On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:55 -0700, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > Hi All, > > Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork > (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been > working on an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which > attempts to simulate the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by > moving the pilot viewpoint vertically depending on the apparent > g-force. > > This is a simplified version of what vivian, Josh et al. created for > the Buccaneer and other aircraft. > > Of course, the main advantage of this is that it is completely > generic, and pretty lightweight too. The overhead ontop of the > redout/blackout is minimal: one extra property read/write per frame, > only when the feature is enabled and in cockpit view. > > A patch for this is available from > http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/headshake.patch > > Comments are very welcome, but I'm particularly interested in peoples > views on the following: > > 1) Obviously this duplicates some aircraft-specific code, and one can > argue that this sort of feature is only important for high-energy > jets, where it should be modelled in more detail than I have done. > I've been playing with this code on the Stampe, A4-F and Pitts, and > have felt that it has improved the feeling of realism, but then I > wrote it ;) Do people feel it is worth providing a generic > implementation, given that for most GA flying is at 2g or less, and > this will move the pilot viewpoint 5cm!
It is worthwhile to model generically. Many aircraft in CVS could benefit from this feature without having to recode it for each. > 2) Currently the redout and headshake enabling properties are > userarchive, which (as I understand it) means that the user's > preference will over-write any aircraft setting. Given that both these > generic features duplicate existing aircraft-specific code, I think I > should remove this flag, so aircraft designers can over-ride it. Any > comments? STRONGLY OPPOSE. User preference should absolutely outweigh the aircraft designer. While I might feel, as an aircraft designer, that a function adds a degree of realism, I can't and don't test on different hardware, monitor resolutions, multi-head setups, hardware simulator setups, etc. which head-shake may cause problems with. I personally find it annoying to have the panels jumping around during IFR flight. > 3) At the moment, this feature is limited to the y-offset of the pilot > viewpoint. For non-military aircraft, the most significant g-forces > will be felt in the y-axis (in the pilots frame of reference), as they > cannot yaw fast enough to cause any in the x-axis, and they don't have > enough power to cause any in the z-axis. If it is worth providing a > generic feature, is it worth making it multi-dimensional? It may be worth while to add. Perhaps it could be used to give a sense of slip/skid for the GA pilot. Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
