[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:38: > > > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > > > Anyone preferring "Helicopter View"? > > > > > > Yes, me. > > > While the "Chase view" is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I > > > think most people prefer the "Helicopter view" because it doesn't have > > > the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. > > > > Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The "Helicopter View" > > doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the > > last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. > > I tend to agree with Erik. I don't use the helicopter or chase view for a > more realistic experience. Huh? The more realistic is without any doubt the "Chase View", which I prefer. Erik prefers the "Helicopter View" nevertheless. You prefer neither? Anyway: I thought this was a no-brainer, and that the current setting was just a left-over from past times. (And I assume Erik meant "most people who prefer Helicopter, prefer it because ...", not that "most people prefer" that awkward view.) I'll just continue to apologize to every new user about this and won't bring it up again. So much for usability ... :-/ m. PS: thanks for bothering to reply to all my RFCs! I guess I'm out of ideas now. :-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] /controls/gear/tailwheel-lock=true means ... unlocked?!
* Jim Wilson -- Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:29: > The first sounds right (the confusing "lock"). I'm not sure exactly what the > second idea is about. The meaning was reversed, which could be fixed by either reversing the value or the name. The second possibility was to reverse the name, and thus match it YASim's CASTERING property. But ... > The only thing I can add is if you make that sort of change > to the syntax please update all the yasim config files :-) ... I decided for reversing the value, and yes, I changed all YASim files and the joystick files that set the property. I only changed the *-set.xml files that demanded "tailwheel-lock=false" (assuming that the authors knew that the property was reversed), but not those who explicitly demanded tailwheel-lock=true (assuming that the author did *not* know about the problem. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
> From: Melchior FRANZ > > * Erik Hofman -- Tuesday 10 May 2005 13:24: > > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > > Anyone preferring "Helicopter View"? > > > > Yes, me. > > While the "Chase view" is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I > > think most people prefer the "Helicopter view" because it doesn't have > > the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. > > Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The "Helicopter View" > doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the > last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. > I tend to agree with Erik. I don't use the helicopter or chase view for a more realistic experience. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [RFC] /controls/gear/tailwheel-lock=true means ... unlocked?!
Hi Melchior, The first sounds right (the confusing "lock"). I'm not sure exactly what the second idea is about. The only thing I can add is if you make that sort of change to the syntax please update all the yasim config files :-) Best, Jim > From: Melchior FRANZ > > Currently enabling tailwheel-lock actually means to *unlock* it. The meaning > is > reversed, which is a bit confusing. > > Would it be a good idea to change the default for it in > FGControls::FGControls() > and FGControls::reset_all() to "true", and make the FDM configs familiar with > the new concept? (i.e. using YASim's src/dst tags to reverse the meaning, too, > because YASim expects "CASTERING", not "lock".) > > Or should we rename the property to "tailwheel-unlocked"? Or > "tailwheel-castering"? > > Or should we persuade Andy to change the CASTERING keyword to NONCASTERING? > > m. > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Hi Harald Harald JOHNSEN writes I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or panel). Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better to start a new one ? What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ? Of the two you mention above(you need animation for both)panel design or more exactly instrument design is one area were FG could use a boost.The advantage of instruments for people starting out is they are small and not to complicated and not to many(well none)pesky compound curves. Harald. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Hi Ben "Ben Morrison" writes Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to modify and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them can be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different approach for animation they build different objects for different positions of aircraft parts. E.G the landing gear will have a separate model for gear up than gear down and then they just hide the model they dont want to show.This did change when they went to GMAX models but as far as I am aware PLIB can't handle those models. I would say build your own you will look back in a years time and say what a load of rubbish but the experience will be invaluble.One thing I would say is to make the fuselage with plenty of sides because if and when you come back to improve it you won't have to start from scratch as I have had to do.Currently I use no less than 40 sided fuslages. Ben Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
"Ampere K. Hardraade" writes On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote: > To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics > model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? > > In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file > for JSBSim available: > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ > > Erik Isn't Innis working on one as well? It was on my list to start but I have done nothing yet so if someone else wants to have a go at it by all means.The more the better Ampere Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Mostyn Gale wrote: Hi Ben, It is good to hear that you are planing to contribute. I hope the AC-130 goes well. My thoughts are that the AC-130 is a bit of a large project to start of with. I am in a similar situation to you, just starting off in flightgear and the learning curve is pretty steep. Perhaps you should start off simple, perhaps run through the cub or build a simple plane. Perhaps you could tart off with a simple AC-130 but design it to be extensible. In any case taking such a large project straight away is a bit ambitious. Goodluck with your AC-130, I hope it all goes well. Hey, I'm in the middle of building a "large" non-flightgear based aircraft for a University project. Kind of fun even though it's not directly FlightGear related ... http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Models/Construction/Rascal110/ I also have a home/hobby project in the works that is similar in a lot of ways (although much smaller/cheaper.) http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Models/Construction/EGN-1/Construction/ Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Hi Ben, It is good to hear that you are planing to contribute. I hope the AC-130 goes well. My thoughts are that the AC-130 is a bit of a large project to start of with. I am in a similar situation to you, just starting off in flightgear and the learning curve is pretty steep. Perhaps you should start off simple, perhaps run through the cub or build a simple plane. Perhaps you could tart off with a simple AC-130 but design it to be extensible. In any case taking such a large project straight away is a bit ambitious. Goodluck with your AC-130, I hope it all goes well. Cheers, Mostyn ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
> After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external > changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get > custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run. I'm glad you looked into it, because I was hoping to add Sembach Airbase, EDAS, to my local Germany terrain. Looks like this may be more work than I thought. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: FDM
* h_a_l_o r -- Tuesday 10 May 2005 22:43: > how can we fly with the harrier. is it really capable of vertical take off > and landing. Yes. As I said: what is the mixture control for other aircraft (m/M key, and joystick hat left/right on some joysticks), controls the thrust vector on the harrier. The Cyborg Gold 3D joystick driver even displays a popup that shows the current position: -20% to +100% (where negative is forward thrust, i.e. backward movement). m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] FDM
how can we fly with the harrier. is it really capable of vertical take off and landing. by the way i read about yasim and jsb fdm's but still not sure which one is accurate or strong in realism. there are models like cessna modeled in both jsb and yasim but i am not a pilot so i cant say anything about which one is realist. ;-) i know jsb based on coeff.numbers and not a brand new aproach in fdm but dont know the current status and weak points and in yasim some says very accurate but weak in supersonic flights etC. flying in a jet which one do you suggest? _ Yagmura yakalanmamak için sadece semsiyenize degil, MSN hava durumuna güvenin! http://www.msn.com.tr/havadurumu/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Melchior FRANZ wrote: > One that desperately waits for a 3D model is the Harrier. Yes, please. :) Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 10, 2005 01:48 pm, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or > panel). > Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better > to start a new one ? > > Harald. There are quite a few aircrafts in the cvs that need to be work on. I think it will be better if those planes get comleted first before having more semi-finished aircrafts. If your skill lies in programming, you might want to think about working on Nasal scripts for us modellers. I for one, will welcome that. =) Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
Karsten Krispin wrote: > After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external > changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get custom > Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run. > > Well. it is probably possible through changing the source-data of terragear - > extend this with own changes and all will be fine. > > But there would be a better way: > > The holes which were now cutted by terragear could be cutted in runtime of > FGFS. > > So that you are able to include a own mesh-file (for example a AC3D file). > > I would suggest the same method to include the mesh into the scenery as > terragear does with airportfields. > > The equal area which the new mesh uses get cutted out from the base-tiles (I > assume that is one big "tile" after they are loaded...) and the border of > both meshes get connected also with respect of the elevation. > > > This is of course a big piece of work. But this is something you need. To > build a quite good airport - with Taxiwaycrossings and that stuff. > With that you are even able to do some nice unleveled runways which are in > particular already possible but not happening very much due to the low > elevation-resolution. > > IMHO this is something with a higher priority than 3d-clouds. Even If I also > think that they already should be implemented fully. ;);) (Now I don't want > to > tell that all the people should stop working on that, what they are > doing. :):) ) > > Greetings, > Karsten > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > This would certainly make it a lot easier to do large waterfalls and other landmarks like the Matterhorn. Also big craters, distinctive canyons (though modeling the Grand Canyon would take a wee bit more horsepower than I have) and any number of other things. I was also wondering last night if the 3d cloud technology could be applied to forests. I think that would add a lot to low level flight. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Terrain Replacments trough other sources
After I asked a bit around, I came to (my) conclusion that making external changes trough custom data on the Scenery is a pain. No chance to get custom Sceneries (not just objects) really good to run. Well. it is probably possible through changing the source-data of terragear - extend this with own changes and all will be fine. But there would be a better way: The holes which were now cutted by terragear could be cutted in runtime of FGFS. So that you are able to include a own mesh-file (for example a AC3D file). I would suggest the same method to include the mesh into the scenery as terragear does with airportfields. The equal area which the new mesh uses get cutted out from the base-tiles (I assume that is one big "tile" after they are loaded...) and the border of both meshes get connected also with respect of the elevation. This is of course a big piece of work. But this is something you need. To build a quite good airport - with Taxiwaycrossings and that stuff. With that you are even able to do some nice unleveled runways which are in particular already possible but not happening very much due to the low elevation-resolution. IMHO this is something with a higher priority than 3d-clouds. Even If I also think that they already should be implemented fully. ;);) (Now I don't want to tell that all the people should stop working on that, what they are doing. :):) ) Greetings, Karsten ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ? Well, you'd make a crazy guy happy if you add a C150 to FlightGear but I think you should better build one that you _personally_ like. Creating an aircraft for FG is apparently a lot of work and you need a certain amount of personal motivation/enthusiasm to finish the task, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Aircraft Model: AC130-H
* Harald JOHNSEN -- Tuesday 10 May 2005 19:48: > I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or > panel). Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is > it better to start a new one ? What type of aircraft are people using > or would like to use ? One that desperately waits for a 3D model is the Harrier. Once you have vertically started it in KSFO and landed on the carrier, you know it deserves it! Hint: your mixture setting (ideally on the joystick) controls the thrust vector. m. PS: it's on someone's TODO list, but who knows ... http://www.geocities.com/flightgearproject/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Ben Morrison wrote: Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. I'm not sure there is any single aircraft that has fully exploited all the facilities FlightGear provides. Lee Elliott's aircraft seem to be especially nice in terms of the external 3d model and surface/gear animation. Some of his gear retraction/compression animations are simply outstanding and amazing. Other people have done some really great 3d cockpits ... the P51 was one of the first examples, there is also the spitfire and hunter. The standard C172 has a pretty complete electrical system modeled ... down to the individual buses and circuit breakers which are all fully functional in the sense that you can pop a circuit breaker and everything down stream will go dark. Some aircraft have really well tuned flight dynamics models such as the pa28-161. The 3d model is fine, but nothing too fancy, and the 3d cockpit is not yet finished (i.e. no radio stack.) The piper cub might be a nice example to start with. It's pretty simple all around, but has animated control surfaces, a 3d cockpit, and all the other basic components. It can be a *lot* of work to fully model all aspects of an aircraft, occasionally developers have teamed up to each work on their area of expertise and build a better aircraft than any of them could have done individually. Regards, Curt. I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or panel). Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better to start a new one ? What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ? Harald. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote: > To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics > model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? > > In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file > for JSBSim available: > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ > > Erik Isn't Innis working on one as well? Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [RFC] swap chase views
On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:42:48 +0200, Melchior wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > PS: or is it called "Helicopter View" because a helicopter exposes the > silliness of this view most impressively? :-} ..an idea to build upon, call it "Debug Heli View". ;o) ..expose it with the other experimental stuff, hide it for standard usage, whatever that is. ;o) > PPS: one person ever complained about the "Chase View", because it > made him "dizzy", but I don't think that's representative. There's > medication available for such symptoms! ;-) ..hush! ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:35:47 +0100, Jon wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ben Morrison wrote: > > > Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example > > to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For > > example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, > > etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made > > for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. > > If it's a model you want to redistribute then you'll need to be > careful about the licensing (obviously if it's a model you yourself > made for MSFS then this isn't a problem). ..to clarify, if you want it distributed as a FlightGear aircraft, you will either have to set up your own organization to do this, or, license your AC130-H under the GPL, so it can become a FlightGear aircraft. As the copyright holding author, you can actually do both. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. I'm not sure there is any single aircraft that has fully exploited all the facilities FlightGear provides. Lee Elliott's aircraft seem to be especially nice in terms of the external 3d model and surface/gear animation. Some of his gear retraction/compression animations are simply outstanding and amazing. Other people have done some really great 3d cockpits ... the P51 was one of the first examples, there is also the spitfire and hunter. The standard C172 has a pretty complete electrical system modeled ... down to the individual buses and circuit breakers which are all fully functional in the sense that you can pop a circuit breaker and everything down stream will go dark. Some aircraft have really well tuned flight dynamics models such as the pa28-161. The 3d model is fine, but nothing too fancy, and the 3d cockpit is not yet finished (i.e. no radio stack.) The piper cub might be a nice example to start with. It's pretty simple all around, but has animated control surfaces, a 3d cockpit, and all the other basic components. It can be a *lot* of work to fully model all aspects of an aircraft, occasionally developers have teamed up to each work on their area of expertise and build a better aircraft than any of them could have done individually. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. If it's a model you want to redistribute then you'll need to be careful about the licensing (obviously if it's a model you yourself made for MSFS then this isn't a problem). -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: > I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't > worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how > it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file for JSBSim available: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ Erik Sorry, I already have a fdm and I will be doing a 3d model. Ben Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
BONNEVILLE David wrote: Ok I see, maybe my example was too selective ;) Could you explain me how to scale a model ? Is it possible to scale it along the three axis ? thx Yes - see model-howto.html in the docs directory. The scale animation will do this. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re : Re: Re : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
Ok I see, maybe my example was too selective ;) Could you explain me how to scale a model ? Is it possible to scale it along the three axis ? thx David --- Message d'origine --- > De : Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > À : FlightGear developers discussions > Sujet : Re: Re : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects > Date : mar 10 mai 2005 12:02:47 CEST > > BONNEVILLE David wrote: > > > As I am creating objects on-the-fly i want to be able to adjust objects. > Example > > : I have a generic "dynamic" building. I want to place a small one and a > long > > one, or i want to scale it up to add floors... > > Keep in mind then, that scaling a object doesn't affect the texture. SO > scaling down a building will also result in smaller floor heights so to > speak (the number of floors remains the same). > > To overcome that problem we would need a texture-scale animation that > and scale exactly the opposite to scaling the 3d model. > > Erik > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: > I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't > worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how > it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file for JSBSim available: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ Erik Sorry, I already have a fdm and I will be doing a 3d model. Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] swap chase views
* Erik Hofman -- Tuesday 10 May 2005 13:24: > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > Anyone preferring "Helicopter View"? > > Yes, me. > While the "Chase view" is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I > think most people prefer the "Helicopter view" because it doesn't have > the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. Oh. This is very suprising, if not to say shocking. The "Helicopter View" doesn't resemble *any* real-life view. Not even if you are sitting in the last row of a 747 you'll get anything like that. :-( m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [RFC] swap chase views
Melchior FRANZ wrote: Anyone preferring "Helicopter View"? Yes, me. While the "Chase view" is a nice demonstration of the viewer code, I think most people prefer the "Helicopter view" because it doesn't have the problem of the view going out of sync with gravity. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] [RFC] swap chase views
Sorry for yet another RFC. But this is something that I have since a long time in my personal copy, and I think it should be considered for CVS: We have two chase views: view[1]: "Helicopter View" view[2]: "Chase View" The so-called "Helicopter View" should actually be called "Cheesy View" or "Camera on a long invisible stick mounted to the fuselage". If you apply rudder/anti-torque the effect is that the aircraft stays fixed, but the scenery swings left and right. I consider this view unusable except for some very few cases, such as viewing taildraggers on ground or crashed aircraft. In these cases the "Chase View" is unsuitable, because it tilts and doesn't provide a natural view orientation. That's less than 0.01% of all cases where I use outside view, though. So the obvious fix for me was to swap view[1] and view[2], because I didn't want to always press v and V twice so as to skip the silly "Helicopter View". Consistency with obsolete fgfs versions and habits are IMHO no justification for having the "exotic" chase view first. Anyone preferring "Helicopter View"? m. PS: or is it called "Helicopter View" because a helicopter exposes the silliness of this view most impressively? :-} PPS: one person ever complained about the "Chase View", because it made him "dizzy", but I don't think that's representative. There's medication available for such symptoms! ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Re : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
Erik Hofman wrote: Keep in mind then, that scaling a object doesn't affect the texture. SO scaling down a building will also result in smaller floor heights so to speak (the number of floors remains the same). To overcome that problem we would need a texture-scale animation that and scale exactly the opposite to scaling the 3d model. Alternatively you design a building of the maximum height you want to represent, and simply sink it below the terrain to get the desired height. This is how the generic skyscrapers work in the scenery database. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Re : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
BONNEVILLE David wrote: As I am creating objects on-the-fly i want to be able to adjust objects. Example : I have a generic "dynamic" building. I want to place a small one and a long one, or i want to scale it up to add floors... Keep in mind then, that scaling a object doesn't affect the texture. SO scaling down a building will also result in smaller floor heights so to speak (the number of floors remains the same). To overcome that problem we would need a texture-scale animation that and scale exactly the opposite to scaling the 3d model. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re : Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
> BONNEVILLE David wrote: > > Hi people, > > > > could somebody explain me how I could manipulate a 3D model ? > > Here is what I want to do : I want to load a 3D model (.ac or .3ds) and > > customize it on-the-fly : scale, rotate, translate (maybe toggle its > > visibility). > > How things could be done ? > > You want to scale a model?? > Now I'm starting to get curious, what are you modeling? As I am creating objects on-the-fly i want to be able to adjust objects. Example : I have a generic "dynamic" building. I want to place a small one and a long one, or i want to scale it up to add floors... David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
BONNEVILLE David wrote: Hi people, could somebody explain me how I could manipulate a 3D model ? Here is what I want to do : I want to load a 3D model (.ac or .3ds) and customize it on-the-fly : scale, rotate, translate (maybe toggle its visibility). How things could be done ? You want to scale a model?? Now I'm starting to get curious, what are you modeling? Anyway, here is the documentation for animating the model: http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/fgfs-model-howto.html Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven’t worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file for JSBSim available: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Manipulating 3D objects
Hi people, could somebody explain me how I could manipulate a 3D model ? Here is what I want to do : I want to load a 3D model (.ac or .3ds) and customize it on-the-fly : scale, rotate, translate (maybe toggle its visibility). How things could be done ? Thanks in advance. David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
