FG 2.10, most certainly a New Era of FG...

[jcomm 5,890]

I've kept an eye on this great Project since it's first steps.

 

I confess that I am not a contributor within the already huge network of code makers for this free, open, simulation platform, but I admire their dedication

talent and results.

 

The about to be released v2.10, of which I was able to test RC2, is IMHO a Marker Stone in the history of Fligh Gear.

 

Advances in scenery and weather rendering, AI, JSBSim are turning this free / open simulator into a serious competitor to what remains from the Golden Era of flight simulation.

 

The few worth alternatives are X-Plane10, Aerofly FS, DCS World and probably P3d 2.0... I am almost 80% on DCS World, which I still find to be the most perfect flight simulation

platform available, but following the XP10 progress, which is rather positive now with the stable 64 bit version about to be made final (10.20), and the very promissing AeroFly FS.

 

Flight Gear, OTOH, offers full World coverage, very acceptable flight dynamics, and in some cases (add-on b744 i.e.) very detailled systems simulation, has some professional

comercial applications already in teh market, and with the introduction of it new controllers configuration UI, it is now piece-of-cake to set and go...

 

FG 2.10 will certainly take a good share of my simming time in the next 6 months, while the nexte version get's ready to be released, bringing most certainly even more good news :-)

[carrotroot 77]

I've been following Flightgear since 1998 and contributed some textures around 2006 (they are still using they city and town textures) but I would have to say they've made huge strides over the past 2 years. The models are extremely well done and the new weather and lighting engine are impressive. The only major complaint I have is with the scenery ... its always been kinda dull but I know they are trying.

[mgh 89]

I’ve just download Flightgear 2.10.0.3 and it won’t run.

 

It’s installed in C:\FlightGear. I accepted all the offered defaults on installing. My system is Win7 64-bit Home Premium with a 2.4GHz Intel Core i3 and 4Gb of RAM. I.ve 504 Gb unused on C: It runs FSX and the X-Plane demo out-of-the-box with no problems.

 

I launched FlightGear and the FG Wizard opens

 

Select an aircraft

Select C172P Skyhawk (1981 model), 2D panel)

Aircraft image displayed

Click Next

 

Select a location

Select KFSO San Francisc0 Intl and runway 01L

Click Next

 

Display

Click Run

 

After a pause it returns to Display and shows unhelpful error messages.

 

I retried by clicking Defaults then Reset. FG returns to Select an aircraft. I re-select C172 again and then KFSO and click Run again. There’s another pause and the same error messages.

 

I retried yet again with 1024*768 screen resolution set in Display (FG doesn’t support my native resolution oif 1366*768) This still gives in the same error messages.

[jcomm 5,890]

I’ve just download Flightgear 2.10.0.3 and it won’t run.

 

Sorry to know about that mgh! I hope you can sort it out. I installed RC2 and RC3 flawlesslly. I have a Nvidia 650 GTX graphics board. The only display radio box I didn't choose was the LIMIT FPS one.

 

FG never gave me any problems on different computers and flavors of Windows. I am now on Win8 64 bit Pro, installed into a non-system controlled dir as well.

 

You are really not lucky with it mgh, and that's something to regret because, specially now, it looks very nice. The weather, the autogen, the new aircraft, the new joystick configuration UI... Well, all I can suggest is that you post your problem at the flightgear.org furums.

 

You will certainly like it, even being crude in some areas... :-) and, of course it is not meant to replace any of your flight simulators in case you use XP, FSX, etc... To give you an hint my preferred flight simulation platform is now DCS World, the one I find giving me a better "being there" experience, even if I've never been so away from the areas of flight / military roles simulated there, but it's the flight and systems models that attract me in the very 1st place, yet, I also use X-Plane10, and even Silent Wings for soaring, and I like AeroFly FS and MS FLIGHT, although I seldom start either... and... I look fwd for whatever may become P3d v2.0...

 

Just by curiosity - what AV program are you using? Do you have Defender scanning that dir?

 

AH! Just 2 more things!!!! Make sure you do not choose "force 32 bit install on 64 bit systems" and don't forget to accept the installation of OpenAL!!!

[stuart_d_buchanan 4]

mgh: I'm guessing you've got an Intel integrated graphics card, rather than a discreet Nvidia/ATI one right?

 

Unfortunately Intel integrated graphics are very weak, and also don't have very good OpenGL support which is required by FG.

 

You would need to disable most of the eyecandy in FlightGear, by selecting Advanced > Properties in the launcher and creating a new line with /sim/rendering/shaders/quality-level=0). That should at least allow you to start the simulator, though you may see very low framerates.

 

-Stuart

[mgh 89]

what AV program are you using? Do you have Defender scanning that dir?

 

do not choose "force 32 bit install on 64 bit systems"

 

I use Microsoft Security Essentals which has never caused problems in the past intalling into C:\xxx.

 

I uninstalled it, which didn't remove C:\Users\xxx\Appdata\Roaming\flightgear.org . Why?

 

It now runs after I reinstalled not forcing a 32 bit install. But wow are users supposed to know what's the significance of that, given that it appears during installation before any documentation's available and without any indication of what it means?

 

FG has a number of text files in its doc sub-folder named README README.3DClouds, README.airspeed-indicator, etc etc. Windows doesn't recognise those file types so asks what application to use when trying to open them. Why not give the the type .txt and not make it inconvenient for users?

 

mgh: I'm guessing you've got an Intel integrated graphics card, rather than a discreet Nvidia/ATI one right?

 

Yes I have. Now it runs, the FG default C172 gives only an useable 5 fps at the end of the runway 01L at San Francisco International - my default FSX C172 gives 40+ fps there, as shown in the attached images. Maybe OpenGL is the wrong choice for Windows?

[Mountain Man 142]

Maybe OpenGL is the wrong choice for Windows?

 

It's not a problem with OpenGL. Rather, there's just a lot more going on under the hood graphics wise in FlightGear. You probably need to dial back some of your settings if you're finding performance unacceptable.

[mgh 89]

It's not a problem with OpenGL. Rather, there's just a lot more going on under the hood graphics wise in FlightGear. You probably need to dial back some of your settings if you're finding performance unacceptable.

 

That's not what was said in post #5

 

EDIT

 

Following the advice in that post #5 increased my frame rate from 5 to 6 fps.

 

PS - The stream of errors appears unending.

[Bjoern 1,153]

FG has a number of text files in its doc sub-folder named README README.3DClouds, README.airspeed-indicator, etc etc. Windows doesn't recognise those file types so asks what application to use when trying to open them. Why not give the the type .txt and not make it inconvenient for users?

 

Even extensionless files can be opened with Notepad. In the worst case, you'll see gibberish, but as they're readmes, they're in plain text format.

 

Linux doesn't need file extensions for text files and as most of the developers and users are on Linux...

 

 

 

Yes I have. Now it runs, the FG default C172 gives only an useable 5 fps at the end of the runway 01L at San Francisco International - my default FSX C172 gives 40+ fps there, as shown in the attached images. Maybe OpenGL is the wrong choice for Windows?

 

- FlightGear is not FSX

- OpenGL is platform independent, i.e. can be used on Windows, Linux and Mac

- Intel integrated graphics are not the best choice for FG

- FG is even more of a resource hog than FSX

 

So try again with even less details, but I doubt you'd still want to run it then.

[Mountain Man 142]

That's not what was said in post #5

 

I missed that. In that case, your hardware simply doesn't meet the minimum requirements for FlightGear, but suggesting that "OpenGL is not the right choice for Windows" is incorrect. OpenGL works just fine in Windows as long as you have the hardware to run it.

[mgh 89]

Even extensionless files can be opened with Notepad. In the worst case, you'll see gibberish, but as they're readmes, they're in plain text format.

 

Linux doesn't need file extensions for text files and as most of the developers and users are on Linux...

 

But I downloaded the Windows version.

 

 

- FlightGear is not FSX...

- FG is even more of a resource hog than FSX

 

Those are very true.

 

 

OpenGL works just fine in Windows as long as you have the hardware to run it.

 

I realised that Id run FSX limited to 50 fps. Setting that to unlimited gave an average of 67 fps compared with FG's 6 fps.

 

I also did a comparison on my desktop which has an Nvidia GT520 card. FSX gave an average of 122 fps and FG's average was 37 fps. That's still only about half the rate FSX gives with on my laptop with Intel integrated graphics.

[Mountain Man 142]

I also did a comparison on my desktop which has an Nvidia GT520 card. FSX gave an average of 122 fps and FG's average was 37 fps. That's still only about half the rate FSX gives with on my laptop with Intel integrated graphics.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. FlightGear is doing a hell of a lot more graphically than FSX. For example, FlightGear's lighting and atmospheric effects are vastly superior to anything FSX can manage. Secondly, FlightGear is actually using your video card. FSX is mostly CPU bound because ACES failed to predict that CPUs were going multicore instead of simply adding on more raw speed, so they handed off a lot of the graphical heavy lifting to the CPU instead of the video card. That's why FSX runs on your laptop while FlightGear takes a nose dive.

[BillCusick 75]

I confess that I am not a contributor within the already huge network of code makers for this free, open, simulation platform, but I admire their dedication

talent and results.

 

It very commendable from what I saw the first time I got it to run. I had a few problems trying to get my T16000M configured - thought that I'd try a restart after install, but then nothing - no way could I get it restarted....The second and subsequent attempts failed - it appears to have 'lost' the executable. I get the dialog up - load the 172, then I load the scenery - but no way can I get the'Next' button up - it is greyed out.

 

I tried to load 'Default' - but it then clears the top two boxes - not very user friendly. Cannot select the FG_ROOT - the dialog will not allow me to delete the '/data' entry. The 'Select FlightGear excecutable' dialog cannot find the file - in the '../' root, bin/, data/ scenery/ or Terrasync/ folders.

 

So I tried an uninstall using the 'unins000.exe'. It appeared to work, but a re-install got me the same results - no executable - the yellow exclamation mark is displayed on the executable box...it just cannot find it. Can someone tell me what file it is looking for ?

 

Tried the usual - reboots/uninstall. No go. Pity really - I've tried - and I am no novice.

 

I agree regarding the text files - I've edited them - transferred to txt format, with '.txt' extensions. OK, a minor point, but it doesn't help. Many wouldn't be aware of how they could be read. I was looking forward to trying a little XML editing also.

 

I'll keep trying - I don't want my money back - I reckon it's good value - but I'd love to get it up and running. :lol:

 

I'm running Win 7 64-bit, installed it to D:\FlightGear as the default, loaded an aircraft and scenery, but nada. That 'Next' button is now dead. Pity that there isn't a default setting, say with the C172 and default scenery for an easy startup. I assume that after the first run I should have saved the situation ?

 

Best of luck to the authors. From what I saw - it looked good. Those clouds looked better than in FSX !

 

Later...

 

Took me a couple of hours to realise that the 'D:/FlightGear/settings.fgrun' was the executable'.....I was looking for an 'exe' file...So set defaults...set the correct paths....worked ! ..then I get %1 is not a valid Win32 application...Grrr...!

..but I finally got it up and running...

 

Plenty of warnings - including a DOS window 'WARNING: PUI: Too may live puInterfaces open at once! Closed the DOS window, and poof ! it quit on me. I shouldn't have closed those 'too many windows'...Not very user friendly....Four 'Live' dialogs open - The only one 'closeable' one quits the program....

 

Also...a text file with the key bindings would have been nice...all that typing before I could run it ? Or did I miss something ? Is there a joystick profile I wonder anywhere for the T16000M ?

 

..and the first time I crashed the cessna - that flashing red screen is a real migraine inducer - and I'm not kidding either...

The mouse 'Right Click' switching is VERY confusing.

 

I'll keep it for the moment to see how it goes. It has promise. Might try a little XML editing...

 

Regards

Bill

[Bjoern 1,153]

But I downloaded the Windows version.

 

That doesn't matter. As I've said, as long as the file anme indicated a text file, Notepad can open it.

[mgh 89]

FlightGear is doing a hell of a lot more graphically than FSX.

 

What more exactly is it doing in the situations I illustrated?

 

That doesn't matter. As I've said, as long as the file anme indicated a text file, Notepad can open it.

 

But why make it difficult by forcing the user to respond to a Windows popup and pick Notepad for everyone of the files before they can be read?

 

On the same theme, why is the download simply an .exe file which requires FG to be installed before any documentation can be read? why not bundle it into a .zip file together with installation instrucrtions - such as when to uncheck Force 32 bit install on 64 bit systems?

[stuart_d_buchanan 4]

Re: OpenGL / Frame-rates. The main reason that FG uses OpenGL rather than (say) DirectX is to provide open, cross-platform support. Unfortunately many graphics cards support DirectX better than OpenGL, hence you get better frame-rates with DirectX software rather than OpenGL. Intel integrated graphics cards are particularly bad in this respect. As an aside, I'm hopeful that OpenGL support will start to improve with the introduction of Steam for Linux.

 

Bill - the symptoms you report sound very strange, though I'm glad you got it running eventually! There's a joystick configuration option under Help that should allow you to configure your joystic as you wish.

 

RE: documentation - there are installation instructions on the download page, but they don't cover issues such as the 64/32 bit one mentioned (which I hadn't come across before). Obviously we should improve our installation instructions!

 

-Stuart