Re: [Paparazzi-devel] FlightGear Running on Host While Paparazzi in VMWare

[Chris Wozny]

Chris,

I just tried as you said and the same happens, no flight.

- Woz (since there are too many Chris's :) )

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Chris Gough
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> does it work if you start them the other way round (flightgear first,
> then launchsitl), waiting FG to actually be up and running before
> starting the other thing?
>
> Chris Gough
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Chris Wozny <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> What are you using for commands to do this all on OSX? I've got
>> Paparazzi up and running in OSX and am simulating my flight via this
>> command:
>>
>> .../sw/simulator/launchsitl -a Mini_Vertigo_2012 -fg 127.0.0.1 -boot
>> -norc -jsbsim
>>
>> And then running the OSX version of FlightGear with the following flags:
>>
>> --fdm=null --native-gui=socket,in,30,,5501,udp
>>
>> And the aircraft still won't utilize the feed from the simulation. The
>> aircraft just sits there.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Stephen Dwyer <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have had the same problem as you, FG just doesn't work nicely in a
>>> VM (I am using virtualbox on snow leopard on a MBP), and as such,
>>> always ran FG in OS X with pprx+jsbsim running on the ubuntu VM. For
>>> me the only trick was to set up the network settings for virtualbox
>>> correctly, you might need to experiment in VMWare (no experience
>>> there). I also tend to run fg at very low graphics settings, as I care
>>> more for speed than nice rendering.
>>>
>>> Now however, I just run all of pprx, jsbsim and fg on OS X directly.
>>> This ends up being more convenient and faster (for me) than using a
>>> VM. The only hiccup is the occasional debugging required that is OS X
>>> specific, but there are some experts on the mailing list, etc. who are
>>> extremely helpful in this regard.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Stephen Dwyer
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Chris Gough
>>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Clarification: I found Flightgear unusable in the VM, so moved it to the 
>>>> host (debian) and was underwhelmed by the improvement at first. Host is 
>>>> Asus laptop with NVIDA graphics, but I was using the free graphics drivers 
>>>> that were distributed/installed with debian, and they were only margially 
>>>> better than the VirtualBox VM. After installing the appropriate NVIDA 
>>>> drivers for the hardware and building a new kernel, it ran much better.
>>>>
>>>> It's not the case that I got it working well in the VM, I never really 
>>>> tried.
>>>>
>>>> Chris Gough
>>>>
>>>> On 21/02/2012, at 5:00 PM, Chris Wozny <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are an excessive amount of artifacts in FlightGear when I run it
>>>>> in inside the Ubuntu VM on my MacBook Pro. I'll look at getting the
>>>>> proprietary Nvidia drivers for the graphics card and see if that helps
>>>>> out at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Chris Gough
>>>>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. Has anyone ever run Paparazzi/JSBSIM on Linux inside of a Virtual 
>>>>>>> Machine
>>>>>>> and then forwarded data via the -fg flag to their host OS' IP address 
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> is running FlightGear? My VM doesn't have hardware accelerated graphics 
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> FlightGear runs like trash in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. I did that a while ago for similar reasons, and don't remember
>>>>>> having any problems - once I installed the appropriate (propietary
>>>>>> NVIDA) drivers on my host that is. Isn't it working for you? What's
>>>>>> the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Gough
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel