails with only the following errors:
> >Error reading properties:
> >Failed to open file at C:/Documents and
> >Settings/Don.ANTEC/Application
> >Data/flightgear.org/autosave.xml
> >(reported by SimGear XML Parser)
> >unexpected tag 'fdm_config' found in YASim aircraft
> >description.
> >
> >Using the default model Cessna 172P Skyhawk (1981
> >model), and the default airport KSFO
> >
> >OS Win Xp Pro sp2
> >CPU AMD Athlon XP
> >1 GB RAM
> >Display ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
> >
> >Thanks for any clues.
> >Don Oliver
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Flightgear-devel mailing list
> >Flightgear-devel@...
>
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Discover fun and games at  @ 
> http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..TerrorGear...

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2...>]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:03:04 +0200, Frederic wrote in message 
<1149170584.447ef39832924@...>:

> Quoting Arnt Karlsen <arnt@...>:
> 
> > ..to be specific:
> > root@...:/opt/src/gpc232# nl Makefile
> >      6  libgenpolyclip.a: gpc.o
> >      7      rm -f $@
> >      8      ar cr $@ $<
> >      9      ranlib $@
> >
> > root@...:/opt/src/gpc232# make clean
> > Makefile:9: *** missing separator.  Stop.
> > root@...:/opt/src/gpc232#
> 
> 
> There should be a tab after a colon (:), 

..there should be a colon in line 9?  Where??
Or a tab behind the colon in line 6???

> and lines that begin by space, should begin by tab.

..done, thanks Fred.  :o)
 
> -Fred



-- 
..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.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sailing Ships (was Re: Tides in FlightGear?)

[GWMobile <geopilot@mi...>]

What about changing the aerodynamic computation so they take place based=20
on radius from the earth and at what would be sea level change the air=20
density to that of water.
Then any object below sealevel "flys under those equations. It would=20
allow for surface ships and submarines.

And load in the whole terrain map of the world including all=20
bathespheric data

The water surface could then just be a specialized cloud layer.

That would give a great start.

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:30 am, Steve Hosgood wrote:
> Martin Doege wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve!
>>
>> Naval simulations are great, but if integrating tides into the=20
>> present-day ocean in FG is such a big technical challenge as it seems=20
>> to be, I would not think that a "real" ocean with rolling waves,=20
>> reefs, bathymetry, etc. is right around the corner. I think you would=20
>> want to have something like in Virtual Sailor or Silent Hunter III and=
=20
>> that is simply far removed from the blue plane that is currently the=20
>> sea in FG.
>
> Hi Martin.
>
> I'm not sure the tides issue is likely to be a "big technical=20
> challenge" actually. In the space of about 4 postings here, a workable=20
> scheme was proposed of colouring certain triangles "sea" or "mud"=20
> according to their datum heights as compared with a local simplified=20
> tideheight generator.
>
> I can provide the maths for a tideheight generator, the only "problem"=20
> is providing a suitable set of triangles (tagged with datum heights)=A0=
=20
> in a known tidal area. Also, on a tile-by-tile basis, a set of=20
> (probably four) tidal vectors has to be given.
>
> The graphics engine needs to know how to do the colouring on-the-fly,=20
> but compared with the magic that the 3D experts on this project have=20
> already acheived, that'll be done in an evening as soon as someone sets=
=20
> out to do it!
>
>> But in general naval simulations don't always need flashy graphics to=20
>> be fun, so finding a good graphics engine is probably not so important=
=20
>> at this point.
>
> I ws intimating that I don't have to find one - I've found it! Right=20
> here. :-)
>
>> As with all simulations, what really makes them absorbing is the=20
>> feeling of "being there", and while good graphics don't hurt, good=20
>> gameplay matters more. For example, the submarine sim Red Storm Rising=
=20
>> mostly had only tactical displays to look at that look about as boring=
=20
>> as it gets, and yet it was an engaging game and the suspension of=20
>> disbelief worked well.
>
> That's about what the current "surprise" program (windoze or linux)=20
> has. It's really just a wrapper around the "FDM" to let the "FDM" be=20
> used for something.
>
>> So instead of hoping for great seascapes from FG/SimGear in the near=20
>> (or not so near) future, I would first improve your existing "FDM",=20
>> add the ocean, include navigation aids, etc.
>
> Stars, sun and a stopwatch. That's all you get!
> Ok. Ok, I'm joking of course. That's all you get in the 18th century,=20
> but if sailing ships worm their way into the FG world, they'll be=20
> usable in any timeframe. After all, tall ships are still with us in the=
=20
> 21st century.
>
>> Cannons and a damage model should also be added since you are=20
>> mentioning Hornblower.
>
>> As in Sid Meier's Pirates!, the crew should also be simulated, [giant=20
>> snip]
>
> Funny, you've just written almost exactly what I wrote to "The Admiral"=
=20
> (Peter Davis) last year. His comments were that he never planned to=20
> make a game of the sim - his sentiments in fact matched closely to=20
> those we hear all the time here on the FlightGear discussions group.=20
> It's to be an accurate sim first and foremost, but if people want to=20
> add guns/missiles etc then that's up to them.
>
> I talked about crew, crew morale etc. (I've been a pen&paper RPG-er for=
=20
> a long time.) Same sort of response - basically, he (Davis) is only=20
> really interested in getting the sim to work well and would be=20
> disappointed to see the project "degenerate" into "just a game".
>
> Of course, done well then there's no reason why any of the additions=20
> you mention would degenerate the project - they should be seen as=20
> enhancements.
>
>> Graphics could initially be fairly minimal, perhaps isometric view or=20
>> 2D.
>
> Dovetailing into FG would allow 3D models from the start. I really=20
> don't want to have to build a custom isometric or 2D graphics engine=20
> just for "surprise".
>
>> This would also give you time to develop a good interface.
>
> All your points are very valid - especially this one. Unlike aircraft,=20
> saling ships don't have a single "point of control". The nearest (in=20
> 18th century parlance) is "the quarterdeck" where the master or captain=
=20
> issues the orders, which then have to be relayed through several layers=
=20
> of middlemen to the grunts who pull the ropes. There is of course a=20
> "ship's wheel" but it's not a single point of control to compare with=20
> (say) an aircraft control column.
>
> Try it with "suprise". The ship's wheel does precious little unless the=
=20
> ship is moving at quite a lick. It's the set of the sails (especially=20
> the spanker) that really steers the thing.
>
>> I would also use a higher-level language for faster development and=20
>> improved flexibility. Python comes to mind and has the advantage that=20
>> the existing BASIC code should be easily converted to it and that=20
>> there is Libglade and pyGlade. It is also nicely modular and its sane=20
>> implementation of object orientation as well as its use of generators=20
>> are definite boons for simulations. At a later point, 3D graphics=20
>> could be added if desired, e.g. via PyOpenGL or using code in C/C++.
>
> The existing code isn't BASIC, it's 'C' that looks like BASIC :-)
>
> As I stated before - Davis wrote the original in BASIC and ported it to=
=20
> 'C' many years later.
>
> I'm looking for volunteers, me hearties! First jobs involve completing=20
> the linux version to have all the features of the windoze original.=20
> Then there's the work involved in completing the segregation of GUI=20
> code from the "FDM". Then there's work in making the new sources=20
> compile on windoze to provide the same functionality it has now, but=20
> cleanly this time.
>
> Then there's the possibility of heaving the ship FDM into FlightGear,=20
> probably mis-using a "3D cockpit" idea to provide all the controls of=20
> rudder, yard-arms and sail-setting. Following that, a 3D model of the=20
> ship to make the "view out of the cockpit" look roughly like what you'd
> see over the rail of the quarterdeck.
>
> If this all gets left to me, it'll be 2018 at least before I'm anywhere=
=20
> near it! But with interested vounteers aboard, anything is possible.=20
> Tomorrow even.
>
>> PS. You might want to consider registering your Linux port of Surprise=
=20
>> at Freshmeat.
>
> Currently, I consider it too incomplete. Also, the source code is an=20
> embarrassment!
>
> Source code is only available to people who sign a "non embarrassing=20
> disclosure" agreement :-)
>
> (Nahhh, not really. Anyway, it's GPL as you all well know. It's just=20
> *embarrassing* GPL, that's all.)
> Steve.
Bush's family and Saudi partners make higher profits/prices by=20
preventing Saddam's huge Iraqi oil reserves from ever being sold.=20
They'll Enron the world - George Watson 2001

For Hurricanes
 http://www.globalboiling.com
For solar wind and earthquakes
 http://www.electricquakes.com

Typos caused by two inch mobile phone keyboard=

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Request for recommendations on screenshots

[David Miller <dave@in...>]

On Thursday 01 June 2006 14:32, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
 > I'd like to feature the best screenshots of
 > landscapes, aircraft, sky scenes, structures, etc. that showcase
 > FlightGear's current capabilities.
 > Suggestions?

There are a couple of multi-monitor screen shots (including
a stereoscopic monitor setup) in:

     http://www.inkdrop.net/dave/multimon.pdf

[Flightgear-devel] Terrain 0.9.10

[Sergio <Serge.Coche@fr...>]

Hi team,

Just a little word of congratulation and thank about the new terrain 0.9.10.
I just updated my country (Nancy, France) and saw that yet there is no any problem of inclination or deviation at the start (pa28), like with the older version.

Great, and perfect for a good training.

Cheers,

Sergio

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sailing Ships (was Re: Tides in FlightGear?)

[Steve Hosgood <steve@ca...>]

Martin Doege wrote:

> Hi Steve!
>
> Naval simulations are great, but if integrating tides into the 
> present-day ocean in FG is such a big technical challenge as it seems 
> to be, I would not think that a "real" ocean with rolling waves, 
> reefs, bathymetry, etc. is right around the corner. I think you would 
> want to have something like in Virtual Sailor or Silent Hunter III and 
> that is simply far removed from the blue plane that is currently the 
> sea in FG.
>
Hi Martin.
I'm not sure the tides issue is likely to be a "big technical challenge" 
actually. In the space of about 4 postings here, a workable scheme was 
proposed of colouring certain triangles "sea" or "mud" according to 
their datum heights as compared with a local simplified tideheight 
generator.

I can provide the maths for a tideheight generator, the only "problem" 
is providing a suitable set of triangles (tagged with datum heights)  in 
a known tidal area. Also, on a tile-by-tile basis, a set of (probably 
four) tidal vectors has to be given.

The graphics engine needs to know how to do the colouring on-the-fly, 
but compared with the magic that the 3D experts on this project have 
already acheived, that'll be done in an evening as soon as someone sets 
out to do it!

> But in general naval simulations don't always need flashy graphics to 
> be fun, so finding a good graphics engine is probably not so important 
> at this point.

I ws intimating that I don't have to find one - I've found it! Right 
here. :-)

> As with all simulations, what really makes them absorbing is the 
> feeling of "being there", and while good graphics don't hurt, good 
> gameplay matters more. For example, the submarine sim Red Storm Rising 
> mostly had only tactical displays 
> <http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/red-storm-rising/screenshots/gameShotId,40781/>; 
> to look at that look about as boring as it gets, and yet it was an 
> engaging game and the suspension of disbelief worked well.
>
That's about what the current "surprise" program (windoze or linux) has. 
It's really just a wrapper around the "FDM" to let the "FDM" be used for 
something.

> So instead of hoping for great seascapes from FG/SimGear in the near 
> (or not so near) future, I would first improve your existing "FDM", 
> add the ocean, include navigation aids, etc.

Stars, sun and a stopwatch. That's all you get!
Ok. Ok, I'm joking of course. That's all you get in the 18th century, 
but if sailing ships worm their way into the FG world, they'll be usable 
in any timeframe. After all, tall ships are still with us in the 21st 
century.

> Cannons and a damage model should also be added since you are 
> mentioning Hornblower.

> As in Sid Meier's Pirates!, the crew should also be simulated, [giant 
> snip]

Funny, you've just written almost exactly what I wrote to "The Admiral" 
(Peter Davis) last year. His comments were that he never planned to make 
a game of the sim - his sentiments in fact matched closely to those we 
hear all the time here on the FlightGear discussions group. It's to be 
an accurate sim first and foremost, but if people want to add 
guns/missiles etc then that's up to them.

I talked about crew, crew morale etc. (I've been a pen&paper RPG-er for 
a long time.) Same sort of response - basically, he (Davis) is only 
really interested in getting the sim to work well and would be 
disappointed to see the project "degenerate" into "just a game".

Of course, done well then there's no reason why any of the additions you 
mention would degenerate the project - they should be seen as enhancements.

> Graphics could initially be fairly minimal, perhaps isometric view or 2D.

Dovetailing into FG would allow 3D models from the start. I really don't 
want to have to build a custom isometric or 2D graphics engine just for 
"surprise".

> This would also give you time to develop a good interface.

All your points are very valid - especially this one. Unlike aircraft, 
saling ships don't have a single "point of control". The nearest (in 
18th century parlance) is "the quarterdeck" where the master or captain 
issues the orders, which then have to be relayed through several layers 
of middlemen to the grunts who pull the ropes. There is of course a 
"ship's wheel" but it's not a single point of control to compare with 
(say) an aircraft control column.

Try it with "suprise". The ship's wheel does precious little unless the 
ship is moving at quite a lick. It's the set of the sails (especially 
the spanker) that really steers the thing.

> I would also use a higher-level language for faster development and 
> improved flexibility. Python comes to mind and has the advantage that 
> the existing BASIC code should be easily converted to it and that 
> there is Libglade and pyGlade. It is also nicely modular and its sane 
> implementation of object orientation as well as its use of generators 
> are definite boons for simulations. At a later point, 3D graphics 
> could be added if desired, e.g. via PyOpenGL or using code in C/C++.
>
The existing code isn't BASIC, it's 'C' that looks like BASIC :-)
As I stated before - Davis wrote the original in BASIC and ported it to 
'C' many years later.

I'm looking for volunteers, me hearties! First jobs involve completing 
the linux version to have all the features of the windoze original. Then 
there's the work involved in completing the segregation of GUI code from 
the "FDM". Then there's work in making the new sources compile on 
windoze to provide the same functionality it has now, but cleanly this time.

Then there's the possibility of heaving the ship FDM into FlightGear, 
probably mis-using a "3D cockpit" idea to provide all the controls of 
rudder, yard-arms and sail-setting. Following that, a 3D model of the 
ship to make the "view out of the cockpit" look roughly like what you'd
see over the rail of the quarterdeck.

If this all gets left to me, it'll be 2018 at least before I'm anywhere 
near it! But with interested vounteers aboard, anything is possible. 
Tomorrow even.

> PS. You might want to consider registering your Linux port of Surprise 
> at Freshmeat <http://freshmeat.net/>;.
>
Currently, I consider it too incomplete. Also, the source code is an 
embarrassment!
Source code is only available to people who sign a "non embarrassing 
disclosure" agreement :-)

(Nahhh, not really. Anyway, it's GPL as you all well know. It's just 
*embarrassing* GPL, that's all.)
Steve.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..TerrorGear...

[Frederic Bouvier <fredfgfs01@fr...>]

Quoting Arnt Karlsen <arnt@...>:

> ..to be specific:
> root@...:/opt/src/gpc232# nl Makefile
>      6  libgenpolyclip.a: gpc.o
>      7      rm -f $@
>      8      ar cr $@ $<
>      9      ranlib $@
>
> root@...:/opt/src/gpc232# make clean
> Makefile:9: *** missing separator.  Stop.
> root@...:/opt/src/gpc232#


There should be a tab after a colon (:), and lines that begin by space, s=
hould
begin by tab.

-Fred

--
Fr=E9d=E9ric Bouvier
http://frfoto.free.fr         Photo gallery - album photo
http://www.fotolia.fr/p/2278  Other photo gallery
http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/  FlightGear Scenery Designer

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Request for recommendations on screenshots

[Frederic Bouvier <fredfgfs01@fr...>]

Quoting "Jon S. Berndt":

> I'm putting together a presentation to give my fellow workers about
> FlightGear and JSBSim. I'd like to feature the best screenshots of
> landscapes, aircraft, sky scenes, structures, etc. that showcase
> FlightGear's current capabilities.

Download and install http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/download/e000n40.tgz
and http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/download/w120n30.tgz

Then you will experience a nice fly over Paris ( start at LFPO )
and Los Angeles ( start at KLAX ) with specific scenery.

-Fred

--
Fr=E9d=E9ric Bouvier
http://frfoto.free.fr         Photo gallery - album photo
http://www.fotolia.fr/p/2278  Other photo gallery
http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/  FlightGear Scenery Designer

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Request for recommendations on screenshots

[AJ MacLeod <aj-lists@ad...>]

On Thursday 01 June 2006 14:32, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> I'd like to feature the best screenshots of
> landscapes, aircraft, sky scenes, structures, etc. that showcase
> FlightGear's current capabilities.
> Suggestions?

For a start you could rummage around through the wealth of shots on 
http://fgfs.i-net.hu ; there are some fairly decent ones there to get you 
going.  Also, some of Fred B's "Paris at Night" shots would be essential... 
if only I could remember where they were :-?  A link was posted to the dev 
list recently (within the past fortnight?) IIRC.

Cheers,

AJ

Re: [Flightgear-devel] ..TerrorGear...

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2...>]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:49:08 +0200, Arnt wrote in message 
<20060601124908.5524e059.arnt@...>:

> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 03:21:11 +0200, Arnt wrote in message 
> <20060601032111.4f6780f1.arnt@...>:
> 
> > 
> >  > LAST MINUTE NOTE:
> >  >    At this point I had completely forgotten that Arnt was trying
> >  >    to build TerraGear and not FlightGear. I have never build
> >  >    TerraGear but I still hope that the following is helpful for
> >  >    someone.
> > 
> >  ..in progress.  ;o)
> 
> .."./configure now barfs on gpc.  Alan Murta's license effectively
> shoots down distributing a working TerraGear under the GPL, 
> say on a Live CD or as a .deb or whatever.   Can we either 
> convince Alan he should use the GPL, or is there something, 
> anything GPL we can use in its place?
> 
> ..to be clear, I am _not_ going to put TerraGear on the 
> FGLiveCD4KOSH until I can do it under the GPL.
> 
> 
> ..now tech: gpc-2.32 has #define GPG_EPSILON (DBL_EPSILON) 
> and of course #define GPC_VERSION "2.32" and still needs 
> #define GPG_EPSILON (0.000001) adviced in README.gpc?
 
..appears to work, but http://80.239.32.252/gpc.make.fails 

..to be specific:
root@...:/opt/src/gpc232# nl Makefile
     6  libgenpolyclip.a: gpc.o
     7      rm -f $@
     8      ar cr $@ $<
     9      ranlib $@

root@...:/opt/src/gpc232# make clean
Makefile:9: *** missing separator.  Stop.
root@...:/opt/src/gpc232#            

..yes, it is an idiot basic question to ask, man make 
has _nothing_ on "separators", according to wc -l, 
man -k make is not all that smart after all:  ;o)
arnt@...:~ $ man -k make |wc -l
298
arnt@...:~ $ man -k make separators |wc -l
299
arnt@...:~ $ man -k make separator |wc -l
307
arnt@...:~ $ man -k separator |wc -l
9
arnt@...:~ $ man -k separator       
Tcl_FSPathSeparator (3) [FileSystem] - procedures to interact with any
filesystem Tcl_FSPathSeparator (3) [FileSystem] - procedures to interact
with any filesystem d.colorlist (1grass) - Output a list of all
available display colors with a configurable separator (default is
comma). SoLocateHighlight (3iv) - special separator that performs locate
highlighting SoSeparator (3iv)    - group node that saves and restores
traversal state SoSeparatorKit (3iv) - separator nodekit class
SoTransformSeparator (3iv) - group node that saves and restores
transformation state SoWWWAnchor (3iv)    - separator group node with a
URL hyperlink Tcl_FSPathSeparator (3tcl) - procedures to interact with
any filesystem 
arnt@...:~ $ man -k separators
separators: nothing appropriate.
arnt@...:~ $ 

-- 
..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-devel] Request for recommendations on screenshots

[Jon S. Berndt <jsb@ha...>]

I'm putting together a presentation to give my fellow workers about
FlightGear and JSBSim. I'd like to feature the best screenshots of
landscapes, aircraft, sky scenes, structures, etc. that showcase
FlightGear's current capabilities.

Suggestions?

Jon

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seneca II updated

[Melchior FRANZ <mfranz@ao...>]

* Torsten Dreyer -- Thursday 01 June 2006 09:07:
> May I kindly ask for a volunteer "CVS janitor" to check it in?

Done, thanks! Very nice aircraft.  :-)

m.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] A380 Development

[Josh Babcock <jbabcock@at...>]

Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:20:59 +0200, Frederic wrote in message 
> <1149142859.447e874b04f27@...>:
> 
> 
>>Selon "Ampere K. Hardraade" :
>>
>>
>>>I suspect it is FDM's issue.  Try using the Null FDM.
>>
>>Yes, that's why I am saying it shouldn't be finished.
>>It doesn't fly very well with the null fdm :
>>http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs-a380.jpg
> 
> 
> ..river Seine flooding again?  ;o)
> 
The other FDMs put the wheels on the ground, magic carpet puts the
model's origin on the ground. It just needs a different offset in the
-set file while it's a UFO.
Josh