Re: [Flightgear-devel] A voice for FG
John Wojnaroski wrote: - Original Message - From: "Boris Koenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What type of project is that ? - (FlightGear related ?) See the FG Project webpage for details oh well, it's always the obvious ... :-) 3) One of the advantages of TTS (at least as I see it) is you don't have to create snippets or prestore anything. Sure, right - I was only referring to these (downloadable) "snippets" as a supplement for the whole thing itself, particularly for those users who won't set up a TTS, be it because they don't want to or it's simply not that easy, so for such cases it would be possible to use a centralized TTS that delivers the snippets on demand - of course that'd be pointless when you got a TTS running locally. One has the luxury of total and complete freedom to create any and all > possible combinations of words within the established language model and create the audio in real time. 4) Speech recognition for converting audio to text is just about perfect. Well - you may be right, also getting the recognition rate sufficiently high is certainly less an issue for native speakers - except maybe Australians ;-) but for average foreigner it's quite an adventure to make a speech recognition engine recognize his/her English ;-) The trick, as you noted, is having the machine "understand" what was said... I'm going to think more about that later, but probably there are others, too who have ideas about how to realize the logics or troubleshoot certain problems for such a thing as a fully interactive scriptable ATC<->TTS engine - so, maybe we can even come up with a draft for a -hopefully- working logical implementation of this whole thing. - Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
Lee Elliott wrote: > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:57 PM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > On Friday 17 September 2004 16:09, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with > ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: > the submodel > > > > > > doesn't inherit the parent accelerations, or the velocities > > > > > > and accelerations due to roll, pitch and yaw. Only release > > > > > > droptanks > > > > > > > > > when flying straight and level > > > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not > permissible, with > > > fun consequences like one or more hard points releases jammed for > > > at least a while etc. > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over > > > > > > enthusiastic there, > > > > > > > and forgetting my Newtonian physics. > > > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the problem. Mixing > > elevation up = positive with speed down = positive nearly made my > > brain blow a fuse > > > > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I took the > > opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that droptanks will come > > off with the right orientation. I not yet added either the parent > > rotational speed to the submodel, or yaw, so if you release > droptanks > > with significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft the > submodel > > will not be quite right. Straight and level, or nearly so, is fine. > > > > I've asked Erik to upload the modified files to CVS. It looks OK on > > the Hunter, but perhaps Lee could give the revised submodel a good > > test. > > > > Regards > > > > Vivian > > Hello Vivian, > > I just updated from cvs, including updates to the sub-model > stuff and while > the pitch of the sub-model seems fixed ok, I'm still not able > to get the > speed right. I tried reducing the setting to a very low value > (0.001) and then 0 but the velocity of the sub-model > always seems to be > zero. > > As an experiment I tried setting some +ve values i.e. > 10 & 1000 but > still got a zero sub-model speed - I tested this by > 'releasing' the bomb > (bearing in mind I have and unlimited models set for > de-bugging > purposes) while sitting on the runway. Instead of a stream > of sub-models > moving forward away from the stationary a/c they remain at > the origin. If I > then accelerate the a/c I leave a trail of sub-models behind me. > > There's an archive of the a/c at > > http://www.overthetop.freeserve.co.uk/EE-Canberra-20040916.tar.gz > > ...if you want to have a look. The release keyboard mapping has been > commented out in the ~set.xml file. > Like the model: up to your usual standard. (Well, all except the pilot's bone dome - wrong pattern :-)) It works. The operative word is 'accelerate'. As you accelerate you leave bombs behind: they are instantiated with the velocity at the time of release, but since the aircraft is accelerating it will be left behind. Try the following using your original values in submodel: Release a bomb while stationary: it turns and aligns with the velocity - note although the aircraft is stationary, there are still some small N/E/D velocities. I'm not sure why. Accelerate down the runway: the bombs gradually align with the aircraft as forward motion is added, but they are left behind. Brake: the bombs shoot ahead of the aircraft, with their proper velocity. All those left behind now go past. Great fun - like big fish swimming by. I've convinced myself, anyway - Newton's Laws of Motion at work (see Arnt's comments). Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:09:12 +0100, Vivian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: the submodel > > > > > doesn't inherit the parent accelerations, or the velocities > > > > > and accelerations due to roll, pitch and yaw. Only release > > > > > droptanks when flying straight and level > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not permissible, with > > fun consequenses like one or more hard points releases jammed for > > at least a while etc. > > > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over enthusiastic > > > there, and forgetting my Newtonian physics. > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the problem. Mixing > elevation up = positive with speed down = positive nearly made my > brain blow a fuse .. ;-) > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I took the > opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that droptanks will come > off with the right orientation. I not yet added either the parent > rotational speed to the submodel, or yaw, so if you release droptanks > with significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft the submodel > will not be quite right. Straight and level, or nearly so, is fine. ..precisely, we will need roll rate, yaw, yaw rate, pitch rate etc, but no accellerations except gravity, to get it right. ..also, when we get that far in the modelling; some divebombers had release rigging that threw some, say centerline bombs, clear of the propeller, adding to the fun we dream up here. ..also keep in mind most bombs are hung by more than one points, so the hardpoint mechanism and the flight conditions, attitude, rates etc, act together deciding which points release first, second etc on each bomb. ..this too, has a major impact on the initial ballistics, think bobbing bombs dropping from B-52's or B-17's, on dropping out of the bomb bay, some of this is sudden exposure to the airstream, some is "un-even" release, asymetric or whatever. > I've asked Erik to upload the modified files to CVS. It looks OK on > the Hunter, but perhaps Lee could give the revised submodel a good > test. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: FlightGear/docs-mini README.sound, 1.2,
Erik Hofman wrote: > + OpenAL setup for general use (Linux) > + - > + As of July 2004 it is best to add at least the following line to your > + ~/.fgfsrc file on Linux because it wil find out what audio backend to > + use, starting with the most appropriate: [...] Don't you mean ~/.openalrc ? Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
Arnt Karlsen wrote: > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:47 PM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:09:12 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with > ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: > the submodel > > > > > > doesn't inherit the parent accelerations, or the velocities > > > > > > and accelerations due to roll, pitch and yaw. Only release > > > > > > droptanks when flying straight and level > > > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not > permissible, with > > > fun consequences like one or more hard points releases > jammed for at > > > least a while etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over enthusiastic > > > > there, and forgetting my Newtonian physics. > > > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the problem. Mixing > > elevation up = positive with speed down = positive nearly made my > > brain blow a fuse > > .. ;-) > > > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I took the > > opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that droptanks will come > > off with the right orientation. I not yet added either the parent > > rotational speed to the submodel, or yaw, so if you release > droptanks > > with significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft the > submodel > > will not be quite right. Straight and level, or nearly so, is fine. > > ..precisely, we will need roll rate, yaw, yaw rate, pitch rate etc, I can do all of that, providing I can get at the location of the CofG to relate the offsets. > but no accelerations except gravity, to get it right. Not strictly true. We also need to apply aerodynamic forces. Drag is already applied, and wind can be applied, but no other. Wind is that experienced by the parent, not the submodel. This approximation is OK for tracer, less so for bombs. > > ..also, when we get that far in the modelling; some > dive bombers had release rigging that threw some, say > centerline bombs, clear of the propeller, adding to the fun > we dream up here. We can already do that - just apply an appropriate initial velocity, and instantiate at the right offsets. > ..also keep in mind most bombs are hung by more than one > points, so the hardpoint mechanism and the flight conditions, > attitude, rates etc, act together deciding which points > release first, second etc on each bomb. We can probably ignore that. > ..this too, has a major impact on the initial ballistics, > think bobbing bombs dropping from B-52's or B-17's, on > dropping out of the bomb > bay, some of this is sudden exposure to the airstream, some is > "un-even" release, asymmetric or whatever. We could probably add some randomness to account for this, if you think it's a significant factor, given all the other approximations, chief amongst which could be that the submodel has no inertia, and so aligns instantly with its trajectory. Again, OK for tracer, but for bombs? Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: FlightGear/docs-mini README.sound, 1.2,
Martin Spott wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: + OpenAL setup for general use (Linux) + - + As of July 2004 it is best to add at least the following line to your + ~/.fgfsrc file on Linux because it wil find out what audio backend to + use, starting with the most appropriate: [...] Don't you mean ~/.openalrc ? Yes, thanks. This is fixed now. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 10:14, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Lee Elliott wrote: > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:57 PM > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > On Friday 17 September 2004 16:09, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with > > > > ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: > > > > the submodel > > > > > > > > > doesn't inherit the parent accelerations, or the velocities > > > > > > > and accelerations due to roll, pitch and yaw. Only release > > > > > > > > droptanks > > > > > > > > > > > when flying straight and level > > > > > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not > > > > permissible, with > > > > > > fun consequences like one or more hard points releases jammed for > > > > at least a while etc. > > > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over > > > > > > > > enthusiastic there, > > > > > > > > > and forgetting my Newtonian physics. > > > > > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the problem. Mixing > > > elevation up = positive with speed down = positive nearly made my > > > brain blow a fuse > > > > > > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I took the > > > opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that droptanks will come > > > off with the right orientation. I not yet added either the parent > > > rotational speed to the submodel, or yaw, so if you release > > > > droptanks > > > > > with significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft the > > > > submodel > > > > > will not be quite right. Straight and level, or nearly so, is fine. > > > > > > I've asked Erik to upload the modified files to CVS. It looks OK on > > > the Hunter, but perhaps Lee could give the revised submodel a good > > > test. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Vivian > > > > Hello Vivian, > > > > I just updated from cvs, including updates to the sub-model > > stuff and while > > the pitch of the sub-model seems fixed ok, I'm still not able > > to get the > > speed right. I tried reducing the setting to a very low value > > (0.001) and then 0 but the velocity of the sub-model > > always seems to be > > zero. > > > > As an experiment I tried setting some +ve values i.e. > > 10 & 1000 but > > still got a zero sub-model speed - I tested this by > > 'releasing' the bomb > > (bearing in mind I have and unlimited models set for > > de-bugging > > purposes) while sitting on the runway. Instead of a stream > > of sub-models > > moving forward away from the stationary a/c they remain at > > the origin. If I > > then accelerate the a/c I leave a trail of sub-models behind me. > > > > There's an archive of the a/c at > > > > http://www.overthetop.freeserve.co.uk/EE-Canberra-20040916.tar.gz > > > > ...if you want to have a look. The release keyboard mapping has been > > commented out in the ~set.xml file. > > Like the model: up to your usual standard. (Well, all except the pilot's > bone dome - wrong pattern :-)) > > It works. The operative word is 'accelerate'. As you accelerate you leave > bombs behind: they are instantiated with the velocity at the time of > release, but since the aircraft is accelerating it will be left behind. Try > the following using your original values in submodel: > > Release a bomb while stationary: it turns and aligns with the > velocity - note although the aircraft is stationary, there are still some > small N/E/D velocities. I'm not sure why. > > Accelerate down the runway: the bombs gradually align with the > aircraft as forward motion is added, but they are left behind. > > Brake: the bombs shoot ahead of the aircraft, with their proper > velocity. All those left behind now go past. Great fun - like big fish > swimming by. > > I've convinced myself, anyway - Newton's Laws of Motion at work (see Arnt's > comments). > > Regards > > Vivian Hello Vivian, I guess I'd better try to find some helmet 3-views;) I tried your suggestion of accelerating a little before releasing and then braking but the bombs are definitely staying in the same place after release. The setting doesn't seem to be working either. I was originally using a setting of 31 so that the bombs would fall slowly, allowing me to judge the valu
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
Lee Elliott > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:03 PM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > On Saturday 18 September 2004 10:14, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > Lee Elliott wrote: > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:57 PM > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > On Friday 17 September 2004 16:09, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with > ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with > > > > > > ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: > > > > > > the submodel > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't inherit the parent accelerations, or the > > > > > > > > velocities and accelerations due to roll, pitch > and yaw. > > > > > > > > Only release > > > > > > > > > > droptanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > when flying straight and level > > > > > > > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not > > > > > > permissible, with > > > > > > > > fun consequences like one or more hard points releases jammed > > > > > for at least a while etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over > > > > > > > > > > enthusiastic there, > > > > > > > > > > > and forgetting my Newtonian physics. > > > > > > > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the > problem. Mixing > > > > elevation up = positive with speed down = positive > nearly made > > > > my brain blow a fuse > > > > > > > > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I took the > > > > opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that droptanks will > > > > come off with the right orientation. I not yet added either the > > > > parent rotational speed to the submodel, or yaw, so if > you release > > > > > > droptanks > > > > > > > with significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft the > > > > > > submodel > > > > > > > will not be quite right. Straight and level, or nearly so, is > > > > fine. > > > > > > > > I've asked Erik to upload the modified files to CVS. It > looks OK > > > > on the Hunter, but perhaps Lee could give the revised > submodel a > > > > good test. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Vivian > > > > > > Hello Vivian, > > > > > > I just updated from cvs, including updates to the sub-model stuff > > > and while the pitch of the sub-model seems fixed ok, I'm > still not > > > able to get the > > > speed right. I tried reducing the setting to a > very low value > > > (0.001) and then 0 but the velocity of the sub-model > > > always seems to be > > > zero. > > > > > > As an experiment I tried setting some +ve values > i.e. 10 & > > > 1000 but still got a zero sub-model speed - I tested this by > > > 'releasing' the bomb > > > (bearing in mind I have and unlimited models set for > > > de-bugging > > > purposes) while sitting on the runway. Instead of a stream > > > of sub-models > > > moving forward away from the stationary a/c they remain at > > > the origin. If I > > > then accelerate the a/c I leave a trail of sub-models behind me. > > > > > > There's an archive of the a/c at > > > > > > http://www.overthetop.freeserve.co.uk/EE-Canberra-20040916.tar.gz > > > > > > ...if you want to have a look. The release keyboard mapping has > > > been commented out in the ~set.xml file. > > > > Like the model: up to your usual standard. (Well, all except the > > pilot's bone dome - wrong pattern :-)) > > > > It works. The operative word is 'accelerate'. As you accelerate you > > leave bombs behind: they are instantiated with the velocity at the > > time of release, but since the aircraft is accelerating it will be > > left behind. Try the following using your original values > in submodel: > > > > Release a bomb while stationary: it turns and aligns with the > > velocity - note although the aircraft is stationary, there > are still > > some small N/E/D velocities. I'm not sure why. > > > > Accelerate down the runway: the bombs gradually align with the > > aircraft as forward motion is added, but they are left behind. > > > > Brake: the bombs shoot ahead of the aircraft, with their proper > > velocity. All those left behind now go past. Great fun - > like big fish > > swimming by.
RE: [Flightgear-devel] A voice for FG
Boris Koenig writes: > > [OT:] > (BTW: even without a locally installed search engine -several were > suggested - for flightgear's mailing list archives on flightgear.org, > it would be nice if the addresses to mail-archive.com could be added to > http://www.flightgear.org/mail.html where you keep reading: > "There is currently no search capability [...]") Bah please try this link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Boris+site%3Aflightgear.org&btnG=Google+Search ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 15:44, Vivian Meazza wrote: [snip...] > > It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local version, so it's possible > that I haven't asked Erik to upload one of the multitude of files it > requires to alter one parameter, or there's something wrong with the files > I sent in. It's definitely OK here with your model. I'll check. There's > nothing in the base package. > > BTW negative velocities don't work, otherwise drag would cause things to > run backwards. If you want submodels to move to the rear apply a +ve speed > with 180 yaw offset. > > Bone dome is easy - there's a Mk1A in the Hunter models. Feel free to use > it. There's no under-helmet right now - on my todo list. You'll need the > visor as well. > > Regards > > Vivian Thanks for looking into this - strange one though. Good to hear that it works properly on your system but that now means I have to find what's wrong with mine:) I'll take up your offer of a more accurate Bone dome too and use the one from the Hunter - Ta. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
Vivian Meazza wrote: It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local version, so it's possible that I haven't asked Erik to upload one of the multitude of files it requires to alter one parameter, or there's something wrong with the files I sent in. It's definitely OK here with your model. I'll check. There's nothing in the base package. You could try this: cd FlightGear/src cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd cvs diff -puRN > /tmp/diff cvs logout cat /tmp/diff Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] A voice for FG
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:22:46 +0200 Boris Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [OT:] > (BTW: even without a locally installed search engine -several were > suggested - for flightgear's mailing list archives on flightgear.org, > it would be nice if the addresses to mail-archive.com could be added to > http://www.flightgear.org/mail.html where you keep reading: > "There is currently no search capability [...]") I thought everybody knew about Google. Just use the site restriction "site:flightgear.org" or even "site:baron.flightgear.org". -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpUeFHLjrcrw.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
I wrote > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:44 PM > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > ... Snip ... > > > Hmm... It's just occurred to me that although my cvs is up to > > date, I haven't > > copied over the base package data for a couple of days - is > > there anything in > > there that could be causing this problem? I've got to go out > > now but I'll > > try copying over the latest data too, when I get back. > > > > LeeE > > > > It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local version, so > it's possible that I haven't asked Erik to upload one of the > multitude of files it requires to alter one parameter, or > there's something wrong with the files I sent in. It's > definitely OK here with your model. I'll check. There's > nothing in the base package. > > BTW negative velocities don't work, otherwise drag would > cause things to run backwards. If you want submodels to move > to the rear apply a +ve speed with 180 yaw offset. > > Bone dome is easy - there's a Mk1A in the Hunter models. Feel > free to use it. There's no under-helmet right now - on my > to-do list. You'll need the visor as well. > Lee Blown that theory. I've just downloaded and recompiled. The Red Beard does what it should. I've made it go up, down, forward, back Buoyancy (sp ?) etc. all work. Try Buoyancy = 32 and eda = 0 (eda = 1 is the non-op), and you'll see that the parent velocities are transferred to the submodel. I can't think of anything else to suggest. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] webpage update
[# 243] ;-) Norman Vine wrote: Boris Koenig writes: [OT:] (BTW: even without a locally installed search engine -several were suggested - for flightgear's mailing list archives on flightgear.org, it would be nice if the addresses to mail-archive.com could be added to http://www.flightgear.org/mail.html where you keep reading: "There is currently no search capability [...]") Bah please try this link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Boris+site%3Aflightgear.org&btnG=Google+Search Thanks for that one Norman - *really* helpful ! but: 1) This is _not_ about *my* postings ;-) 2) This is _not_ about *my* need for a search engine, I happen to store everything within my mail client,anyway... So, I mentioned this only because this is obviously a questions that comes up relatively frequently - not so much on the devel-list, but rather on the user's list, if you don't believe me Norman, check the archives ;-) Maybe you simply got me wrong, I certainly don't mean to be annoying by mentioning these things, or making offers such as setting up a dynamic FAQ system or BugZilla for Flightgear ... Rather, I just think these things are part of being "user-friendly" - you may admit it or not, but you folks are mainly *developers* - not really *users* (at least when it comes to FG): So your point of view is pretty likely to be different from that one of an average user, saying: what you consider ridiculous or rather self-explanatory may simply be _convenient_ for a *user*. And this does apply to MANY things, not only a webpage. I don't think I need to go into more detail, tell me though - if you want me to ;-) Of course updating such a section on a webpage would be simplified if the page was maintained by a simple CMS and not via CVS ... - where obviously only a minority of people has the access priviledges and _time_ to add things that others consider useful, you know - there were other suggestions, too - so I'm not the only one who likes to recommends one or two things ... Anyway - if I'm not terribly wrong you should have CVS access, so maybe you can afford the time to apply the enclosed patch ;-) Thanks & regards - Boris --- mail.html Sat Sep 18 20:00:34 2004 +++ mail2.html Sat Sep 18 20:02:21 2004 @@ -100,11 +100,14 @@ FlightGear-FlightModel Archives http://mail.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users";> FlightGear-Users Archives - + + You can search the archives by using: + http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel%40flightgear.org/";>Mail-Archive.com (flightgear-devel) + http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-users%40flightgear.org/";>Mail-Archive.com (flightgear-users) http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt/lists/fgfs/";>The Historic FlightGear mailing lists archives. - There is currently no search capability that I know of, but I - will investigate this. + ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] webpage update
Boris Koenig writes: > > Anyway - if I'm not terribly wrong you should have CVS access, FYI I do *not* have CVS write permission Best ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 19:05, Vivian Meazza wrote: > I wrote > > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:44 PM > > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > > Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > sub-model > > > > > > ... Snip ... > > > > > Hmm... It's just occurred to me that although my cvs is up > > > to date, I haven't > > > copied over the base package data for a couple of days - > > > is there anything in > > > there that could be causing this problem? I've got to go > > > out now but I'll > > > try copying over the latest data too, when I get back. > > > > > > LeeE > > > > It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local version, so > > it's possible that I haven't asked Erik to upload one of the > > multitude of files it requires to alter one parameter, or > > there's something wrong with the files I sent in. It's > > definitely OK here with your model. I'll check. There's > > nothing in the base package. > > > > BTW negative velocities don't work, otherwise drag would > > cause things to run backwards. If you want submodels to move > > to the rear apply a +ve speed with 180 yaw offset. > > > > Bone dome is easy - there's a Mk1A in the Hunter models. > > Feel free to use it. There's no under-helmet right now - on > > my to-do list. You'll need the visor as well. > > Lee > > Blown that theory. I've just downloaded and recompiled. The > Red Beard does what it should. I've made it go up, down, > forward, back > > Buoyancy (sp ?) etc. all work. Try Buoyancy = 32 and eda = 0 > (eda = 1 is the non-op), and you'll see that the parent > velocities are transferred to the submodel. > > I can't think of anything else to suggest. > > Regards > > Vivian Hmm... I'll look further into this... update cvs etc. Thanks for checking. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] webpage update
Norman Vine wrote: Boris Koenig writes: Anyway - if I'm not terribly wrong you should have CVS access, FYI I do *not* have CVS write permission And for a good reason, others might not be able to catch up with the number of CVS commits ... Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] A voice for FG
I was going to suggest using Finite State Machine as well. Anyway, this may be of interest: http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1 Ask it "where can I download your source code" for more information. Ampere On September 18, 2004 01:22 am, Boris Koenig wrote: > So all this would need to be dictionary-based, dealing with > loops that expect a certain transmission depending on the > previous transmissions - which is certainly not clever to > hard-code, but rather a script-able approach would be > preferable, possibly using a mechanism like state machine > implemented via xml files for each transmission, so that > these are being recursively parsed depending on the current > context ... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 19:05, Vivian Meazza wrote: > I wrote > > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:44 PM > > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > > Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > sub-model > > > > > > ... Snip ... > > > > > Hmm... It's just occurred to me that although my cvs is up > > > to date, I haven't > > > copied over the base package data for a couple of days - > > > is there anything in > > > there that could be causing this problem? I've got to go > > > out now but I'll > > > try copying over the latest data too, when I get back. > > > > > > LeeE > > > > It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local version, so > > it's possible that I haven't asked Erik to upload one of the > > multitude of files it requires to alter one parameter, or > > there's something wrong with the files I sent in. It's > > definitely OK here with your model. I'll check. There's > > nothing in the base package. > > > > BTW negative velocities don't work, otherwise drag would > > cause things to run backwards. If you want submodels to move > > to the rear apply a +ve speed with 180 yaw offset. > > > > Bone dome is easy - there's a Mk1A in the Hunter models. > > Feel free to use it. There's no under-helmet right now - on > > my to-do list. You'll need the visor as well. > > Lee > > Blown that theory. I've just downloaded and recompiled. The > Red Beard does what it should. I've made it go up, down, > forward, back > > Buoyancy (sp ?) etc. all work. Try Buoyancy = 32 and eda = 0 > (eda = 1 is the non-op), and you'll see that the parent > velocities are transferred to the submodel. > > I can't think of anything else to suggest. > > Regards > > Vivian Hmm... Just re-updated from cvs - no significant changes. Copied over all the latest data, did a make clean in both SimGear and FlightGear before re-compiling but still get no change. This is odd. If it wasn't for the fact that the same model works for you I'd suspect I'd got something wrong in the set-up. How do I fire the cannon in the Spitfire? I can't see a key-mapping anywhere. I suppose I could fire it via the property browser but that just makes me feel even more strongly that there's something wrong my end. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 23:06, Lee Elliott wrote: > On Saturday 18 September 2004 19:05, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > I wrote > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:44 PM > > > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > > > Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > > sub-model > > > > > > > > > ... Snip ... > > > > > > > Hmm... It's just occurred to me that although my cvs is > > > > up to date, I haven't > > > > copied over the base package data for a couple of days - > > > > is there anything in > > > > there that could be causing this problem? I've got to > > > > go out now but I'll > > > > try copying over the latest data too, when I get back. > > > > > > > > LeeE > > > > > > It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local version, > > > so it's possible that I haven't asked Erik to upload one > > > of the multitude of files it requires to alter one > > > parameter, or there's something wrong with the files I > > > sent in. It's definitely OK here with your model. I'll > > > check. There's nothing in the base package. > > > > > > BTW negative velocities don't work, otherwise drag would > > > cause things to run backwards. If you want submodels to > > > move to the rear apply a +ve speed with 180 yaw offset. > > > > > > Bone dome is easy - there's a Mk1A in the Hunter models. > > > Feel free to use it. There's no under-helmet right now - > > > on my to-do list. You'll need the visor as well. > > > > Lee > > > > Blown that theory. I've just downloaded and recompiled. The > > Red Beard does what it should. I've made it go up, down, > > forward, back > > > > Buoyancy (sp ?) etc. all work. Try Buoyancy = 32 and eda = 0 > > (eda = 1 is the non-op), and you'll see that the parent > > velocities are transferred to the submodel. > > > > I can't think of anything else to suggest. > > > > Regards > > > > Vivian > > Hmm... Just re-updated from cvs - no significant changes. > Copied over all the latest data, did a make clean in both > SimGear and FlightGear before re-compiling but still get no > change. > > This is odd. > > If it wasn't for the fact that the same model works for you > I'd suspect I'd got something wrong in the set-up. > > How do I fire the cannon in the Spitfire? I can't see a > key-mapping anywhere. I suppose I could fire it via the > property browser but that just makes me feel even more > strongly that there's something wrong my end. > > LeeE Hmm... (part 2) Just tried firing the Spitfire cannon via the property browser and while I could hear the cannon firing I couldn't see anything leaving the a/c. Could a library version mismatch cause this? There must be a problem at this end because it works for you on your system but I'm at a bit of a loss to explain it - the compilations of SimGear & FlightGear seem to go fine. I haven't updated plib for a while - could the problem lie there? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 23:28, Lee Elliott wrote: > On Saturday 18 September 2004 23:06, Lee Elliott wrote: > > On Saturday 18 September 2004 19:05, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > I wrote > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:44 PM > > > > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > > > > Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > > > sub-model > > > > > > > > > > > > ... Snip ... > > > > > > > > > Hmm... It's just occurred to me that although my cvs > > > > > is up to date, I haven't > > > > > copied over the base package data for a couple of days > > > > > - is there anything in > > > > > there that could be causing this problem? I've got to > > > > > go out now but I'll > > > > > try copying over the latest data too, when I get back. > > > > > > > > > > LeeE > > > > > > > > It's just occurred to me that I'm using my local > > > > version, so it's possible that I haven't asked Erik to > > > > upload one of the multitude of files it requires to > > > > alter one parameter, or there's something wrong with the > > > > files I sent in. It's definitely OK here with your > > > > model. I'll check. There's nothing in the base package. > > > > > > > > BTW negative velocities don't work, otherwise drag would > > > > cause things to run backwards. If you want submodels to > > > > move to the rear apply a +ve speed with 180 yaw offset. > > > > > > > > Bone dome is easy - there's a Mk1A in the Hunter models. > > > > Feel free to use it. There's no under-helmet right now - > > > > on my to-do list. You'll need the visor as well. > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > Blown that theory. I've just downloaded and recompiled. > > > The Red Beard does what it should. I've made it go up, > > > down, forward, back > > > > > > Buoyancy (sp ?) etc. all work. Try Buoyancy = 32 and eda = > > > 0 (eda = 1 is the non-op), and you'll see that the parent > > > velocities are transferred to the submodel. > > > > > > I can't think of anything else to suggest. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Vivian > > > > Hmm... Just re-updated from cvs - no significant changes. > > Copied over all the latest data, did a make clean in both > > SimGear and FlightGear before re-compiling but still get no > > change. > > > > This is odd. > > > > If it wasn't for the fact that the same model works for you > > I'd suspect I'd got something wrong in the set-up. > > > > How do I fire the cannon in the Spitfire? I can't see a > > key-mapping anywhere. I suppose I could fire it via the > > property browser but that just makes me feel even more > > strongly that there's something wrong my end. > > > > LeeE > > Hmm... (part 2) > > Just tried firing the Spitfire cannon via the property browser > and while I could hear the cannon firing I couldn't see > anything leaving the a/c. > > Could a library version mismatch cause this? > > There must be a problem at this end because it works for you > on your system but I'm at a bit of a loss to explain it - the > compilations of SimGear & FlightGear seem to go fine. I > haven't updated plib for a while - could the problem lie > there? > > LeeE Just a thought - can anyone else confirm either behaviour? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:21:13 +0100, Vivian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:47 PM > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:09:12 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > > > > > sub-model > > > > > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: the > > > > > > > submodel doesn't inherit the parent accelerations, or the > > > > > > > velocities and accelerations due to roll, pitch and yaw. > > > > > > > Only release droptanks when flying straight and level > > > > > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not permissible, > > > > with fun consequences like one or more hard points releases > > > > jammed for at least a while etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over enthusiastic > > > > > there, and forgetting my Newtonian physics. > > > > > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the problem. Mixing > > > elevation up = positive with speed down = positive nearly made > > > my brain blow a fuse.. ;-) > > > > > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I took the > > > opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that droptanks will > > > come off with the right orientation. I not yet added either the > > > parent rotational speed to the submodel, or yaw, so if you release > > > droptanks with significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft > > > the submodel will not be quite right. Straight and level, or > > > nearly so, is fine. > > > > ..precisely, we will need roll rate, yaw, yaw rate, pitch rate etc, > > I can do all of that, providing I can get at the location of the CofG > to relate the offsets. > > > but no accelerations except gravity, to get it right. > > Not strictly true. We also need to apply aerodynamic forces. Drag is > already applied, and wind can be applied, but no other. Wind is that > experienced by the parent, not the submodel. This approximation is OK > for tracer, less so for bombs. ..eh, accellerations, no, forces, yes. Both "bomber" and "bomb" sees the same wind etc until release of child. In a bomb bay or in a gun, the wind exposure happens as these objects emerge outta these shielded hideouts. ..If either (plane or bomb etc) object passes thru say wind shear, wing tip vortices, then the wind forces are _different_, even if they can be approximated as "the same" as the bomb drops thru that vortice in a millisecond. ..and don't forget gun recoil forces. Gun "childs" also experience wind drift. ;-) > > ..also, when we get that far in the modelling; some > > dive bombers had release rigging that threw some, say > > centerline bombs, clear of the propeller, adding to the fun > > we dream up here. > > We can already do that - just apply an appropriate initial velocity, > and instantiate at the right offsets. > > > ..also keep in mind most bombs are hung by more than one > > points, so the hardpoint mechanism and the flight conditions, > > attitude, rates etc, act together deciding which points > > release first, second etc on each bomb. > > We can probably ignore that. ..true, but see below. > > ..this too, has a major impact on the initial ballistics, > > think bobbing bombs dropping from B-52's or B-17's, on > > dropping out of the bomb > > bay, some of this is sudden exposure to the airstream, some is > > "un-even" release, asymmetric or whatever. > > We could probably add some randomness to account for this, if you > think it's a significant factor, given all the other approximations, > chief amongst which could be that the submodel has no inertia, and so > aligns instantly with its trajectory. Again, OK for tracer, but for > bombs? ..this is a design philosophy decision; how close to reality _do_ we wanna go? My point is "do as you like, but don't cut off future development by hardcoding stuff, leave open hooks as bait for future developers to go berserk on." ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios alway
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
On Saturday 18 September 2004 23:40, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:21:13 +0100, Vivian wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:47 PM > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > > sub-model > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:09:12 +0100, Vivian wrote in > > > message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:03 AM > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic > > > > > sub-model > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 +0100, Vivian wrote in > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:12 PM > > > > > > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with > > > > > > > ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On September 16, 2004 01:08 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > > > > > > There are some other basic shortcomings as well: > > > > > > > > the submodel doesn't inherit the parent > > > > > > > > accelerations, or the velocities and > > > > > > > > accelerations due to roll, pitch and yaw. Only > > > > > > > > release droptanks when flying straight and level > > > > > > > > > > ..uh, in the real world, this is possible if not > > > > > permissible, with fun consequences like one or more > > > > > hard points releases jammed for at least a while etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > They shouldn't inherit accelerations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite right - they shouldn't. I was getting over > > > > > > enthusiastic there, and forgetting my Newtonian > > > > > > physics. > > > > > > > > > > ..don't worry, there is also Murphy law physics. ;-) > > > > > > > > Right, back to Newton :-). I think I've solved the > > > > problem. Mixing elevation up = positive with speed down > > > > = positive nearly made my brain blow a fuse.. ;-) > > > > > > > > I had to reverse a number of signs to get it right. I > > > > took the opportunity to add roll to the submodel so that > > > > droptanks will come off with the right orientation. I > > > > not yet added either the parent rotational speed to the > > > > submodel, or yaw, so if you release droptanks with > > > > significant roll rate or yaw angle on the aircraft the > > > > submodel will not be quite right. Straight and level, or > > > > nearly so, is fine. > > > > > > ..precisely, we will need roll rate, yaw, yaw rate, pitch > > > rate etc, > > > > I can do all of that, providing I can get at the location of > > the CofG to relate the offsets. > > > > > but no accelerations except gravity, to get it right. > > > > Not strictly true. We also need to apply aerodynamic forces. > > Drag is already applied, and wind can be applied, but no > > other. Wind is that experienced by the parent, not the > > submodel. This approximation is OK for tracer, less so for > > bombs. > > ..eh, accellerations, no, forces, yes. Both "bomber" and > "bomb" sees the same wind etc until release of child. In a > bomb bay or in a gun, the wind exposure happens as these > objects emerge outta these shielded hideouts. > > ..If either (plane or bomb etc) object passes thru say wind > shear, wing tip vortices, then the wind forces are > _different_, even if they can be approximated as "the same" as > the bomb drops thru that vortice in a millisecond. > > ..and don't forget gun recoil forces. Gun "childs" also > experience wind drift. ;-) > > > > ..also, when we get that far in the modelling; some > > > dive bombers had release rigging that threw some, say > > > centerline bombs, clear of the propeller, adding to the > > > fun we dream up here. > > > > We can already do that - just apply an appropriate initial > > velocity, and instantiate at the right offsets. > > > > > ..also keep in mind most bombs are hung by more than one > > > points, so the hardpoint mechanism and the flight > > > conditions, attitude, rates etc, act together deciding > > > which points release first, second etc on each bomb. > > > > We can probably ignore that. > > ..true, but see below. > > > > ..this too, has a major impact on the initial ballistics, > > > think bobbing bombs dropping from B-52's or B-17's, on > > > dropping out of the bomb > > > bay, some of this is sudden exposure to the airstream, > > > some is "un-even" release, asymmetric or whatever. > > > > We could probably add some randomness to account for this, > > if you think it's a significant factor, given all the other > > approximations, chief amongst which could be that the > > submodel has no inertia, and so aligns instantly with its > > trajectory. Again, OK for tracer, but for bombs? > > ..this is a design philosophy decision; how close to reality > _do_ we wanna go? My point is "do as you like, but don
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model
Lee Elliott wrote: > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:06 PM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > On Saturday 18 September 2004 19:05, Vivian Meazza wrote: > > I wrote > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:44 PM > > > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > > > Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem with ballistic sub-model > > > > > > > > > ... Snip ... > > > > > Hmm... Just re-updated from cvs - no significant changes. > Copied over all the latest data, did a make clean in both > SimGear and FlightGear before re-compiling but still get no > change. > > This is odd. > > If it wasn't for the fact that the same model works for you I'd > suspect I'd got something wrong in the set-up. > > How do I fire the cannon in the Spitfire? I can't see a > key-mapping anywhere. I suppose I could fire it via the > property browser but that just makes me feel even more strongly > that there's something wrong my end. > > LeeE > The Spitfire uses a trigger on your joystick - something like: Trigger property-assign /systems/submodels/trigger true property-assign /systems/submodels/trigger false I would suggest that you use the property browser to test the Spitfire m/gs. If the cvs download was OK it is unlikely that there is something wrong with your system. Similarly, if the submodel aligns with the parent when taxi-ing at a reasonable speed, then, basically, it's working since it calculates the angles from speed N/E/D. Try these submodel settings: redbeard Aircraft/EE-Canberra/Models/RedBeard.xml /controls/armament/red-beard-released 0 true 1.0 -1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1.2 false 0 And these: redbeard Aircraft/EE-Canberra/Models/RedBeard.xml /controls/armament/red-beard-released 0 true 1.0 -1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 false 32 And let me know what you see so that I can compare. Regards V. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] A voice for FG
Chris Metzler wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:22:46 +0200 Boris Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [OT:] (BTW: even without a locally installed search engine -several were suggested - for flightgear's mailing list archives on flightgear.org, it would be nice if the addresses to mail-archive.com could be added to http://www.flightgear.org/mail.html where you keep reading: "There is currently no search capability [...]") I thought everybody knew about Google. lol, this getting a really hot discussion ... Please don't get me wrong: I know about google, and so does probably everybody else here, probably even on the user's list. But it's not terribly obvious that you have to use google in order to search the archive, hence the previous comment was also somewhat misleading. Because one could easily interpret it as "there is no such thing as a search function" - while there are - as I and others mentioned - indeed python scripts that implement a full text search, and which could be used in order to add such a functionality directly to the archives stored at flightgear.org, but even without adding something like this directly, it would make sense to mention the possibility to use other services in order to search the archives - be it mail-archive.com or google, even though google is not really _meant_ to archive these mailing lists, I think ;-) Just use the site restriction "site:flightgear.org" or even "site:baron.flightgear.org". Oh well, thanks for the google tutorial guys :-) -- Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
