tkyler

lol..so true Joe on x-plane development. Regarding pirating software as a student for educational purposes...I too, did the same thing. I have held true to not making money using pirated software though. Its a whole other rant though on "the spirit of the law" vs. "the letter of the law". Laws are conceived in spirit, but executed by letter for the most part. So we could say that piracy by you (who would purchase the software at first opportunity) is OK while in school..while piracy by some other peer (who would go on to use it illegally after school) isn't OK. We're exercising prejudice in such a situation which the law cannot cover as we're dealing with immeasurable but very real issues...human character. So while society must use the letter of the law in most instances....on a personal level, we tend to "feel" the spirit of the law. So what seemingly is a double standard might be with respect to legal text ...but not be with respect our general sense of morality. It's a fallable system though as not everybody has the same sense of morality or discernment and people can lie and indeed even not be sure of or aware of the source of their motivations....but hey, that is humanity isn't it? I love it! I'd hate to see a world only full of x-plane developer personalities :-P

You know I totally agree with the idea of knowing what you are getting into before purchasing a product...this is some information we need to better make available to potential customers. All arguments are valid here...I dislike DRM myself. This post goes beyond DRM though...The condition is a bit deeper than most surface arguments here. The issue is one of selfishness on the part of every participant in the "system". Vendors get selfish and don't want people stealing their stuff...nobody does. Users don't want any hassles and want access to the stuff they bought without restriction, everybody does....and get this, I know developers who loathe pirates and pirating..and they themselves use pirated software to develop their products....you gotta be shittin' me! I had a developer who wanted to pair up with me to do some work...he was using a rather expensive software package and recommended I use it too, so he sent me a link to a pirated version to download. I quit talking to him that day. I don't like the double standard. There are those who only care how things affect them..and those that have consideration for how things affect others....I fall in the latter camp. We're not dealing with DRM as much as we're dealing with character issues, that's why this debate carries a bit of passion, we're all calling into question character here and that is a very personal issue. Cameron touched on the idea of products that are so prevalent and companies so rich (so we believe) that you don't feel like you're hurting anybody when you steal from them. Do you know that Studio Max is upwards of 3500.00US and Photoshop is something like 600.00US. That's big money for some "hobby" developers...I'd bet half the payware developers for x-plane use pirated software..at least Photoshop. I myself use all open source for a reason...and I also own a license for Adobe's creative suite. I'd love to hear their justifcations about the software they're using...after they get past their "uh...uh..uh..." So then, how can one want DRM for their own work, yet use pirated software? I use the example to highlight the point of selfish intention as the basis for all arguments here. We all want what is most convenient to us; however, and this is the point I want to make, we don't live isolated in this world, we live in a community and in such a social dynamic, there's "give and take" whether you like it or not. Consideration for others point of view is mandatory to a smooth co-existence. Some accept that and deal with it, some don't like it...but one thing is for certain and that is you can't please everybody and somebody has to pay the price for ANY decision. Here's another example of selfishness and double-standard. So you won't buy the MU-2 because of the DRM as it implies mistrust and you take that personal...so then, do you refuse to fly commercial because screening makes you feel like a mistrusted terrorist? I highly doubt that. So you embrace your stance in one scenario and then conveniently put it aside for another...when it suits you...hey... we all do, I get it! So while I don't like DRM myself, we're balancing two issues here. Either vendors have people steal from them or other people have to have an inconvenience with the DRM or possibly loose their investment if the DRM can't be obtained. If my kids were to present me with such a conundrum, I'd vote in favor of limiting the theft as it's the right stance to take. Neither situation is perfect, but someone has to "take it for the team" Now I practice what I preach here...the MU-2 on my machine uses the DRM too, my non-open source software have licenses so I can soapbox here. I understand why DRM is necessary...I understand that a few people ruin it for everybody. I understand that as a citizen of the community I have to give up a little to make sure the community moves forward with development. It's the price of living in a unperfect world with unperfect people with little to no respect for others (which is why 12 year olds steal in the first place..cause many of them can't sense that wrong). By understanding the way things are, I then do not take something like DRM as a personal statement that I'm a thief or mistrusted. For those that see it and actually feel it that way, I think you're hurting yourselves by clinging to a view that, while altruistic, isn't reality. A quote I really like is "....disappointment is the difference between expectations and reality". If you expect to have all the rights that you believe your entitled to in an unperfect world such as this, then get ready for a cargo-load of disappointment. You can choose to live in a disappointed state, or relent your expectations a little and ease the burden on your soul. Now in the spirit of respecting the position of others, which is paramount to me...The one thing that drives my approach to DRM is simple.... put as much control in the customers hands as possible. They DO have the right to use the product that they've purchased in any way they see fit within the bounds of the license. If we can get both the product and the DRM in the control of the end-user, we'd be all over it...indeed it's what we want. Kesomir is right on the money, we should make a best effort to respect the customer given the state of software distribution.

I won't do anything to the GPS at the moment. You're right, it's quite a involved task to improve something like that...practically a project in and of itself. Best I can say is we'd all like something better. If the time is ever right, I'll probably look into it one day. I will say I am ALWAYS looking at and learning techniques that could prove useful in simulating things better.

Ok..another little update. I've gotten over a hump..something i've been avoiding for the better part of a year now. Recall that the Moo started life in the middle of the V8 run. Manipulators weren't quite available then, nor were the lighting technologies, nor even half the datarefs I created for the Moo, which are now standard. implementing the newst of x-plane tech needed a rebuild of the cockpit infrastructure. First order of business was taking the exising cockpit object and stripping it of all animations and manipulators. Because the gauge set was a combination of both the panel texture animations and 3D animations, obtaining lighting consistency was next to impossible...hence the MU-2 has horrible night lighting. As an example...see the cockpit image below. The pilot airspeed indicator uses the new lighting system..the copilot airspeed indicator still has the old style..that seems to glow all the time...no good!. It was necessary to get all the elements that are to be affected by lighting into the cockpit object. This necessitates the integration of all the various objects and textures into the cockpit object. Such integration required lots of UV remapping and texturing combining, which is ridiculously tedious and unpleasant to me; however, I've gotten over that hump. The image below shows the resultant cockpit texture taken from five different source textures. This will make handling of cockpit lighting 10x easier and more predicatable ala Nils BK117 helicopter. In addition, I can now apply the manipulator methods I have and rewrite the plugin from scratch. Rewriting from scratch is not as bad as it sounds because a lot of the datarefs are now default in x-plane and any logic algorithms can be copied from the old code to the new code. In addition, I free up several misc object slots. Combine that with 2048 textures here and there (only 1024 were allowed when I begun), then we have the foundation to start over-hauling the MU2 and bring it into modern day tech...hopefully one with a solid enough foundation to last for years to come. I admit...I pushed the MU-2 a bit ahead of x-plane tech and risked it when I did, but hopefully, only a year and a half will be lost. This new system will allow me to make changes very quickly and adapt new features. The cockpit picture in at the bottom , uses the new cockpit texture...you'll note a new attitude indicator has been put in place. The next version (2.0...totally skipping 1.2) will have the wipers working, the GTX330 transponder will be almost completely functional (if not completely)...the gauges will become all 3D. I will exaggerate a few things here and there to make them a bit easier to read onscreen, more complete lighting will be implemented AND the ADF will work. I'm debating whether or not to simulate the fuses / electrical system. I have a system in place, but haven't tested it yet. I suspect a smaller scale project would be a better candidate...in addition, I'm hoping to discuss with Austin some electrical system modifications to xplane for the future. So up next is to get all the instruments built in 3D (mostly adding needles / indicators), then implement the animations and manipulations. The plug-in development is simultaneous with the manipulations. Once the cockpit is "running", then I'll put out an update and then focus on the rest of the 3D, upping the quality and textures.

semi-bad news folks, I'm partially retracting my freeware offer.....I think I'm going to move a version of this Falco to the payware category...not this version as is, but it's progressing so fast and I keep sticking my best code and features in it that I'm reluctant to give it away at this high level....anticipating 14.00. So what I anticipate doing is pretty much cleaning up things as they're seen in the screenshot above and make that the free version..which is quite feature laden. Then the payware will go on to implement a fully working Garmin 330GTX, much more detailed 3D aircraft and interior....fully functioning radios and ADF with perfect manipulator knobs. What does that mean, perfect manipulators??...it means no weird hotspots...grab the knob, move it to change stuff. if you can get the tip of the cursor on the knob, you can grab that knob and move it. Sorry for the somewhat change of heart...but i will be providing a free version much further along than the current one.

Well the code is certainly proprietary..it represents a few years of experimentation and learning (moment of pause and thanks to Ben Sunpnik for his guidance............). I will; however, consider collaborations with other developers on a royalty basis. This would be of benefit to developers who need a programmer. Now I am NOT as strong a programmer as many others. My openGL and openAL (sound) skills are lacking and I intend to work on that later in the year; however, I can tell you that the system is designed to "pick up" after all the modeling and texturing has been completed..and before animations are begun. It does not HAVE to be this way, but when working with others who are doing the modeling, it represents the path of least resistance.

Tired of workin'..late night blog: You may recall the picture of the falco cockpit I have on the front page of x-scenery.com. Contrast it with the one seen here, and you'll note all sorts of goodies that will be "up and coming" in 2010. I have spent the better part of the year working on a foundation of techniques and systems to speed up the process of development. The MU-2 was such a exasperating experience to finish up, I knew I had to standardize methods and find ways to reuse the things I'd already done. I can't tell you how many times I've modeled the same entity for each new project. Well I'm quickly nearing a major milestone in my developer tools that I hope to finally capitalize on and finish up some projects. It's easy enough to keep moving on stuff you know and worry about the stuff you don't later...crossing those bridges when you get to them. I crossed too many of those bridges on the MU-2 to ever want to do that again. So the most prominent development has been a plug-in template with a deep tool-set (at least to me it is)for programming whatever I may need in short order. The MU-2 had over 100 manipulators...some tied to default datarefs and others tied to custom ones. Testing those required lots of exporting from blender...and every export from blender meant about an hour of hand editing the exported object file towards the end of the project. This new code template allows me to separate the manipulators from their functionality. I set up a complete cockpit with "empty" datarefs and animate the whole sha-bang. The plugin code has "holes" or "hooks" for the logic to be programmed later. I simply read in the position of all knobs, buttons, switches, whatever and then code in whatever I need to. This saves me the hassle of hand editing, exporting and testing repeatedly. It's much quicker to compile a new plugin and reload the aircraft than to reboot x-plane. So what does that have to do with this Falco anyhow? Well all those techniques are getting tested on this guinea pig...which will go out as freeware when done. What you see in this project is what will be in future products and also what the MU2 will evolve to. Firstly, the instruments don't have that funky bright and uniform look. This is from using ATTR_cockpit_region in the object file. Doing so makes the instruments receptive to the new lighting algorithms. You'll also note the 3D attitude indicator and HSI. This is the HSI from the MU2, but the Attitude indicator was developed for the MU2 and will get back in that cockpit eventually. There's an additional fuse panel with 8 fuses. Why put in more fuses? Well because I'm working on complete electrical simulation, including the fuses..and I'll need the practice dealing with so many circuits by the time I put this into the MU2 simulation as well as other future stuff. The 3D looks the same, but there's a lot more brawn behind the stuff now. Fuses can trip, the alternator can be overloaded and eventually (some unknown time in the future), you'll see failures where you'll have to diagnose the problem from symptoms. The Garmin GTX transponder is almost fully functional now..and will be fully functional by the times its released. How functional? "Go to garmin's website and download the manual " functional. The next thing to try and hash out are custom sounds. Thanks to Ben Supnik for providing a file loader. I just have to work through a few file file path issues, get acquainted with manipulating sounds, then hopefully we'll experience some cool stuff. So 2010 is looking to be a good year of growth for x-plane...at least in the back half of 2010 as more momentum gets built. I suppose one day I should get back to doing some scenery.

Of course the "qualifiers" keep going Jan...so the proper answer is: " generic text with ATTR_cockpit_region ...AND...the lighting mode of the generic text set to "mechanical", which is the default setting". Because almost every generic text in existence represents some type of LED output...it's 99.9% (if not 100%) of the time going to have it's lighting set to glass, in which case, folks would see no problem....but leave it to me to have it set to mechanical and bang my head against the wall. Either / or, Ben confirmed the bug and it'll be fixed for the next version...not that anybody except a bozo like me would ever deal with it. I'll presume your generic text instruments are set to lighting mode "glass". Set them to mechanical and see if you have the same problem.

YEE-HA! I just lost a stupid number of hours trying to solve a problem that turned out to be a bug in xplane and not any fault of my own after all....uh...other than that incorrect XPLM type....*cough...*cough..thanks Jan. Anyhow....the problem is that generic text is not working when used with ATTR_cockpit_region in the cockpit object. I switched back to ATTR_cockpit and everything just worked.

Something weird is definitely going on here. I can't even display something as simple as the tail number in this generic text instrument. I'm going to quit focusing on the code and investigate other stuff.

Thanks Jan. Still can't get it to work with the generic instrument. I can use Sandy's dataref inspector to view the output..and that comes out working great, but just can't seem to get the output into a generic text instrument...maybe you can see something funny. Here's the struct definition: struct xs_timer_data{ int hours; int minutes; float seconds; timer_mode mode; long int timer_int; char timer_text[9]; }; and the struct declartion and memory from the heap: struct xs_timer_data* inRefcon = (xs_timer_data*) malloc(sizeof(struct xs_timer_data)); and the registration: XPLMDataRef myDataRef = XPLMRegisterDataAccessor(myDataRefName, xplmType_Data, 1, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, xs_getTimerChar_CB, NULL, inRefcon, NULL); and the callback: long xs_getTimerChar_CB(void* inRefcon, void* outValue, int inOffset, long inMaxLength) { xs_timer_data* ptr = (xs_timer_data*)inRefcon; memcpy(outValue, ptr->timer_text, 9); return 9; } This says to me....copy 9 bytes from ptr->timer_text to outValue....no offset. Below is a screenshot in sim showing the issue. I'm beginning to think it's not the code, but perhaps my use of the generic text instrument or sloppy UV mapping...I'm having trouble getting ANYTHING to show in that generic text instrument

Well the datarefs works.....but doesn't show up in a generic text instrument. I note that you have some..."+ length" after your dataref in your memcpy line...what is this for Jan?..what's getting added after your text and why? I suspect I need to familiarize myself a bit more with the byte array and length.

Crap....I was registering it as type Int myself....THAT would explain why I was getting an int back....everything else is done correctly I think though I have yet to test. Thanks Jan for mentioning that "extra" bit about the XPLMDataType...a bad habit of cutting/pasting code in this case. AHHHH...thanks again Jan. Worked with that simple data type change. It's always the littlest things.

in a module I have declared a struct: struct xs_timer_data{ int hours; int minutes; float seconds; timer_mode mode; char timer_text[9]; }; and allocated some storage on the heap and have a ptr to this storage. I then stuff the struct with some stuff struct xs_timer_data* inRefcon = (xs_timer_data*) malloc(sizeof(struct xs_timer_data)); inRefcon->hours = 00; inRefcon->minutes = 00; inRefcon->seconds = 00; inRefcon->mode = STOP; strcpy (inRefcon->timer_text, "00:00:00"); I register a dataref with a "read byte array" callback and here's my read callback..write callback is NULL: long xs_getTimer_CB(void* inRefcon, void* outValue, int inOffset, long inMaxLength) { xs_timer_data* ptr = (xs_timer_data*)inRefcon; strcpy((char*)outValue, ptr->timer_text); return inMaxLength; } To be honest, I really don't know what's going on here byte wise and I'm sure that's my problem. I'm not fully a programmer, but certainly feel like I'm walking a glass laden path on the way there. In xplane, this code produces a dataref of type int with the value zero. I just need some help reconciling how the bytes allow xplane to know if something is an int or data..and how this is manifested at the keyboard (i.e. where do I type in such values).

Have you tried the sim Jacoba? My buddy says it definitely looks better than it flies

Greg Mink..the owner of the MU-2 I patterned the default paint livery after...has installed a Garmin G600 in his MU-2 Pay real close attention to the PFD (primary flight display) as he touches down. You'll notice the G600 has "synthetic vision" and it simply looks like he's flying a desktop PC :-P......it's NOT a camera BTW.

Very well worded question Will, this response is primarily for you....and I think I might be able to shed some light...I had to think about it myself. The initial post was, as best as I can remember, a "snap" if you will...having dealt with many other issues. These issues run a bit deeper than can be expressed through action or words...they're ideological if you will, almost philosophical. I tend to key in on character traits through people's actions, not necessarily first impressions mind you, but over time, you can get to know someone through their words and actions. Some would say this prejudice...but since I reserve judgement for a time, I like to just drop the 'pre' and call it 'judice' :-P...because my judgement is then based on concrete knowledge and experiences. So then, sometimes I will see something that looks to be initiated with a certain motivation... driven by a character trait that is offensive to me...indeed I'd argue that it's offensive to many...and sometimes I tend to over-react for the exact situation that triggers my emotions and this is what happened in this case....but I don't apologize for the emotions I feel over the character traits that set me off. At the least, I feel I put this out there for people to comment on, and convey absolute honesty to those around me who would ask...as opposed to sly talk and evasive answers. My other thoughts on this complex topic I will not elaborate here as it is a very long and drawn out topic not suitable to text. I think you might understand Will that my lashing out was not so much at that specific competition, but rather a mentality that runs deeper than just the name that was given to the competition. I sincerely apologize to all the "most popular" winners out there ;-) If any org moderator would care to discuss more in depth why I might be behaving the way I have as of late, then please feel free to PM me if you feel you need to know more.

Will, I can assure you from the bottom of my heart it gives me no great pleasure to do and say some of the things I have. I certainly don't do it out of anger, spite or revenge or personal satisfaction.....but out of what I feel to be necessity....sometimes it just must be done to facilitate a change for the better. I can tell you I will do no more than I believe necessary to see equality restored to the community....but if I have to continue to squeeze a bit harder, then I will....regretfully so. It's been said that I "come crying back to xplane.org from time to time" whenever I go on the offensive...but I have no more desire to promote my own work through the org anymore. I feel confident enough to move forward on my own reputation...but for the sake of others, I'll continue along the path I think necessary to see "x-plane's community" actually be x-plane's community.

I'm done trying to convince anybody of anything. I know what I believe, you wont' change my mind. I'm having success in the path that I'm taking, I'm achieving what I want. I've been told both by Nicolas and now Will that certain behavior is beneath me....well perhaps so...but if people are nipping at my feet...then I have to bend down to swat them away from time to time. If you were aware of even half of the lies and bullshit we have documented on the org administration....you should be ashamed to defend it. We're witnessing such behavior right now as we post....you wonder why that post on the org linking to Javier's video hasn't been deleted? Every other one has....why not this one? Well I know why! Do you Will? ....and if you know the truth and defend it...then that indeed is low. I will continue making the best products I can and promoting the best products for x-plane no matter who makes it...because I want my community to grow.

This is not a feature that xplane currently has in it's default configuration. I very much agree with the difficulty of operating the GPS. Whenever I use my mouse to move stuff in 3D....get the mouse near where you want it and then tap the 'q' or 'e' key a bit. What this does is wrestle the camera control from the mouse and gives it to the keys...specifically 'q', 'e', 'w', and 's'. By tapping q or e...you basically tap the camera slightly to the left or right, but then you'll be able to use the mouse to mess with the GPS. At this point, you either use the keyboard to move the view..or you hit "CTRL-o" to once again have the mouse control the view. It seems like a lot of hassle, but the best I can tell you is that after a while, you get used to it. it's not ideal, but until more navigation friendly options come around, we do what we can. It seems though...that very recently a feature was put in xplane...so that when you use the mouse to move around the view...that whenever you press the mouse button down, the camera stops moving the view while the mouse button is down. This lets you change things in 3D without moving the view. When you release the mouse button, the view is again controlled by the mouse. I am not sure which version of xp this is in, or if it's an option..I do know that it works for me in 9.40.

link Wynthorpe?

I'm not so sure about that Jim. This situation is but a scratch on the surface of what's going on in the background. Nicolas owns the domain x-plane.org, but we own the community...and if the org is the xplane community, then we are it. If things continue the way they have been, there will be a major shakeup soon enough. In my opinion, org management needs to regroup and adopt a business strategy that works with the times.

seems the latest version of x-plane DOES lock the camera view while you have "mouse down" on a manipulator...does it not work with track IR? Also..once you're in the middle of a manpiulation..you can move the camera wherever you want and still change the manipulator until mouse up

Ok..so this video is NOT of the MU-2..but it has implications for the MU-2 and all my future work. One reason I didn't do the ADF on the Mu-2 was because it is actuated via a 3-knob stack. That's just plain hard to work in 3D....but NO MORE! This video (@7MB quicktime) shows an animation of actuating the radio knobs with manipulators and some plug-in code to manage the mess. The important thing here is that the knob is "detented" like the real knob...as you grab and move the mouse, the frequencies will "snap" very easily in conjunction with the animation and you can select your frequency rather quickly. Another important distinction here is that the knobs themselves are the manipulators...well...sort of, but anyhow, the point is that if you can get the mouse cursor on a knob..then you're actuating that knob. No more hunting for obscure hot spots..or clicking on the wrong knob. If you have enough hand/eye coordination to put the mouse cursor on the knob you want, you're set. This will make a 3-stack ADF knob for the MU-2 a breeze. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/948823/TKylerCode.mov

So blender 2.5 alpha has been released. Expect some instability and bugs...it's a totally new interface so you can expect to have to take some time to familiarize yourself with it. I have no idea how it works with the existing scripts by marginal. I'll let you know if I find anything. the interface is extremely customizable..but I'd suggest sticking with the default layout for a while so that when we share information, we're using the same frame of reference. Tom Kyler