Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-users] Segmentation fault ?
Adam wrote: > Is there an easy way to fix this then? I didn't turn on the > clouds3d stuff at all - so it in my download it must be on by > default - I will try with it turned off. > Sorry for being a bit of a newb here, but can you offer more > advice about how to implement Norman's new code? What I posted is a diff file % info diff % info patch but the easiest way for you to try this is to backup your original SkySceneLoader.cpp file and try compiling with this one, which has the change incorporated http://rockfish.net/~nhv/fgfs/SkySceneLoader.cpp HTH Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Auto Pilot probs in 0.9.1
Jim Wilson wrrites: > > It isn't a YASim problem, other than those are the aircraft that don't have DG > installed. Here is a temporary *patch* This also reactivates the autopilot adjuster :-) Norman diffs Description: Binary data
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-users] Segmentation fault ?
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 07:56:19AM -0500, Norman Vine wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > Is there an easy way to fix this then? I didn't turn on the > > clouds3d stuff at all - so it in my download it must be on by > > default - I will try with it turned off. > > > Sorry for being a bit of a newb here, but can you offer more > > advice about how to implement Norman's new code? > > What I posted is a diff file > % info diff > % info patch > Just one thing to note: you're /much/ better off posting a unified diff (what you get from diff -u) - it's a more robust format, and a /lot/ more readable for a normal human being. patch will be more likely to work if you feed it a unified diff. Simon -- PGP public key Id 0x144A991C, or http://himi.org/stuff/himi.asc (crappy) Homepage: http://himi.org doe #237 (see http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS) My DeCSS mirror: ftp://himi.org/pub/mirrors/css/ msg10310/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Auto Pilot probs in 0.9.1
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jim Wilson wrrites: > > > > It isn't a YASim problem, other than those are the aircraft that don't have DG > > installed. > > Here is a temporary *patch* > > This also reactivates the autopilot adjuster :-) > Right...temporary. This just points up the need to get a fully configurable autopilot running. If there isn't a DG you can't really follow heading. So the j3-cub should not even have an autopilot without it. As you know, the way the auto pilot ties in to the instrument with Curt's patch is the correct behavior. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Auto Pilot probs in 0.9.1
Jim Wilson writes: > Right...temporary. This just points up the need to get a fully > configurable autopilot running. If there isn't a DG you can't > really follow heading. So the j3-cub should not even have an > autopilot without it. I wonder if anyone has ever STC'd some kind of autopilot for a PA-18. I somehow doubt it, but it would be interesting to check. A fully-configurable AP will be nice, because Norm will then be able to tie it to the true heading for his GIS work, while people who want flight simulation will have the option to make it behave realistically (tied to a DG on a small plane, or a complex FMS on a larger one). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Bell/Agusta V-22 derivative commercial BA609: http://www.bellagusta.com/html/aeroNet/downLoads/20393_609_AB_Brochure.pdf Fascinating. Pretty pictures, too. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's hard to imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about nixing the Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO that thing even "looks" dangerous :-) Best, Jim Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Bell/Agusta V-22 derivative commercial BA609: > > http://www.bellagusta.com/html/aeroNet/downLoads/20393_609_AB_Brochure.pdf > > Fascinating. Pretty pictures, too. > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Jim Wilson wrote: Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's hard to imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about nixing the Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO that thing even "looks" dangerous :-) It looks like a power ranger ... Erik Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Bell/Agusta V-22 derivative commercial BA609: http://www.bellagusta.com/html/aeroNet/downLoads/20393_609_AB_Brochure.pdf Fascinating. Pretty pictures, too. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
--- Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's > hard to > imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about > nixing the > Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO > that thing > even "looks" dangerous :-) More dangerous than a helicopter? That fixed wing makes me feel better about it. I wonder if gliding in that thing is any better than autorotation in a helicopter ... It sounds like avoiding the "vortex ring state" is doable but will likely require a fair amount of training (and possibly some control law mods) > > Best, > > Jim > > > Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Bell/Agusta V-22 derivative commercial BA609: > > > > > http://www.bellagusta.com/html/aeroNet/downLoads/20393_609_AB_Brochure.pdf > > > > Fascinating. Pretty pictures, too. > > > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Tony Peden writes: > > --- Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmmmthat should thin the ranks down on Wall St even more. It's > > hard to > > imagine they are selling civilian versions while there's talk about > > nixing the > > Osprey because of safety concerns. Well maybe not that hard. IMHO > > that thing > > even "looks" dangerous :-) > > More dangerous than a helicopter? That fixed wing makes me feel better > about it. I wonder if gliding in that thing is any better than > autorotation in a helicopter ... > > It sounds like avoiding the "vortex ring state" is doable but will > likely require a fair amount of training (and possibly some control law > mods) I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a helicopter you are probably going to land butt first and might have a chance to try an autorotation. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:09:03 -0600 "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a helicopter you are probably going to land butt first and might have a chance to try an autorotation. I would be very surprised if the engines are not cross-coupled such that each engine drives both props, as in the V-22. A single engine failure would not cause one rotor to be unpowered. The gearbox for the V-22 was one of the main design challenges for the Osprey, IIRC. The other components of the drive train/propulsion system are made for extremely high reliability for that very reason. They are mostly "Criticality 1" items. I agree that the big danger is at takeoff and landing, for sure, but it's because of the aero phenomena. I wonder if clever placement of sensors about the aircraft and some Expert Systems logic could potentially sense dangerous conditions and adapt appropriately? Jon Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
> It sounds like avoiding the "vortex ring state" is doable but will > likely require a fair amount of training (and possibly some control law > mods) > Speaking of which - a recent issue of Aviation Leak that I have mentions that they've been unable to properly account for/simulate the VRS in the flight simulators for the V-22. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
> I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an > engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you > are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a > helicopter you are probably going to land butt first and might have a > chance to try an autorotation. > Curt, there is a central transmission in the wing that will transfer the drive to the operating engine automatically so that won't happen. If they both fail at once though g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Gene Buckle writes: > > I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an > > engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you > > are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a > > helicopter you are probably going to land butt first and might have a > > chance to try an autorotation. > > > Curt, there is a central transmission in the wing that will transfer the > drive to the operating engine automatically so that won't happen. If they > both fail at once though You could also imagine that something downstream of this central transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I agree with the people who are saying this can be made to fly safely within reasonable tolerances, but I also think there are certain phases where it's probably always going to be a little less safe than a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 ... Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:22:05 -0600 "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 This (above) might be more true than your first statement. One thing that comes to my mind though, for V-22, is that survivability might be increased in one way due to less time spent in the combat area. You dash in fast, you drop down and pick up the downed airman, then you dash out fast. It's got the advantage over helicopters in that respect, at least. If the BA_609 proves to be as safe as helicopters I can see it really "taking off". Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
> > Curt, there is a central transmission in the wing that will transfer the > > drive to the operating engine automatically so that won't happen. If they > > both fail at once though > > You could also imagine that something downstream of this central > transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I > agree with the people who are saying this can be made to fly safely > within reasonable tolerances, but I also think there are certain > phases where it's probably always going to be a little less safe than > a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures > at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 ... > Well one of my favorite quotes goes something like this: "If your wings are moving faster than you are, you're in a Helicopter and are therefore unsafe." :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Gene Buckle writes: > Well one of my favorite quotes goes something like this: > > "If your wings are moving faster than you are, you're in a Helicopter and > are therefore unsafe." :) I suppose the related quote would be something along the lines of "If your wings are moving slower than you, they are probably not still attached (and are therefore unsafe.)" Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 13:22, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Gene Buckle writes: > > > I think the big danger is at landing or takeoff. If you lose an > > > engine or have any sort of mechanical failure on a single side, you > > > are going to hit hard at some really odd angle. At least with a > > > helicopter you are probably going to land butt first and might have a > > > chance to try an autorotation. > > > > > Curt, there is a central transmission in the wing that will transfer the > > drive to the operating engine automatically so that won't happen. If they > > both fail at once though > > You could also imagine that something downstream of this central > transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I > agree with the people who are saying this can be made to fly safely > within reasonable tolerances, but I also think there are certain > phases where it's probably always going to be a little less safe than > a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures > at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 ... I don't know ... it sound like you are really starting to stack up the failures. > > Regards, > > Curt. -- Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On 10 Dec 2002 15:18:48 -0800 Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know ... it sound like you are really starting to stack up the failures. I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the pilot was pouring a can of Coke into a cup on the flight deck and dropped the can and it rolled under the pedals and he set his cup down and reached down to pick up the can but knocked the yoke which rolled the plane and made him push his foot forward and the can got stuck under the pedals with the rudder all the way over and the partial cup of Coke was knocked over into some electrical stuff and shorted it out and killed all the engines on one side and the stewardess fell onto the pilot so he couldn't see and then ... Geez, I'm not flying anymore. ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: > On 10 Dec 2002 15:18:48 -0800 > Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >I don't know ... it sound like you are really starting to > >stack up the failures. > > I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the > pilot was pouring a can of Coke into a cup on the flight > deck and dropped the can and it rolled under the pedals > and he set his cup down and reached down to pick up the > can but knocked the yoke which rolled the plane and made > him push his foot forward and the can got stuck under the > pedals with the rudder all the way over and the partial > cup of Coke was knocked over into some electrical stuff > and shorted it out and killed all the engines on one side > and the stewardess fell onto the pilot so he couldn't see > and then ... > > Geez, I'm not flying anymore. > > ;-) Curt, I apologize for even beginning to suggest that you were stacking things up ... > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
Jon S Berndt writes: > On 10 Dec 2002 15:18:48 -0800 > Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >I don't know ... it sound like you are really starting to > >stack up the failures. > > I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the > pilot was pouring a can of Coke into a cup on the flight > deck and dropped the can and it rolled under the pedals > and he set his cup down and reached down to pick up the > can but knocked the yoke which rolled the plane and made > him push his foot forward and the can got stuck under the > pedals with the rudder all the way over and the partial > cup of Coke was knocked over into some electrical stuff > and shorted it out and killed all the engines on one side > and the stewardess fell onto the pilot so he couldn't see > and then ... > > Geez, I'm not flying anymore. The only time I got off a plane was when the pilot walked on carring a duck in one hand and a cat in the other. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On 10 Dec 2002 15:37:08 -0800 Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: I don't know ... I was thinking the other day: what if the ... Curt, I apologize for even beginning to suggest that you were stacking things up ... Hey! It could happen! :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 4:22 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > You could also imagine that something downstream of this central > transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I "unhealthy state" you guys crack me up. Sounds more like brown trousers time to me ;-) > agree with the people who are saying this can be made to fly safely > within reasonable tolerances, but I also think there are certain > phases where it's probably always going to be a little less safe than > a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures > at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 ... > > Regards, > > Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] BA-609, V-22 derivative aircraft
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 19:24, John Check wrote: > On Tuesday 10 December 2002 4:22 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > > > You could also imagine that something downstream of this central > > transmission could fail, again leaving you in an unhealthy state. I > > "unhealthy state" you guys crack me up. > Sounds more like brown trousers time to me ;-) Fighter pilots do it best, they talk about how a missile could ruin their whole day. > > > agree with the people who are saying this can be made to fly safely > > within reasonable tolerances, but I also think there are certain > > phases where it's probably always going to be a little less safe than > > a helicopter, or perhaps you could say that certain types of failures > > at certain times would be less survivable in the BA-609 ... > > > > Regards, > > > > Curt. > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
