On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 22:24:42 -0400 "David Megginson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's great that FlightGear added head lag to the sim -- it's a > good alternative when the pilot can't feel forces -- but I think we'd > do better to model it based on perceived forces, not on roll/yaw/pitch > damping. For example, simply entering a coordinated bank gently > shouldn't cause any head movement at all, but flying straight in a > forward slip should, because there's a yaw force pulling the head > slightly sideways. Likewise, while the pilot is perceiving < 1G the > head should move up a bit, and while the pilot is perceiving > 1G, the > head should move down a bit. > > Would anyone object to my checking in some changes over the next week > or two to change this? We can always roll them back if they don't > work. > > > All the best, > > > David > I had at one point an eyepoint up and down movement based on g forces , sounds like what your talking about , but several people claimed that it was unrealistic.... it was mainly , for my purpose, to "feel" runway contact .... some aircraft dont screech their tires loud enough ;) Im not sure how else one is supposed to simulate those effects , but obvoiusly my method didn't fly ... Looking at videos taken by passengers , you can certainly see these forces ... and as a passenger , I have definately sunk in my seat .... ( no head springs involved ), so I still use it myself ... Cheers -- Syd&Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
