A new Flight Simulator

[D-73]

Compared to X-Plane, FSX and P3D, at least FG has had a first class script language built in for 16 years; Nasal isn't that hard to learn or understand to do the basics; and you can get a flying model with no Nasal code at all as most of the model is in declarative XML.

If we rebuilt FG then LUA is maybe a better choice; but remember that every cycle spent processing a scripting language is going to impact the frame rate, even if you had full multi-threading.

Thanx for the info. Yes, i can see that there are many things to consider. Will check out the links. But im just not gonna learn NASAL for single application use, or try any more blender exports.

For any projects i will work on, i want open source all the way.

[Richard]

As I said there is help available if you ask; if you send me a .blend I'll make an .ac3d for you; and a video of how I did this so you can see what has to be done.

It is entirely possible to do this with only opensource; the .ac3d format is documented and supported in OSG; you don't need to use AC3d to produce these models. Getting the blender export right is really a case of knowing what to do and what not to do.

I'm (obviously) a big fan of using the best opensource tools available, but I do also have a few paid for tools that are worth every penny, some I use for FG but others are just for paid work.

However I wish you well in whatever you decide to do; and if it isn't making FG models please post any blends somewhere and at least give someone else the chance to pick up any model improvements.

[D-73]

Thanx for that. I will keep that in mind.

[LesterBoffo]

I recall that what killed Targetware 2 was the LUA script learning process, as was the change from multiple 3D formats to Collada.

All because the program didn't have a sun light point and the water wasn't shiny enough. it was excellent in other ways including a simple and easily text editable ASCII FM, weapons and damage modeling.

Amazing what over 10 years time has brought on in it's stead.

[bell_pilot]

A very old topic but i would like to share my python experience about simulations.
I agree with python's simplicity. But it may be too slow to be the core of a simulation. C and C++ are most suitable languages for high performance complex solutions. As i know, nasal is based on C. So if I were on you, I wouldnt prefer python.

But instead of creating a new simulation, implementing python to the FG as an alternative for Nasal would be easier.

I can help for migrating from nasal to python.
We will just translate nasal libs to python and someone else gonna teach python language to the FG.

Ps: It is not an easy process. I just wrote the overall concept.

[IAHM-COL]

some efforts have already been done to make pythonic script exposed to FG.
I am not fully sure of the status of this, but some has happend.

FWIW, in my opinion any effort in the direction of making Nasal a silly experiment that goes legacy, is an step on the right direction.