flightgear-users — FlightGear user discussions

[Flightgear-users] Rotary Encoder speed with nasal script

[Nicola Q. <ni...@qu...>]

Hi,

I connected an encoder with two outputs (A and B) at a Joystick Board 
(bodnar BU0836X). I used button 1 for wire A and button 2 for wire B.
Using xml and nasal script I get the right rotation (I want to move obs 
knob). Everything works fine only if I move the knob slowly. If I move 
the knob quickly, the result is uncertain.
It's pretty clear that I cannot intercept all the steps of the encoder.
Does anyone have any idea on how to fix it?
Thanks.

Here my files:

<button>
   <name>Encoder1A</name>
   <number>
    <unix>0</unix>
    <mac>0</mac>
    <windows>0</windows>
   </number>
   <desc>Encoder1 fase A</desc>
   <repeatable>false</repeatable>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("A", 1)
    </script>
   </binding>
  <mod-up>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("A", 0)
    </script>
   </binding>
  </mod-up>
  </button>

  <button>
   <name>Encoder1B</name>
   <number>
    <unix>1</unix>
    <mac>1</mac>
    <windows>1</windows>
   </number>
   <desc>Encoder1 fase B</desc>
   <repeatable>false</repeatable>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("B", 1)
    </script>
   </binding>
  <mod-up>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("B", 0)
    </script>
   </binding>
  </mod-up>
  </button>


Then this nasal script:

###############################################
var statusA = nil;
var statusB = nil;
var oldStatusA = nil;
var oldStatusB = nil;

var initBodnar = func() {
         print ("Loading bodnar.nas");
}

var encoder1 = func(button, status) {
         print (button , status);
         if(button == "A") {
                 statusA = status;
         }
         else if ( button == "B" ) {
                 statusB = status;
         }

         if(statusA == statusB) {
                 if(oldStatusA != statusA) {
                         direction("cw");
                 }
                 else {
                         direction("ccw")
                 }
         }
         else {
                 if(oldStatusA != statusA) {
                         direction("ccw");
                 }
                 else {
                         direction("cw")
                 }
         }
         oldStatusA = statusA;
         oldStatusB = statusB;
}

var direction = func(dir) {
         print (dir);
}

#############################################

-- 
Nicola Quargentan

[Flightgear-users] Rotary Encoder speed with nasal script

[Nicola Q. <ni...@qu...>]

Hi,

I connected an encoder with two outputs (A and B) at a Joystick Board 
(bodnar BU0836X). I used button 1 for wire A and button 2 for wire B.
Using xml and nasal script I get the right rotation (I want to move obs 
knob). Everything works fine only if I move the knob slowly. If I move 
the knob quickly, the result is uncertain.
It's pretty clear that I cannot intercept all the steps of the encoder.
Does anyone have any idea on how to fix it?
Thanks.

Here my files:

<button>
   <name>Encoder1A</name>
   <number>
    <unix>0</unix>
    <mac>0</mac>
    <windows>0</windows>
   </number>
   <desc>Encoder1 fase A</desc>
   <repeatable>false</repeatable>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("A", 1)
    </script>
   </binding>
  <mod-up>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("A", 0)
    </script>
   </binding>
  </mod-up>
  </button>

  <button>
   <name>Encoder1B</name>
   <number>
    <unix>1</unix>
    <mac>1</mac>
    <windows>1</windows>
   </number>
   <desc>Encoder1 fase B</desc>
   <repeatable>false</repeatable>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("B", 1)
    </script>
   </binding>
  <mod-up>
   <binding>
    <command>nasal</command>
    <script>
       bodnar.encoder1("B", 0)
    </script>
   </binding>
  </mod-up>
  </button>


Then this nasal script:

###############################################
var statusA = nil;
var statusB = nil;
var oldStatusA = nil;
var oldStatusB = nil;

var initBodnar = func() {
         print ("Loading bodnar.nas");
}

var encoder1 = func(button, status) {
         print (button , status);
         if(button == "A") {
                 statusA = status;
         }
         else if ( button == "B" ) {
                 statusB = status;
         }

         if(statusA == statusB) {
                 if(oldStatusA != statusA) {
                         direction("cw");
                 }
                 else {
                         direction("ccw")
                 }
         }
         else {
                 if(oldStatusA != statusA) {
                         direction("ccw");
                 }
                 else {
                         direction("cw")
                 }
         }
         oldStatusA = statusA;
         oldStatusB = statusB;
}

var direction = func(dir) {
         print (dir);
}

#############################################

-- 
Nicola Quargentan

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 73, Issue 1

[Trennor T. <tre...@gm...>]

AJ wrote:
>If it's a major problem for you, and you really want to fly from a
particular airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove detail  >than it
is for others to add it...

>AJ

Vivan wrote:

>I think there are messages here though:

>We do need an effective LOD system so that the user can elect to see
>none/some/all of the eye-candy. I think that's in hand - but might be a
>little way off. One size doesn't fit all, and we shouldn't force it down
the
>user's  throat.

>Telling someone to go fly somewhere else isn't really a solution. Yes I
know
>it's true but ... it won't win FG too many friends.

>We must optimise all our eye-candy - I think there's much to be done on
that
>- texture sizes, transparency, mesh sizes: some of our stuff isn't all that
>well done.

>Vivian

Thanks, Vivian, for your input; this is the sort of suggestion for which I
was hoping when I posted. Why should we have to move to another airport?
Why should we be effectively banned from certain airports because there are
those who are unwilling to take action on an issue which is fixable and is
clearly slowing the sim down? True, there are other airports to which we
can fly, but I'm in a virtual airline and EDKK is one of our major
airports. So is EDDF, so is LOWI, two other airports I used to enjoy flying
into, but now I cannot because someone spent a couple of afternoons
"spicing them up." I'm not asking for total elimination of the eye-candy
here, I'm simply asking that those who don't have the *ultimate* systems
and are flying FG not to be effectively banned from these airports because
our computers won't handle them.  Let's not be part of the problem but part
of the solution. I love the idea of selectivity and support its
implementation; just knowing it's being considered and not rejected out of
hand is encouraging. Thank-you.

Tren

Re: [Flightgear-users] Linguage portuguese and a question

[Umara S. <uma...@ya...>]

Hi,
You should provide at least your operating system, display driver, and what flightgear version you running in order to make other user able to help your problem.
Thanks

Umara

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Sulzbach
Sent: 5/5/2013 7:27
To: fli...@li...
Subject: [Flightgear-users] Linguage portuguese and a question




HI, my name is Arthur and I do the download of the Flight gear. But I dont can opening the three page. Where I open the simulator, I need to select the airplain, next the AirPort and next the configuration(day). But in the lest page, open a Message! It is: Error, APP CRASH.
What's this?

Thank's

[Flightgear-users] Linguage portuguese and a question

[Arthur S. <art...@ya...>]

HI, my name is Arthur and I do the download of the Flight gear. But I dont can opening the three page. Where I open the simulator, I  need to select the airplain, next the AirPort and next the configuration(day). But in the lest page, open a Message! It is: Error, APP CRASH.
What's this?

Thank's

Re: [Flightgear-users] install problems on ubuntu 13.04

[Joe A. <joe...@gm...>]

That is one of the main reasons i added windows as a secondary OS...i've
had absolutely no luck getting flightgear to run on linux


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Martin Herweg <m.h...@gm...> wrote:

>
> Hi !
>
> I tried to install Version 2.10 or 2.11
> from the PPA.
>
> With 2.10 I get a dependeny error: libudev0
>
> for 2.11 I dont have the fgfs-data that fits to that Version.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
> New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
> that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
> browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
> and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>



--

[Flightgear-users] install problems on ubuntu 13.04

[Martin H. <m.h...@gm...>]

Hi !

I tried to install Version 2.10 or 2.11
from the PPA.

With 2.10 I get a dependeny error: libudev0

for 2.11 I dont have the fgfs-data that fits to that Version.

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[Vivian M. <viv...@li...>]

Thomas wrote

 
> > Given that (making up figures now) 99% of the FG world is
unrealistically
> almost completely barren of objects - why not just fly somewhere else,
that
> hasn't been painstakingly recreated?
> >
> > Whenever my own system is lagging a bit behind the state of the art,
that's
> exactly what I do - I don't see why other people who have invested money
in
> high-performance machines shouldn't get a chance to fly from more
realistic
> airports when we've got the rest of the world to fly from?
> >
> > If it's a major problem for you, and you really want to fly from a
particular
> airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove detail than it is for others
to add
> it...
> >
> > AJ
> 
> +1
> 
> And that's exactly what Jomo and I have been telling Trennor on the
forums.
> I really don't see what's so difficult about removing a line from an .stg
file. It's
> all documented on the wiki, one just has to make an effort and read it.
> Especially if you're getting a free lunch off of others hard work.
> 
> That said, I second that heavy scenery should take advantage of FG's LOD
> system.
> 
> I do understand that it's annoying if FG lags and you get unflyable frame
> rates. But it's impossible to come up with a single balance between detail
and
> smoothness that fits all users.
> 

I think there are messages here though: 

We do need an effective LOD system so that the user can elect to see
none/some/all of the eye-candy. I think that's in hand - but might be a
little way off. One size doesn't fit all, and we shouldn't force it down the
user's  throat. 

Telling someone to go fly somewhere else isn't really a solution. Yes I know
it's true but ... it won't win FG too many friends.

We must optimise all our eye-candy - I think there's much to be done on that
- texture sizes, transparency, mesh sizes: some of our stuff isn't all that
well done.

Vivian



 

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[Thomas A. <ra...@we...>]

> Given that (making up figures now) 99% of the FG world is unrealistically almost completely barren of objects - why not just fly somewhere else, that hasn't been painstakingly recreated?
> 
> Whenever my own system is lagging a bit behind the state of the art, that's exactly what I do - I don't see why other people who have invested money in high-performance machines shouldn't get a chance to fly from more realistic airports when we've got the rest of the world to fly from?
> 
> If it's a major problem for you, and you really want to fly from a particular airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove detail than it is for others to add it...
> 
> AJ

+1

And that's exactly what Jomo and I have been telling Trennor on the forums. I really don't see what's so difficult about removing a line from an .stg file. It's all documented on the wiki, one just has to make an effort and read it. Especially if you're getting a free lunch off of others hard work.

That said, I second that heavy scenery should take advantage of FG's LOD system.

I do understand that it's annoying if FG lags and you get unflyable frame rates. But it's impossible to come up with a single balance between detail and smoothness that fits all users.

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[AJ M. <aj-...@ad...>]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:48:09 -0500
Trennor Turcotte wrote:

> *Some* eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement,
> but we don't *need* a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static
> aircraft parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion
> is to limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop
> adding when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . "

Given that (making up figures now) 99% of the FG world is unrealistically almost completely barren of objects - why not just fly somewhere else, that hasn't been painstakingly recreated?

Whenever my own system is lagging a bit behind the state of the art, that's exactly what I do - I don't see why other people who have invested money in high-performance machines shouldn't get a chance to fly from more realistic airports when we've got the rest of the world to fly from?

If it's a major problem for you, and you really want to fly from a particular airport, it's vastly easier for you to remove detail than it is for others to add it...

AJ
-- 

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[Leandro C. De L. <ll...@gm...>]

Maybe the scenery objects could have a level of detail association.
The users could then configure the level of scenery details they want
according to their computers capacity and that would automatically enable
or disable scenery objects.
Em 21/04/2013 00:11, "Umara Setiawan" <uma...@ya...> escreveu:
>
> I'm fully agree...
> All I want is fly...
>
> If those objects make my flight lagging (like there are 200.000 tons
additional luggage in my fuselage during take-off), then why we need them?
>
> Realistic cockpit is rather what a desk pilot needs, as long as it
doesn't make flying not fun anymore due to lag system
> ________________________________
> From: Trennor Turcotte
> Sent: 4/21/2013 9:49
> To: fli...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1
>
>
> Re: Scenery Question:
>
> For what it's worth, and I know there are those who are going to disagree
with this: but I think we're getting far too carried away with scenery in
some parts of FG. EDKK is a perfect example: someone has piled object upon
object upon object in that area to the point where FG is bogged down with
all of the extraneous and (unnecessary?) eye candy which has been installed
there. Even with AI deactivated, all large Boeings and Airbuses removed
from $FGROOT/Aircraft/  and replaced with AI aircraft so they don't clog up
the system, some users still get severe lag. One of our people actually
went in and discarded over two-thirds of the extraneous objects which have
appeared there recently, and distributed the stig file to a limited numer
of users who were affected this way, to the effect that on my system at
least, FG runs much smoother.
>
>  Not everyone has a super gaming system with quad-core processing and an
*ultimate* gaming video card to process all of this information. I would
personally like to see some sort of reasonable control placed on this. Jomo
recently commented that this idea is a slap in the face to those who spent
all the time adding all that stuff to the scenery, but I personally think
that position is short-sighted in view of the facts I point out above. Why
continue a practise which is clearly detrimental to the efficient running
of the simulator? Some eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement, but
we don't need a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static aircraft
parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion is to
limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop adding
when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . "
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>

Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

[Viktor R. <vik...@gm...>]

Hi Umara,

Sorry to hear that you're still not having luck with this.

I don't really know much about multiplayer but have some idea about 
networking. The two things I could think of would be to 1. try adding 
the IP address to bind to, and 2. try using a different port.

For 1., open a command prompt, type 'ipconfig' and note your IP address. 
Then specify that IP address in FGRun so the line in the command line 
output changes from --multiplay=in,10,,5000 to 
--multiplay=in,10,your.ip.address,5000

My other idea would be to change the 'in' port from 5000 to something 
else. Let me know how that works for you.

Cheers,
Vik

On 04/20/2013 11:20 AM, Umara Setiawan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I try everything I can to get online but, I still cannot connect to
> multiplayer server.
> I try using other call-sign -in case other already use it-, turn off
> firewall and anti-virus, I even try to re-install flightgear 2.10. None
> of it are working, I still cannot join multiplayer.
>
> Every time I try to connect to multiplayer server, the FG launcher
> command prompt show bellow message:
>
> "bind(:5000) failed. Errno 0 (No error)
> Cannot enable multiplayer mode: binding receive socket failed. No
> error(errno 0)"
>
> Does anyone experience with this error? what is this mean?
> Please help... it start very-very frustrating now :(
>
> Best regards,
> Umara
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Umara Setiawan <uma...@ya...>
> *To:* Oliver Schröder <fg...@o-...>; FlightGear user discussions
> <fli...@li...>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7
>
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Thanks for respond to my email...
> Actualy I've try to disable windows firewall and antivirus with all its
> feature before I start Flightgear MP but still not working.
>
> Anyway, I will try your advice using the tracers when I get back to my
> "cokpit" again at home in my PC. I'll inform you the result with this
> email again later.
>
> Best regards,
> Umara Setiawan
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Oliver Schröder
> Sent: 4/15/2013 13:54
> To: Umara Setiawan; FlightGear user discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7
>
> Hi Umara,
>
> I'm the maintainer of mpserver01 and can see no connection from a user
> called "TNI-AU". I suspect there is a firewall blocking the connection.
> You can try to use a special traceroute utility to see if this is the
> case, e.g. http://dice.neko-san.net/udptrace/
> You can do a "udptrace mpserver01.flightgear.org:5000" and see if you
> can actually reach the server.
>
> Best wishes,
> Oliver
>
>
> Am 13.04.2013 12:48, schrieb Umara Setiawan:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > I am having problem running multiplayer in Flightgear, it was started
>  > after I installed Flightgear version 2.10. Previously I was running ver
>  > 2.8 and the multiplayer was working, but after I installed ver 2.10 the
>  > problem begin.
>  >
>  > I have set all multiplayer option in FGRun properly, including Hostname,
>  > Callsign, In, and Out. I also using the in-flight menu (menu at the top
>  > of the screen when we're in cockpit) to connect to multiplayer:
>  > Multiplayer --> Multiplayer Setting --> Connect. But it still doesn't
> work.
>  >
>  > I found an info in Flightgear Forum for this problem but, after I follow
>  > all the steps, it also cannot solve my problem. What make me more
>  > confuse is, the one who started the thread in that forum (the one who
>  > has the same problem with me and looking for help), just said "I don't
>  > know why but MP is working now" at the end of the thread without explain
>  > how did he solve the problem. I also try to ask but it seems that no one
>  > answer my question again in that thread. You can find the forum here:
>  >
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883
>  >
> <http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883>
>  >
>  > I try to look for help in other place including Indonesian Flightgear
>  > fans page in facebook (I'm living in Indonesia) and follow all their
>  > advice but, no one can help me.
>  >
>  > So please help me...It kind a lonely flying alone in flightgear without
>  > MP finction
>  > Here id dome info:
>  > My PC : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1, Intel Dual core E2200
>  > FG version : Flightgear V 2.10
>  > Command line:
>  >
>  > C:\Program Files\FlightGear\bin\Win32\fgfs.exe
>  > --fg-root=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data
>  > --fg-scenery=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Scenery;C:\Program
>  > Files\FlightGear\scenery;C:\Program Files\FlightGear\terrasync
>  > --airport=WIBB
>  > --aircraft=lionceau
>  > --control=joystick
>  > --enable-random-objects
>  > --enable-horizon-effect
>  > --enable-enhanced-lighting
>  > --enable-ai-models
>  > --enable-ai-traffic
>  > --enable-real-weather-fetch
>  > --enable-clouds3d
>  > --bpp=32
>  > --timeofday=noon
>  > --callsign=TNI-AU
>  > --multiplay=out,10,mpserver01.flightgear.org,5000
>  > --multiplay=in,10,,5000
>  >
>  > Thanks.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  > Umara Setiawan
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
>  > analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for
> building
>  > apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
>  > our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
>  > http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Flightgear-users mailing list
>  > Fli...@li...
>  > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> <mailto:Fli...@li...>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis&  visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[syd a. <ada...@gm...>]

I agree.its nice if your system can handle it but id rather have a smooth
flight.
On Apr 20, 2013 9:12 PM, "Umara Setiawan" <uma...@ya...> wrote:

> I'm fully agree...
> All I want is fly...
>
> If those objects make my flight lagging (like there are 200.000 tons
> additional luggage in my fuselage during take-off), then why we need them?
>
> Realistic cockpit is rather what a desk pilot needs, as long as it doesn't
> make flying not fun anymore due to lag system
> ------------------------------
> From: Trennor Turcotte
> Sent: 4/21/2013 9:49
> To: fli...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1
>
> Re: Scenery Question:
>
> For what it's worth, and I know there are those who are going to disagree
> with this: but I think we're getting far too carried away with scenery in
> some parts of FG. EDKK is a perfect example: someone has piled object upon
> object upon object in that area to the point where FG is bogged down with
> all of the extraneous and (unnecessary?) eye candy which has been installed
> there. Even with AI deactivated, all large Boeings and Airbuses removed
> from $FGROOT/Aircraft/  and replaced with AI aircraft so *they* don't
> clog up the system, some users *still* get severe lag. One of our people
> actually went in and discarded over two-thirds of the extraneous objects
> which have appeared there recently, and distributed the stig file to a
> limited numer of users who were affected this way, to the effect that on my
> system at least, FG runs much smoother.
>
>  Not everyone has a super gaming system with quad-core processing and an
> *ultimate* gaming video card to process all of this information. I would
> personally like to see some sort of reasonable control placed on this. Jomo
> recently commented that this idea is a slap in the face to those who spent
> all the time adding all that stuff to the scenery, but I personally think
> that position is short-sighted in view of the facts I point out above. Why
> continue a practise which is clearly detrimental to the efficient running
> of the simulator? *Some* eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement,
> but we don't *need* a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static
> aircraft parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion
> is to limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop
> adding when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . "
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
>
>

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[Umara S. <uma...@ya...>]

I'm fully agree...
All I want is fly...

If those objects make my flight lagging (like there are 200.000 tons additional luggage in my fuselage during take-off), then why we need them?

Realistic cockpit is rather what a desk pilot needs, as long as it doesn't make flying not fun anymore due to lag system

-----Original Message-----
From: Trennor Turcotte
Sent: 4/21/2013 9:49
To: fli...@li...
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

Re: Scenery Question:

For what it's worth, and I know there are those who are going to disagree with this: but I think we're getting far too carried away with scenery in some parts of FG. EDKK is a perfect example: someone has piled object upon object upon object in that area to the point where FG is bogged down with all of the extraneous and (unnecessary?) eye candy which has been installed there. Even with AI deactivated, all large Boeings and Airbuses removed from $FGROOT/Aircraft/  and replaced with AI aircraft so they don't clog up the system, some users still get severe lag. One of our people actually went in and discarded over two-thirds of the extraneous objects which have appeared there recently, and distributed the stig file to a limited numer of users who were affected this way, to the effect that on my system at least, FG runs much smoother.
 
 Not everyone has a super gaming system with quad-core processing and an *ultimate* gaming video card to process all of this information. I would personally like to see some sort of reasonable control placed on this. Jomo recently commented that this idea is a slap in the face to those who spent all the time adding all that stuff to the scenery, but I personally think that position is short-sighted in view of the facts I point out above. Why continue a practise which is clearly detrimental to the efficient running of the simulator? Some eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement, but we don't need a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static aircraft parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion is to limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop adding when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . " 

Re: [Flightgear-users] Flightgear-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 1

[Trennor T. <tre...@gm...>]

Re: Scenery Question:

For what it's worth, and I know there are those who are going to disagree
with this: but I think we're getting far too carried away with scenery in
some parts of FG. EDKK is a perfect example: someone has piled object upon
object upon object in that area to the point where FG is bogged down with
all of the extraneous and (unnecessary?) eye candy which has been installed
there. Even with AI deactivated, all large Boeings and Airbuses removed
from $FGROOT/Aircraft/  and replaced with AI aircraft so *they* don't clog
up the system, some users *still* get severe lag. One of our people
actually went in and discarded over two-thirds of the extraneous objects
which have appeared there recently, and distributed the stig file to a
limited numer of users who were affected this way, to the effect that on my
system at least, FG runs much smoother.

 Not everyone has a super gaming system with quad-core processing and an
*ultimate* gaming video card to process all of this information. I would
personally like to see some sort of reasonable control placed on this. Jomo
recently commented that this idea is a slap in the face to those who spent
all the time adding all that stuff to the scenery, but I personally think
that position is short-sighted in view of the facts I point out above. Why
continue a practise which is clearly detrimental to the efficient running
of the simulator? *Some* eye-candy scenery is definitely an improvement,
but we don't *need* a luggage cart at every gate (sic) or forty static
aircraft parked on the aprons which will never go anywhere. My suggestion
is to limit such detail from hampering the smooth running of FG and stop
adding when that begins to happen. "Discretion is advised . . . "

Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

[Umara S. <uma...@ya...>]

Hi All,

I try everything I can to get online but, I still cannot connect to multiplayer server.
I try using other call-sign -in case other already use it-, turn off firewall and anti-virus, I even try to re-install flightgear 2.10. None of it are working, I still cannot join multiplayer.

Every time I try to connect to multiplayer server, the FG launcher command prompt show bellow message:

"bind(:5000) failed. Errno 0 (No error)
Cannot enable multiplayer mode: binding receive socket failed. No error(errno 0)"

Does anyone experience with this error? what is this mean?
Please help... it start very-very frustrating now  :(

Best regards,
Umara


________________________________
 From: Umara Setiawan <uma...@ya...>
To: Oliver Schröder <fg...@o-...>; FlightGear user discussions <fli...@li...> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7
 


Hi Oliver,

Thanks for respond to my email...
Actualy I've try to disable windows firewall and antivirus with all its feature before I start Flightgear MP but still not working.

Anyway, I will try your advice using the tracers when I get back to my "cokpit" again at home in my PC. I'll inform you the result with this email again later.

Best regards,
Umara Setiawan

________________________________
From: Oliver Schröder
Sent: 4/15/2013 13:54
To: Umara Setiawan; FlightGear user discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

Hi Umara,

I'm the maintainer of mpserver01 and can see no connection from a user
called "TNI-AU". I suspect there is a firewall blocking the connection.
You can try to use a special traceroute utility to see if this is the
case, e.g. http://dice.neko-san.net/udptrace/
You can do a "udptrace mpserver01.flightgear.org:5000" and see if you
can actually reach the server.

Best wishes,
Oliver


Am 13.04.2013 12:48, schrieb Umara Setiawan:
> Hi,
> 
> I am having problem running multiplayer in Flightgear, it was started
> after I installed Flightgear version 2.10. Previously I was running ver
> 2.8 and the multiplayer was working, but after I installed ver 2.10 the
> problem begin.
> 
> I have set all multiplayer option in FGRun properly, including Hostname,
> Callsign, In, and Out. I also using the in-flight menu (menu at the top
> of the screen when we're in cockpit) to connect to multiplayer:
> Multiplayer --> Multiplayer Setting --> Connect. But it still doesn't work.
> 
> I found an info in Flightgear Forum for this problem but, after I follow
> all the steps, it also cannot solve my problem. What make me more
> confuse is, the one who started the thread in that forum (the one who
> has the same problem with me and looking for help), just said "I don't
> know why but MP is working now" at the end of the thread without explain
> how did he solve the problem. I also try to ask but it seems that no one
> answer my question again in that thread. You can find the forum here:
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883
> <http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883>
> 
> I try to look for help in other place including Indonesian Flightgear
> fans page in facebook (I'm living in Indonesia) and follow all their
> advice but, no one can help me.
> 
> So please help me...It kind a lonely flying alone in flightgear without
> MP finction
> Here id dome info:
> My PC : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1, Intel Dual core E2200
> FG version : Flightgear V 2.10
> Command line:
> 
> C:\Program Files\FlightGear\bin\Win32\fgfs.exe
>   --fg-root=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data
>   --fg-scenery=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Scenery;C:\Program
> Files\FlightGear\scenery;C:\Program Files\FlightGear\terrasync
>   --airport=WIBB
>   --aircraft=lionceau
>   --control=joystick
>   --enable-random-objects
>   --enable-horizon-effect
>   --enable-enhanced-lighting
>   --enable-ai-models
>   --enable-ai-traffic
>   --enable-real-weather-fetch
>   --enable-clouds3d
>   --bpp=32
>   --timeofday=noon
>   --callsign=TNI-AU
>   --multiplay=out,10,mpserver01.flightgear.org,5000
>   --multiplay=in,10,,5000
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Umara Setiawan
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
Fli...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users

Re: [Flightgear-users] [FGx-project] multiplay refuel test

[Theo A. <th...@ev...>]

Hi Geoff

*Equipment*
What equipment are you using? a KC-10 with a 'probe and drogue'?

*The Prize*
>> I will offer a VIRTUAL bottle of good Bordeaux rouge to the first pilot
who maintains drogue contact for say a minute

Good luck.

Am I correct in thinking that a sudden movement of a foot or more will
cause the probe to miss the drogue?

And a sudden movement forwards or backwards of, say, ten feet may cause a
disconnect?

If so, consider:

At the equator a degree of latitude or longitude is about 69 miles.
Therefore one foot equals 0.00000274483 degrees.

I note that http://crossfeed.fgx.ch/data supplies latitude and longitude of
six decimal places - in other words down to a precision of one foot
increments.

This kind of appears to be OK. but there are other factors to consider.

For example perhaps the numbers are bogus.

The explanation is hiddden in this complex article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point

What it's saying is that if, in determining positions, heading, speed or
delts and if there is a sin, tan or square root used in the calculation,
then you are hosed if there is a 32-bit or longint anywhere in the code.
Intermediate products wreak havoc on accuracy. Playing with big numbers and
little numbers at the same time produces odd results.

[Harking back to the conversation a couple of weeks ago between you and
Peter on 32-bit vs 64-bit: My vote is for 128-bit.]

I could go on and on. 220 knots is over 371 feet per second. At a 10 Hz
interval the planes have moved over thirty feet.

In order to calculate an accurate delta then you need to eight or nine
digits of degree precision

*The easy answer: Cheat*
It would be far easier if you could lock your deltas to those of the probe.
If the probe moves an arbitrary distance forward then your position would
be its position plus X.

Is there some 'over the shoulder view' set of numbers that you could use to
lock your plane's deltas to the movement of the other plane? If so that
would be great. Of course, trying to refuel two planes at the same time
might make the ride a bit jerky for your passengers.

*10 Hz*
I laugh when I see such a number. Do you really expect something as silly
as a computer to be that reliable?

In my highly asynchronous animation world we have no use for setTimeout,
fixed intervals or whatever. Their behavior causes logjams and fails.  The
current device/trick/whatever is a called Request Animation Frame.

See
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.requestAnimationFrame
http://paulirish.com/2011/requestanimationframe-for-smart-animating/
http://updates.html5rocks.com/2012/05/requestAnimationFrame-API-now-with-sub-millisecond-precision


Yes, I know this is all browser-based stuff but could work just as well in
an executable - and how about the thought of running FG on a laptop for
hours without draining the battery?

*Why UDP?*
I have asked several times but nobody answers: Why does FG still use UDP
when there are so many easier more modern alternatives - ranging from a
RESTful system to RTC?

**

I'd love to see some logs of two planes trying to refuel. My guess is that
from a global point of view they are touching, but when it gets down to
inches - the two planes are all over the place. - lost in a rounding-error
space.

In any case, good luck with giving out the Bordeaux!

Theo





On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Geoff McLane <ub...@ge...> wrote:

> NOTAM:
>
> To flyers who fly 'probe' enabled aircraft in Europe... or
> even if NOT...
>
> I will be flying the 'victor' refueling tanker for the next
> few days from KFPY, south 180 track, then turn around at the
> southern mountains, north on 360, at 12,000 feet – FL120
> STD QNA – and am interested in 'hot' flyers who want to try
> air-to-air REFUELING (AAR) in suitably equiped aircraft,
> well ANY aircraft...
>
> The tanker will maintain, under autopilot, 220 knots (KTAS),
> at the said 12,000 feet, either 180 or 360, under the callsign
> GA006.
>
> The flights will commence about noon, or before, UTC, and
> close about 20:00 UTC.
>
> The track can be followed using http://test.fgx.ch, or other mp
> map URLS. Click on 'GA006' to localize...
>
> Reason:
>
> (a) I have tried with several aircraft over the last few days, and
> learned that this is QUITE difficult, but I hope NOT impossible!
>
> (b) The present suggested pps (Hz) is 10 when you set up –multiplay=,
> but FG 2.11 has fill-in extrapolation code when fgfs packets
> do not arrive in time, so maybe this is too high. This is the basic
> question...
>
> So the idea is to reduce this IFF this fill-in code helps, ie does its
> job...
>
> The theoretic idea is that with this code we can reduce the
> bandwidth used by 10 Hz to perhaps 2-4 Hz, but this needs
> to be FULLY tested, and confirmed...
>
> Now I have tried this over several day, in several aircraft –
> A-10, f-14b, a4 and failed, FAILED to touch the trailing
> drogues... it is TOUGH... autopilots help you get to the 'zone'
> but it needs manual flying to get to the RIGHT PLACE...
>
> If you are using a joystick maybe you need to even adjust
> the dead spot and the 'sensitivity' of the inputs... lots of
> learning, understanding and doing fgdata xml changes...
>
> And I have had a few pilots joining in ad hoc, but so far
> no one has actually contacted with the trailing outer wing
> drogues... The 'victor' can refuel 2 aircraft at a time... and I
> would LOVE to see/capture that...
>
> One, french I think, got so frustrated at his attempts, began firing
> missiles at the tanker. Thankfully, he MISSED, but was CLOSE ;=))
>
> Also if you alert me to your attempt to refuel from my tanker, via
> mp chat, email, fgcom, … AND I am on board at the time -:
>
> (a) I will offer a VIRTUAL bottle of good Bordeau rouge to the first
> pilot who maintains drogue contact for say a minute, or more ;=))
>
> (b) I will take some screen shots and post them.
>
> Be warned, during a screen shots (F3), fgfs stops sending mp
> packets for up to a second or so, and in the close fgfs the fill-in
> (extrapolation) code is activated, with some interesting, and
> sometimes quite alarming effects...
>
> Also I have heard others mention that the live metar update can
> also cause mp packet delays. The tanker will be flying under the
> 'Fair weather' scenario to avoid this. Maybe you should choose this
> as well...
>
> I really seek help from other pilots to analyse this multiplayer
> bandwidth situation. We have chosen 10 Hz, but WHY?
> Can less than 10 Hz be used with no adverse effect? That is
> the BIG question...
>
> Simply, what really is the optimum packets-per-second (pps) rate?
> Maybe it changes depending on circumstances...
>
> We know the lower the Hz the lower the bandwidth used by
> FGMS servers... but can the extrapolation code fill-in for
> the missing packets?
>
> Is 10 Hz good? Should it be higher, or lower depending on
> circumstance.. Lots to learn...
>
> Of course I am sure there are OTHER ideas...
>
> Hope you can help, and have some FUN at the same time;=)).
>
> Look forward to seeing you on my rear view... and I will
> take some pics...
>
> Regards,
> Geoff.
>
> CC: to users list...
> BCC: to others...
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "fgx-project" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to fgx...@go....
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

[Flightgear-users] multiplay refuel test

[Geoff M. <ub...@ge...>]

NOTAM:

To flyers who fly 'probe' enabled aircraft in Europe... or
even if NOT...

I will be flying the 'victor' refueling tanker for the next
few days from KFPY, south 180 track, then turn around at the
southern mountains, north on 360, at 12,000 feet – FL120
STD QNA – and am interested in 'hot' flyers who want to try
air-to-air REFUELING (AAR) in suitably equiped aircraft,
well ANY aircraft...

The tanker will maintain, under autopilot, 220 knots (KTAS),
at the said 12,000 feet, either 180 or 360, under the callsign
GA006.

The flights will commence about noon, or before, UTC, and
close about 20:00 UTC.

The track can be followed using http://test.fgx.ch, or other mp
map URLS. Click on 'GA006' to localize...

Reason:

(a) I have tried with several aircraft over the last few days, and
learned that this is QUITE difficult, but I hope NOT impossible!

(b) The present suggested pps (Hz) is 10 when you set up –multiplay=,
but FG 2.11 has fill-in extrapolation code when fgfs packets
do not arrive in time, so maybe this is too high. This is the basic
question...

So the idea is to reduce this IFF this fill-in code helps, ie does its
job...

The theoretic idea is that with this code we can reduce the
bandwidth used by 10 Hz to perhaps 2-4 Hz, but this needs
to be FULLY tested, and confirmed...

Now I have tried this over several day, in several aircraft –
A-10, f-14b, a4 and failed, FAILED to touch the trailing
drogues... it is TOUGH... autopilots help you get to the 'zone'
but it needs manual flying to get to the RIGHT PLACE...

If you are using a joystick maybe you need to even adjust
the dead spot and the 'sensitivity' of the inputs... lots of
learning, understanding and doing fgdata xml changes...

And I have had a few pilots joining in ad hoc, but so far
no one has actually contacted with the trailing outer wing
drogues... The 'victor' can refuel 2 aircraft at a time... and I
would LOVE to see/capture that...

One, french I think, got so frustrated at his attempts, began firing
missiles at the tanker. Thankfully, he MISSED, but was CLOSE ;=))

Also if you alert me to your attempt to refuel from my tanker, via
mp chat, email, fgcom, … AND I am on board at the time -:

(a) I will offer a VIRTUAL bottle of good Bordeau rouge to the first
pilot who maintains drogue contact for say a minute, or more ;=))

(b) I will take some screen shots and post them.

Be warned, during a screen shots (F3), fgfs stops sending mp
packets for up to a second or so, and in the close fgfs the fill-in
(extrapolation) code is activated, with some interesting, and
sometimes quite alarming effects...

Also I have heard others mention that the live metar update can
also cause mp packet delays. The tanker will be flying under the
'Fair weather' scenario to avoid this. Maybe you should choose this
as well...

I really seek help from other pilots to analyse this multiplayer
bandwidth situation. We have chosen 10 Hz, but WHY?
Can less than 10 Hz be used with no adverse effect? That is
the BIG question...

Simply, what really is the optimum packets-per-second (pps) rate?
Maybe it changes depending on circumstances...

We know the lower the Hz the lower the bandwidth used by
FGMS servers... but can the extrapolation code fill-in for
the missing packets?

Is 10 Hz good? Should it be higher, or lower depending on
circumstance.. Lots to learn...

Of course I am sure there are OTHER ideas...

Hope you can help, and have some FUN at the same time;=)).

Look forward to seeing you on my rear view... and I will
take some pics...

Regards,
Geoff.

CC: to users list...
BCC: to others...

Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

[Umara S. <uma...@ya...>]

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for respond to my email...
Actualy I've try to disable windows firewall and antivirus with all its feature before I start Flightgear MP but still not working.

Anyway, I will try your advice using the tracers when I get back to my "cokpit" again at home in my PC. I'll inform you the result with this email again later.

Best regards,
Umara Setiawan

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Schröder
Sent: 4/15/2013 13:54
To: Umara Setiawan; FlightGear user discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

Hi Umara,

I'm the maintainer of mpserver01 and can see no connection from a user
called "TNI-AU". I suspect there is a firewall blocking the connection.
You can try to use a special traceroute utility to see if this is the
case, e.g. http://dice.neko-san.net/udptrace/
You can do a "udptrace mpserver01.flightgear.org:5000" and see if you
can actually reach the server.

Best wishes,
Oliver


Am 13.04.2013 12:48, schrieb Umara Setiawan:
> Hi,
> 
> I am having problem running multiplayer in Flightgear, it was started
> after I installed Flightgear version 2.10. Previously I was running ver
> 2.8 and the multiplayer was working, but after I installed ver 2.10 the
> problem begin.
> 
> I have set all multiplayer option in FGRun properly, including Hostname,
> Callsign, In, and Out. I also using the in-flight menu (menu at the top
> of the screen when we're in cockpit) to connect to multiplayer:
> Multiplayer --> Multiplayer Setting --> Connect. But it still doesn't work.
> 
> I found an info in Flightgear Forum for this problem but, after I follow
> all the steps, it also cannot solve my problem. What make me more
> confuse is, the one who started the thread in that forum (the one who
> has the same problem with me and looking for help), just said "I don't
> know why but MP is working now" at the end of the thread without explain
> how did he solve the problem. I also try to ask but it seems that no one
> answer my question again in that thread. You can find the forum here:
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883
> <http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883>
> 
> I try to look for help in other place including Indonesian Flightgear
> fans page in facebook (I'm living in Indonesia) and follow all their
> advice but, no one can help me.
> 
> So please help me...It kind a lonely flying alone in flightgear without
> MP finction
> Here id dome info:
> My PC : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1, Intel Dual core E2200
> FG version : Flightgear V 2.10
> Command line:
> 
> C:\Program Files\FlightGear\bin\Win32\fgfs.exe
>   --fg-root=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data
>   --fg-scenery=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Scenery;C:\Program
> Files\FlightGear\scenery;C:\Program Files\FlightGear\terrasync
>   --airport=WIBB
>   --aircraft=lionceau
>   --control=joystick
>   --enable-random-objects
>   --enable-horizon-effect
>   --enable-enhanced-lighting
>   --enable-ai-models
>   --enable-ai-traffic
>   --enable-real-weather-fetch
>   --enable-clouds3d
>   --bpp=32
>   --timeofday=noon
>   --callsign=TNI-AU
>   --multiplay=out,10,mpserver01.flightgear.org,5000
>   --multiplay=in,10,,5000
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Umara Setiawan
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users

Re: [Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

[Oliver S. <fg...@o-...>]

Hi Umara,

I'm the maintainer of mpserver01 and can see no connection from a user
called "TNI-AU". I suspect there is a firewall blocking the connection.
You can try to use a special traceroute utility to see if this is the
case, e.g. http://dice.neko-san.net/udptrace/
You can do a "udptrace mpserver01.flightgear.org:5000" and see if you
can actually reach the server.

Best wishes,
Oliver


Am 13.04.2013 12:48, schrieb Umara Setiawan:
> Hi,
> 
> I am having problem running multiplayer in Flightgear, it was started
> after I installed Flightgear version 2.10. Previously I was running ver
> 2.8 and the multiplayer was working, but after I installed ver 2.10 the
> problem begin.
> 
> I have set all multiplayer option in FGRun properly, including Hostname,
> Callsign, In, and Out. I also using the in-flight menu (menu at the top
> of the screen when we're in cockpit) to connect to multiplayer:
> Multiplayer --> Multiplayer Setting --> Connect. But it still doesn't work.
> 
> I found an info in Flightgear Forum for this problem but, after I follow
> all the steps, it also cannot solve my problem. What make me more
> confuse is, the one who started the thread in that forum (the one who
> has the same problem with me and looking for help), just said "I don't
> know why but MP is working now" at the end of the thread without explain
> how did he solve the problem. I also try to ask but it seems that no one
> answer my question again in that thread. You can find the forum here:
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883
> <http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883>
> 
> I try to look for help in other place including Indonesian Flightgear
> fans page in facebook (I'm living in Indonesia) and follow all their
> advice but, no one can help me.
> 
> So please help me...It kind a lonely flying alone in flightgear without
> MP finction
> Here id dome info:
> My PC : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1, Intel Dual core E2200
> FG version : Flightgear V 2.10
> Command line:
> 
> C:\Program Files\FlightGear\bin\Win32\fgfs.exe
>   --fg-root=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data
>   --fg-scenery=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Scenery;C:\Program
> Files\FlightGear\scenery;C:\Program Files\FlightGear\terrasync
>   --airport=WIBB
>   --aircraft=lionceau
>   --control=joystick
>   --enable-random-objects
>   --enable-horizon-effect
>   --enable-enhanced-lighting
>   --enable-ai-models
>   --enable-ai-traffic
>   --enable-real-weather-fetch
>   --enable-clouds3d
>   --bpp=32
>   --timeofday=noon
>   --callsign=TNI-AU
>   --multiplay=out,10,mpserver01.flightgear.org,5000
>   --multiplay=in,10,,5000
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Umara Setiawan
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
> analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
> apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
> our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
> http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-users mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users

[Flightgear-users] Multiplayer Problem using Windows 7

[Umara S. <uma...@ya...>]

Hi,

I am having problem running multiplayer in Flightgear, it was started after I installed Flightgear version 2.10. Previously I was running ver 2.8 and the multiplayer was working, but after I installed ver 2.10 the problem begin.

I have set all multiplayer option in FGRun properly, including Hostname, Callsign, In, and Out. I also using the in-flight menu (menu at the top of the screen when we're in cockpit) to connect to multiplayer: Multiplayer --> Multiplayer Setting --> Connect. But it still doesn't work.


I found an info in Flightgear Forum for this problem but, after I follow all the steps, it also cannot solve my problem. What make me more confuse is, the one who started the thread in that forum (the one who has the same problem with me and looking for help), just said "I don't know why but MP is working now" at the end of the thread without explain how did he solve the problem. I also try to ask but it seems that no one answer my question again in that thread. You can find the forum here:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14899&p=180883&hilit=multiplayer+problem+win+7#p180883


I try to look for help in other place including Indonesian Flightgear fans page in facebook (I'm living in Indonesia) and follow all their advice but, no one can help me.

So please help me...It kind a lonely flying alone in flightgear without MP finction
Here id dome info:
My PC: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1, Intel Dual core E2200
FG version: Flightgear V 2.10
Command line:

C:\Program Files\FlightGear\bin\Win32\fgfs.exe
  --fg-root=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data
  --fg-scenery=C:\Program Files\FlightGear\data\Scenery;C:\Program Files\FlightGear\scenery;C:\Program Files\FlightGear\terrasync
  --airport=WIBB
  --aircraft=lionceau
  --control=joystick
  --enable-random-objects
  --enable-horizon-effect
  --enable-enhanced-lighting
  --enable-ai-models
  --enable-ai-traffic
  --enable-real-weather-fetch
  --enable-clouds3d
  --bpp=32
  --timeofday=noon
  --callsign=TNI-AU
  --multiplay=out,10,mpserver01.flightgear.org,5000
  --multiplay=in,10,,5000

Thanks.


Regards,
Umara Setiawan

[Flightgear-users] Introducing JSMapper (Linux)

[Eduard H. <edu...@gm...>]

Hello to all,

I’m very pleased to annouce the initial release of JSMapper, a software
tool for Linux I've been working on for the past year which converts any
game device (such as joysticks and wheel drives) into completely
programmable devices under this OS. This allow the device controls (buttons
and axis) to be mapped to arbitrary keystrokes and mouse events, including
support for complex actions such as macros. The tool features also advanced
capabilities, such as support for mode switches and shift buttons, and axis
mapping through bands.

Project page in Assembla:

http://www.assembla.com/spaces/jsmapper


>From a technical perspective, JSMapper relies on an kernel module which
hooks into the kernel input subsystem as an “input filter” for game
devices:  this allows it to intercept hardware device events from the very
beginning, then them as requested to the desired target keyboard and mouse
simulated actions. These are sent using an internal input device, which
acts as a “virtual” keyboard and mouse device which is handled by userspace
tools (X, console, etc...) as any other “real” hardware device. The
original device event can then be filtered out, so it never reaches the
userspace stack.

This approach is what makes JSMapper a very powerful tool, as it’s handled
in a completely transparent way by any software running on the system,
including native Linux games, Windows games running on Wine, or even
Windows games running under a virtual machine on a Linux host.

The tool has been designed having specifically flight simulators in mind,
as they often require to map complex operations on the joystick buttons,
and is specially useful for complex game devices such as HOTAS featuring
mode switches and shift buttons which could only be properly used under
Windows by means of the propietary software provided by the device
manufacturer.

Disclaimer:

This is a very initial, although completely functional, release, and right
now is only available in the form of source code that must be checked out
from repository and compiled into the target system in order to use it. The
wiki available in the project provides detailed instructions about how to
proceed, along with how to interact with the kernel module by means of the
userspace tools in order to load mapping profiles into the device.

I’d very pleased if anyone could take a look at the project and provide any
feedback about it, including criticism, ideas, bugs, whatever you might
feel appropiate.

The project is completely opensource and licensed under GPLv2 (exceptuating
the programming library, which uses LGPL), and it’s actually a “final year
project” for IT studies on UPC (Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya).

Kind regards,

 Eduard Huguet

 Barcelona (Spain)

Re: [Flightgear-users] Scenery Question

[Bohnert P. <cou...@ya...>]

Martin,
Openstreetmap data uses a number of differant licences.  If the wind turbine data is licensed GPL it can be used in FlightGear.  If is not GPL it can not be used in FlightGear.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
Best,Paul B

--- On Wed, 4/10/13, Martin Herweg <m.h...@gm...> wrote:

From: Martin Herweg <m.h...@gm...>
Subject: [Flightgear-users] Scenery Question
To: fli...@li...
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013, 9:59 AM


Hi !

I noticed that in my home area (around EDLM)
some wind turbines are correct (number & position)
and some are completely missing.

Were the correct ones placed manually by someone ?

I did submit 2 missing ones to the website:
http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/submission/shared/index.php

why don't we automatically import all wind turbines
from Openstreetmap ?

I also would like to know how to add a texture to
the existing highway and railroad track.

thanks,
Martin




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
Fli...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users

[Flightgear-users] Scenery Question

[Martin H. <m.h...@gm...>]

Hi !

I noticed that in my home area (around EDLM)
some wind turbines are correct (number & position)
and some are completely missing.

Were the correct ones placed manually by someone ?

I did submit 2 missing ones to the website:
http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/submission/shared/index.php

why don't we automatically import all wind turbines
from Openstreetmap ?

I also would like to know how to add a texture to
the existing highway and railroad track.

thanks,
Martin

Re: [Flightgear-users] Dual Control

[Anders G. <and...@gi...>]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Martin Herweg wrote:

>
> Omega & I tried Dual Control with this Model:
> c172p-dual_fgfs-2.0.0.tar.gz
> and it did not work.

Hi,

As the file name indicates that aircraft was for FG 2.0.0. Might or might 
not work with FG 2.10.0 - but probably not.

> Is it possible to do dual control (teacher + student)
> with Flightgear 2.10 ?

Yes,

There are several aircraft with some level of dual control in FG 2.10.0
Dome of the more complete ones are in this wiki category:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Category:Dual_control_aircraft
(I think you need to get the DC-3 and Muldry Cap 10b form an external
repository - check their wiki pages.)

There are more than offer a ride-along service for the copilot with 
access to few or no controls.

Cheers,

Anders
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Gidenstam
WWW: http://gitorious.org/anders-hangar
      http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/