> I want to share a few impressions from my first landing on the nimitz.
> The carrier still does not move, but the wires are working with a demo
> implementation in JSBSim.
>
> Pics from the replay:
>
> http://na.uni-tuebingen.de/~frohlich/carrier/
>
> :)
Nice pics.
Jon
___
Hi all,
I want to share a few impressions from my first landing on the nimitz.
The carrier still does not move, but the wires are working with a demo
implementation in JSBSim.
Pics from the replay:
http://na.uni-tuebingen.de/~frohlich/carrier/
:)
More will come soon!
Greetings
M
Hi,
Good progress so far. I managed to clean up that pure proof of concept to
something more readable.
On Freitag 29 Oktober 2004 02:34, David Culp wrote:
> Thanks for your input. Forward your code to Erik.
I will do so.
But not before tuedsay or wednesday, I have to leave now ...
Greetin
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 22:08, Andy Ross wrote:
> Matthias Froelich wrote:
> > This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
> > just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
>
> What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be t
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:56:45 -0400, Ampere wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> b) I don't have FlightGear installed, as I am still trying to get
> direct rendering to work on my ATI 9200 in Linux. ;-)
..' lspci -vvv |grep -A 10 vga ' says?
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from A
Can't.
a) I'm not a programmer, so I will break things.
b) I don't have FlightGear installed, as I am still trying to get direct
rendering to work on my ATI 9200 in Linux. ;-)
Ampere
On October 28, 2004 08:34 pm, David Culp wrote:
> Thanks for your input. Forward your code to Erik.
>
>
> Dave
On Thursday 28 October 2004 07:17 pm, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> Using that method, it is going to be a pain modelling deck with more
> complex geometry. I can't imagine how much work it will take to create a
> ski jump.
>
> It will be easier in the long run to define an object in a model file a
Using that method, it is going to be a pain modelling deck with more complex
geometry. I can't imagine how much work it will take to create a ski jump.
It will be easier in the long run to define an object in a model file as the
solid deck.
Ampere
On October 28, 2004 09:36 am, David Culp wrot
Andy Ross wrote:
> Matthias Froelich wrote:
> > This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
> > just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
>
> What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be to
> model the braking force as a *
Matthias Froelich wrote:
> This case kind of works for the arrester wires. The braking force is
> just hacked into the gear code. But this is just to be able to test.
What would probably be a better idea (at least for YASim) would be to
model the braking force as a *distance* over which the aircra
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 18:36, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Mathias Froelich ahs done some work for areas on the ground, and if I
> understand his code correctly (I'll send a copy to you) he uses triangles.
> I would favour that solution anyway, because it is easy to divide the deck
> into triangle
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 15:36, David Culp wrote:
> When the aircraft gets close (say 1 mile, <300 feet) the carrier will start
> checking to see if the aircraft position is within any of the reactangles.
> This will require a lot of coordinate transformation, and it would be good
> to get the
On Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2004 00:59, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> On October 27, 2004 04:18 pm, David Culp wrote:
> > One way to do this will be to define the deck(s)
> > as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but maybe more.
> > user aircraft gets close to the deck (using radar range
On Mittwoch 27 Oktober 2004 22:18, David Culp wrote:
> The current AI objects are not solid, so landing on the carrier is
> impossible until we solidify the deck. One way to do this will be to
> define the deck(s) as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but
> maybe more. When the user a
On Mittwoch 27 Oktober 2004 23:01, David Culp wrote:
> > Yep. I guess this means that the "ground" position and velocity
> > vectors will need to be passed in to the FDMs. I'd also recommend
> > against passing in orientation and rotational velocity vectors at the
> > moment - first do the steady l
David Culp wrote:
>
> > 3) Make the decks solid.
> > 9) Make island solid
>
> Here's how I think we can solidify the decks and island. First we need to
> define some rectangles (2? 3? a variable list?).
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/decks.jpg
Mathias Froelich ahs done some work
> 3) Make the decks solid.
> 9) Make island solid
Here's how I think we can solidify the decks and island. First we need to
define some rectangles (2? 3? a variable list?).
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/decks.jpg
Each rectangle is defined in the carrier config file, in carrier body
> > project schedule:
> >
> > 1) Derive a new AICarrier class (me, just did it)
> > 2) Refine the carrier visually (done, set to Erik for upload to cvs)
> > 3) Make the decks solid.
> > 4) Improve FDM gear reactions to accomodate moving "ground" (Mathias)
> > 5) Improve FDM to include externa
Mathias Froelich has also got some work underway, so we can add to the
schedule
> project schedule:
>
> 1) Derive a new AICarrier class (me, just did it)
> 2) Refine the carrier visually (Vivian, doing it now)
> 3) Make the decks solid.
> 4) Improve FDM gear reactions to accomodate moving
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > 7) Add pitching and rolling deck capability
>
> ..heave too.
>
Someone like to write a Ship Dynamic Model? :-)
Regards
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listin
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:56:52 -0500, David wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 7) Add pitching and rolling deck capability
..heave too.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of
Making the entire carrier solid?
Regarding the CAT-aircraft attachment: I am hoping that the attachment point
on the aircraft will also allow tugs to tow aircrafts around.
Ampere
On October 27, 2004 07:56 pm, David Culp wrote:
> 9) ?
___
Flightgear-
> Don't forget apparent wind speed and direction discontinuites
> between on deck and in air !
Actually I *do* plan on forgetting that, for now ;) That's the kind of thing
that can be added in later phases. Here's what I think would be a good
project schedule:
1) Derive a new AICarrier class
David Culp writes:
>
> I don't see the point of having the FDM's know anything about carriers. The
> FDM already knows where the ground is. All we have to do is let the carrier
> override this value. The airplane thinks it's on the ground.
Don't forget apparent wind speed and direction disco
I am thinking of something more generic than Carrier.
Ampere
On October 27, 2004 07:13 pm, David Culp wrote:
> I don't think we're on the same page here. The deck is owned by the
> carrier. Unless the carrier exists the decks won't exist either. Unless
> you want to put decks elsewhere? Like
> > One way to do this will be to define the deck(s)
> > as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but maybe more.
> > user aircraft gets close to the deck (using radar range and altitude) the
> > AICarrier will start checking to see if the aircraft is within the area
> > bounded by any o
On October 27, 2004 04:18 pm, David Culp wrote:
> One way to do this will be to define the deck(s)
> as a set of rectangles; I think two should do it, but maybe more.
> user aircraft gets close to the deck (using radar range and altitude) the
> AICarrier will start checking to see if the aircraft
> Yep. I guess this means that the "ground" position and velocity
> vectors will need to be passed in to the FDMs. I'd also recommend
> against passing in orientation and rotational velocity vectors at the
> moment - first do the steady level case.
Yes, I'm a believer in getting something simple
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:18:46 -0500
David Culp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some notes on making an AI carrier.
The FDM will have to be changed to allow the aircraft to sit on a
deck without
the deck sailing away from under it. The difference between the
aircraft's
and carrier's velocity vector
29 matches
Mail list logo
