> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:] > > I think it's grossly unfair to mix these issues: Spaceflight requires > to essentially write a space simulator. One of my first statements in the > forum was: > > "Orbital flights opens a whole new can of worms besides the need for > different rendering - completely different physics, completely different > numerical stability issues,... basically you want to write a new orbital > simulator, because the amount of stuff you can really use from a flight > simulator is pretty small."
At one time I thought this to be true, but it is not necessarily. We have been working on JSBSim very hard over the past years (thanks to the efforts of Fröhlich, Coconnier, myself, and others) to make sure that JSBSim can handle orbital dynamics properly - because if orbital dynamic are handled properly, it's a good indicator that aircraft dynamics are, as well. We can now do a high altitude, high inclination, high-eccentricity, orbit (with the spacecraft rotating) and after one simulated day end up a few hundred feet from the spot in space where a well-regarded software tool (AGI's "STK" product) says we should be. The dynamics of flight are not really different at all. Stability is not a problem. I would disagree with your statements above and in fact my experience has been almost the opposite, except for the rendering problem, which I have no experience with. I have been approached to help with testing JSBSim with Outerra, however, and obviously they are doing rendering very well from space to ground. > ... > > I still think that is a correct statement (up to the part that JSBSim > seems adequately equipped to get ascent and descent right, although we > don't know about long-term orbital stability - which wasn't clear to me > when I wrote it)- so from where I am standing, you are claiming that > Flightgear development is failing based on the observation that people > could not write a spaceflight simulation in 6 months or tell you how to > do that. > > Just my two cents. > > * Thorsten Given the criticisms of our high-altitude atmosphere model from previous discussions, I went ahead and revamped our atmosphere model. It's still a work-in-progress, but the atmosphere model should eventually be much more realistic at higher altitudes, and be useful for some limited spaceflight use. I have no idea how well a re-entering spacecraft will track along the expected trajectory, though. That remains to be seen. Personally, I would like to see FlightGear to be made usable for orbital flight, but I can imagine that would be a lot of work. Jon
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
