RE: [Flightgear-devel] Rearranged /controls/ properties
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 13:28, Norman Vine wrote: David Megginson writes: Thanks for reminding me -- the propeller-pitch property is misnamed, and we should try to think of something more descriptive (it directly controls propeller speed, not pitch). Not that we don't want a new name but aren't these two (pitch, propellor speed) the ~same~ thing assuming a variable pitch prop Why not call it propeller-governor? Same meaning, but clearer, IMHO. -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Short-field landing
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 15:15, David Megginson wrote: If anyone wants a real challenge, try landing the Cub across the runway instead of along it. It should be easily doable with the 200-foot wide runway, but I haven't quite succeeded yet. When one of my friends was working on his private certificate, his instructor landed the Cessna 150 they were in across the runway. They descended nose-up with full-throttle (on the backside of the power curve). I'm not sure how wide the runway was, but it was at a towered airport. Fish story? I don't know, but I'm definitely not going to try it in a real aircraft! -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] tyre squeak
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:02, David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: I can now confirm, after about 90 flights, that I have never heard a tire squeal on any of the planes I've flown (a Cessna 150, several 172s, a Cardinal, and my Warrior), even in some of the horrific landings during the first few hours of my PPL training. I'd be upset if I did hear one, since it would mean that I'd have to pay for a new tire and tube, and they're not cheap. With all due respect, I've had a few squeakers in the Cessna 172 I rent! I don't lower it down onto the runway that gently very often, though. Especially since I'm out of practice lately... My personal flying season starts again next weekend (weather permitting)! -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] tyre squeak
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 12:08, David Megginson wrote: Luke Scharf writes: With all due respect, I've had a few squeakers in the Cessna 172 I rent! On an extremely smooth landing for me (no bump at all), it makes an extremely faint chuff sound rather than a squeak -- even that might be in my imagination. I've never heard a squeak or any other sound when I've been standing outside watching planes land, except for the propeller and engine. It probably helps that the tires are often worn on 5394T, and that I fly in the summers in Southwestern Virginia. I've noticed in my car that the tires squeal much more easily on hot days (=85 degrees F, =29 degrees C ) - so I'd imagine that it's similar for airplanes. On cooler days, my car tires just make a scuffing-sound. Are you up North? -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] SeaHawk
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 12:20, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Gene Buckle writes: http://www.flightgear.org/images/SeaHawk.jpg That just kicks ass. You've made a buddy of mine very happy. He's recently got a Sea Hawk cockpit that is destined to be a sim cockpit. You can see it at http://www.wv838.com There is some really detailed cockpit info at this site. (Under Pics from the POH and Cockpit Photos) Nope, I can't think of any excuses now to not have a full 3d cockpit. :-) Here's a random question: Where are the engines on this aircraft? I see throttles in the cockpit, but I don't see the air intakes... -Luke wannabe glider pilot Scharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 10:31, Brandon Bergren wrote: How about a control to make the UFO beam up a cow if you're over it? (Now this would be cool) AI cows would be a neat addition to the dynamic scenery we were talking about before. At one of the local airports (KBCB) there are several fields and some silos right under the airplane on final approach. -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 12:14, Gene Buckle wrote: (Now this would be cool) AI cows would be a neat addition to the dynamic scenery we were talking about before. At one of the local airports (KBCB) there are several fields and some silos right under the airplane on final approach. What about Kangaroos with Stinger launchers? (RooPADs!) Only if I can shoot back! :-) -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 14:14, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On 24 Jan 2003 11:53:28 -0500, Luke Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 10:31, Brandon Bergren wrote: How about a control to make the UFO beam up a cow if you're over it? (Now this would be cool) AI cows would be a neat addition to the dynamic scenery we were talking about before. At one of the local airports (KBCB) there are several fields and some silos right under the airplane on final approach. ...so it _is_ possible to take a quick little hop to Bagdad. ;-) Huh? Is BCB the airport code for Bagdad as well as Blacksburg? Here's what Blacksburg looks like: http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf/flying/2002-10-14-13a.jpg http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf/flying/2002-02-09-05%20BCB%20from%20downwind%20to%20runway%2030.jpg http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf/flying/2002-02-09-01%20Virginia%20Tech%20campus%20on%20climbout%20from%20BCB.jpg -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] How are light singles parked?
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 15:27, David Megginson wrote: I always like to leave the plane with full tanks to keep water out of the fuel system (no air == no condensation). After landing, I generally taxi straight up to the pumps and shut down. The line guy fills up the plane then tows it out to the field, where I tie it down and put on the covers. Taxiing to the pumps on arrival is probably probably as realistic as anything else. You have to shut down to refill, and no one wants to start the engine again if they can help it. At my field (KPSK), everyone just taxies to the tiedown or their T-hanger. But, it's a small field and the tiedowns aren't very crowded. The folks in the T-hangars usually move the plane in and out of their hanger by a human-powered towbar. The only aircraft that I've ever seen moved by tractor are the ones in the big shared hangers. They keep a King Air and some assorted single and twin engine piston aircraft in there. Fuel can be had either by pulling up to the pump, or by fuel truck. The two rental C-172 trainers that I fly are almost always filled by the fuel truck. But, in my humble opinion, people probably aren't going to sit on the ramp and watch the traffic all day. Something simple and believable should work - a C-172 in the pattern doing touch-and-goes, and a King Air opping at the pumps for gas every once in a while would be plenty believable. Just so long as the ground movement isn't blatantly wrong and there's stuff in the air that flies the pattern and/or the instrument approaches, it's good enough for me. That said, it would be a good idea to have the AI planes complain (profanely? ./fgfs --disable-adult-language) on the CTAF or tower frequency if you get too close. :-) -Luke ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem: unrealistic YASim stalls
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 13:35, Andy Ross wrote: This might be enough to fix your problem -- you could still get a viscious asymettric stall with violent control input, but gentle motion of the yoke wouldn't be able to pull the nose high enough. That sounds about right to me. In the Cessna 172 that I fly, you can get some exciting nose-drop behavior in a power-on stall, or with a more abrupt control movement. But, if the aircraft is lightly loaded (200lb pilot, 30gal fuel) and you do a power-off stall gently, you just hear it go in and out of the buffet every few second while you descend smoothly. I've flown several incipient spins (with an instructor, un/cross-coordinated power-on stall) in the Cessna 172 and they were quite exciting. :-) -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Problem: unrealistic YASim stalls
On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 12:35, David Megginson wrote: Luke Scharf writes: I've had the same experience in the Cessna 172E Skyhawk that I fly. I can add this to Dave's observations: I haven't been able to cause the nose to drop in an attempted descending power-off turn stall. Some at Cessna did a GREAT job with this aircraft! Did you try the stall cross-controlled? Note that I'm not recommending that, since it can put you inverted. I kept it as well coordinated as I possibly could! At my current level of piloting skill, I'm not going to intentionally spin an airplane without a graybearded instructor or a parachute! BUT, I've never tried to stall a C-172E fully loaded -- I fly in the utility category most of the time. So, our observations may not be valid, depending on how the simulated aircraft is loaded. How is the model in question balanced? We have it loaded and balanced in or near utility, I think. Cool - so it should be fairly close to the way I fly the aircraft. On another note, is there any possibility of adding a way to change the loading of an airplane? It would be interesting to be able to do something like: fgfs --aircraft-type=c172r-3d-yasim \ --aircraft-loading=fuel=38gal,frontseat=200lb,baggage=400lb and then do crazy things in the simulated aircraft. -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p-3d - checked against a Cessna 172E
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 22:52, Luke Scharf wrote: 2. Nose-up with flaps: Hands off 80mph, add one notch of flaps: The nose does indeed shoot skyward.. The aircraft climbed 100ft and slowed to 60mph before I got nervous and gave it a tap on the down elevator. One thing that I forgot to mention - the nose raised about 10 degrees, to the term shoot skyward may be a little too dramatic. It seemed like a lot at the time, though. When I tapped the elevator, I did it with my fingertips so it didn't take much force -- but I wouldn't have been surprised to see the airplane get really close to stall speed. -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] c172p-3d - checked against a Cessna 172E
I remember a while ago that there was a discussion about some properties of the Cessna 172p-3d model. I went flying yesterday in a 1964 Cessna 172E w/ a ~145hp engine and a climb prop. The WB put it into the utility category, and I flew these tests about 4000' MSL with an altimeter setting of 30.13 Here's what I found: 1. Left-roll tencency: Hands off 105mph, the roll rate seemed to be very roughly about 1 deg/sec. The ground-adjustable trim tab had the aircraft darn-close to being coordinated. A fingertip touch on the right aileron every 2-3 seconds would keep the wings level without so much as a conscious thought on my part. 2. Nose-up with flaps: Hands off 80mph, add one notch of flaps: The nose does indeed shoot skyward.. The aircraft climbed 100ft and slowed to 60mph before I got nervous and gave it a tap on the down elevator. Summary: The model was more accurate than I (a regular but low-time Cessna 172 pilot) thought. Some of the effects may have been somewhat exaggerated, but a bigger engine in the simulated aircraft might account for a lot of it. The seat of the pants feel that you have when flying the real aircraft covers up most of the effects. Good job! -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] What's in the job jar?
On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 07:09, David Megginson wrote: We are slowly trying to get all of the parts of FlightGear to extend FGSubsystem (defined src/Main/fgfs.hxx) and to simplify the top-level loop in src/Main/main.cxx. Where would I find documentation about code-layout of FGFS? I did a quick scan of flightgear.org and I didn't see a document that looked like it addressed this object does this and relates to the other objects like that question. Thanks, -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] What's in the job jar?
On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 13:01, David Megginson wrote: Luke Scharf writes: Where would I find documentation about code-layout of FGFS? I did a quick scan of flightgear.org and I didn't see a document that looked like it addressed this object does this and relates to the other objects like that question. Come to think of it, that sounds like a worthy project. There are snippits here and there (including under docs-mini in the source dir), but no big master document. Sounds like a good way for me to get started with the FlightGear code. Don't consider me as having claimed this task, though, until I actually upload something. Who should I send documentation patches to? Thanks, -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not working
I have a similar problem with KSJC. I'm running fgfs 0.91, with the 0.90 base package, the KSJC photo-realistic scenery version 2.0, and lots of scenery for the northern part of the western hemisphere. It appears that I'm underground. The altimeter reads 0, but the radar altimeter reads something a little over 32800 feet. The aircraft is still stuck, even if I supply a --altitude=3 parameter. I can use the autopilot to fly to KSJC, though, without trouble if I start at another airport. I didn't submit this yet because my mix of versions could conceivably cause odd behavior, and I haven't looked into it. -Luke On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:18, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Tommy, Here's a couple things you could try. - specify a starting airport: fgfs --airport=ENTC We have quite a few Norwegian airports in our database. - If you want to specify a lat/lon try avoiding exact whole number coordinates. Instead of --lat=59 --lon=10 try --lat=59.001 --lon=10.001 (or better yet, start at an aiport.) Regards, Curt. Tommy McDaniel writes: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As I mentioned in another message I just sent to this list, I installed the latest FlightGear yesterday. Of course, I couldn't go long without trying different terrain, and my first try was a piece including southeast Norway. The problem is that, when I try starting FlightGear up in that tile, there is no scenery, it says my coordinates are 0 degrees and 0 degrees, and the plane just doesn't do squat. I can tell the engine to throttle up, but the RPM indicator stays at 0, and the plane just flat doesn't do anything but sit there. Also, there seems to be an infinite number of no terrain intersection messages that begin to be output as soon as the plane is ready to go (if only it worked), interspersed with occassional Failed to remove nav-vor-ident sound messages and a few others. I looked through the list archives, and I found mention from October or so about --lon and --lat having problems, and someone suggesting that it was only the eastern hemisphere that wasn't working, perhaps because FlightGear was parsing coordinates in that hemisphere improperly. I therefore downloaded the terrain tile that includes Orlando, Florida, and lo and behold, it worked like a charm. It was suggested that the problem might be in options.cxx, and I have indeed looked at the file for a few minutes, but can find no particular error. In fact, when I run ./fgfs --lon=11 --lat=59 2 /dev/null from the directory FlightGear is in the very first output is: parse_time() = 11 parse_time() = 11 parse_time() = 59 parse_time() = 59 which seems to correspond to the coordinates I have entered. Perhaps someone that knows which variables to follow (and knows how to use the debugger, which I don't) can check out what's going on here. I have plenty of output messages that I can present if needed, but I doubt that they will be helpful. If there's anything I can do to help out here and restore half of the world to FlightGear (assuming that's what the problem is), just let me know. I know C and C++, for what it matters. Tommy McDaniel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/fcyVB8FYP9YqDcRAre8AJ0R57OTsWO8lt6i1p3d6MIe+nlDYACffMV9 481jT9li4U0WEFfjxo18LC4= =Z9ph -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not working
I have a similar problem with KSJC. I'm running fgfs 0.91, with the 0.90 base package, the KSJC photo-realistic scenery version 2.0, and lots of scenery for the northern part of the western hemisphere. It appears that I'm underground. The altimeter reads 0, but the radar altimeter reads something a little over 32800 feet. The aircraft is still stuck, even if I supply a --altitude=3 parameter. I can use the autopilot to fly to KSJC, though, without trouble if I start at another airport. I didn't submit this yet because my mix of versions could conceivably cause odd behavior, and I haven't looked into it. -Luke On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:18, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Tommy, Here's a couple things you could try. - specify a starting airport: fgfs --airport=ENTC We have quite a few Norwegian airports in our database. - If you want to specify a lat/lon try avoiding exact whole number coordinates. Instead of --lat=59 --lon=10 try --lat=59.001 --lon=10.001 (or better yet, start at an aiport.) Regards, Curt. Tommy McDaniel writes: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As I mentioned in another message I just sent to this list, I installed the latest FlightGear yesterday. Of course, I couldn't go long without trying different terrain, and my first try was a piece including southeast Norway. The problem is that, when I try starting FlightGear up in that tile, there is no scenery, it says my coordinates are 0 degrees and 0 degrees, and the plane just doesn't do squat. I can tell the engine to throttle up, but the RPM indicator stays at 0, and the plane just flat doesn't do anything but sit there. Also, there seems to be an infinite number of no terrain intersection messages that begin to be output as soon as the plane is ready to go (if only it worked), interspersed with occassional Failed to remove nav-vor-ident sound messages and a few others. I looked through the list archives, and I found mention from October or so about --lon and --lat having problems, and someone suggesting that it was only the eastern hemisphere that wasn't working, perhaps because FlightGear was parsing coordinates in that hemisphere improperly. I therefore downloaded the terrain tile that includes Orlando, Florida, and lo and behold, it worked like a charm. It was suggested that the problem might be in options.cxx, and I have indeed looked at the file for a few minutes, but can find no particular error. In fact, when I run ./fgfs --lon=11 --lat=59 2 /dev/null from the directory FlightGear is in the very first output is: parse_time() = 11 parse_time() = 11 parse_time() = 59 parse_time() = 59 which seems to correspond to the coordinates I have entered. Perhaps someone that knows which variables to follow (and knows how to use the debugger, which I don't) can check out what's going on here. I have plenty of output messages that I can present if needed, but I doubt that they will be helpful. If there's anything I can do to help out here and restore half of the world to FlightGear (assuming that's what the problem is), just let me know. I know C and C++, for what it matters. Tommy McDaniel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/fcyVB8FYP9YqDcRAre8AJ0R57OTsWO8lt6i1p3d6MIe+nlDYACffMV9 481jT9li4U0WEFfjxo18LC4= =Z9ph -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not working
I have a similar problem with KSJC. I'm running fgfs 0.91, with the 0.90 base package, the KSJC photo-realistic scenery version 2.0, and lots of scenery for the northern part of the western hemisphere. It appears that I'm underground. The altimeter reads 0, but the radar altimeter reads something a little over 32800 feet. The aircraft is still stuck, even if I supply a --altitude=3 parameter. I can use the autopilot to fly to KSJC, though, without trouble if I start at another airport. I didn't submit this yet because my mix of versions could conceivably cause odd behavior, and I haven't looked into it. -Luke On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:18, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Tommy, Here's a couple things you could try. - specify a starting airport: fgfs --airport=ENTC We have quite a few Norwegian airports in our database. - If you want to specify a lat/lon try avoiding exact whole number coordinates. Instead of --lat=59 --lon=10 try --lat=59.001 --lon=10.001 (or better yet, start at an aiport.) Regards, Curt. Tommy McDaniel writes: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As I mentioned in another message I just sent to this list, I installed the latest FlightGear yesterday. Of course, I couldn't go long without trying different terrain, and my first try was a piece including southeast Norway. The problem is that, when I try starting FlightGear up in that tile, there is no scenery, it says my coordinates are 0 degrees and 0 degrees, and the plane just doesn't do squat. I can tell the engine to throttle up, but the RPM indicator stays at 0, and the plane just flat doesn't do anything but sit there. Also, there seems to be an infinite number of no terrain intersection messages that begin to be output as soon as the plane is ready to go (if only it worked), interspersed with occassional Failed to remove nav-vor-ident sound messages and a few others. I looked through the list archives, and I found mention from October or so about --lon and --lat having problems, and someone suggesting that it was only the eastern hemisphere that wasn't working, perhaps because FlightGear was parsing coordinates in that hemisphere improperly. I therefore downloaded the terrain tile that includes Orlando, Florida, and lo and behold, it worked like a charm. It was suggested that the problem might be in options.cxx, and I have indeed looked at the file for a few minutes, but can find no particular error. In fact, when I run ./fgfs --lon=11 --lat=59 2 /dev/null from the directory FlightGear is in the very first output is: parse_time() = 11 parse_time() = 11 parse_time() = 59 parse_time() = 59 which seems to correspond to the coordinates I have entered. Perhaps someone that knows which variables to follow (and knows how to use the debugger, which I don't) can check out what's going on here. I have plenty of output messages that I can present if needed, but I doubt that they will be helpful. If there's anything I can do to help out here and restore half of the world to FlightGear (assuming that's what the problem is), just let me know. I know C and C++, for what it matters. Tommy McDaniel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9/fcyVB8FYP9YqDcRAre8AJ0R57OTsWO8lt6i1p3d6MIe+nlDYACffMV9 481jT9li4U0WEFfjxo18LC4= =Z9ph -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Default startup aircraft
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 17:20, David Megginson wrote: Curtis L. Olson writes: I notice that we can't operate the mixture, throttle, flaps via panel clicks and some of the knob click areas are a little off. Any thing else? The more I run with the 3d panels the more I like them, and the more I dislike the 2d panels (although we still need to support 2d panels for various reasons.) Well, let's start cleaning them up. I don't think we're too far off, and with Andy's patch to make hotspots visible, it should be easy to debug the mouse problems and to add new hotspots for 3D instruments. I'm new to Flightgear, so I don't know if carb heat is simulated. But, in the c172p-3d model, the carburetor heat is stuck in the on position. I'd prefer to be able to turn it off so that I can get all of the climb performance I can... :-) Also, the aircraft C-FGFS has a bit of a more of a left-yaw and left-roll tendency than the climb-prop equipped 145hp Cessna 172 that I rent(N5394T). The ground-adjustable rudder trim tab on 94T is set so that it flies coordinated without any rudder input at 105mph. Other than that, I really like the model and the 3d panel! This particular model feels good and takes about the same amount of effort to fly as the real thing, so I vote for it being the default. -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Default startup aircraft
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 21:24, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Dave Perry writes: I like the c172p-3d 3d model and 3d cockpit a lot. Three comments/concerns for the recent changes to the flight model: 1. The nose pitch-up when adding flaps seems extreem. If I don't change the elevator trim a lot, the plane actually stalls. If I recall correctly, the Piper Tri-Pacer had a slight pitch up with added flaps. But the Cessna 172 nose pitches down a little and you have to make minor trim changes more like the c182 in FlightGear. I have some experience with a very high fidelity C172 model (commercial) based on real, instrumented flight data. Even at speeds as slow as 90 knots the model will come close to looping unless you add a lot of down elevator. I've never tried this in a real C172, but I can see that for a real pilot, pushing forward on the yoke to hold the nose down after applying flaps could become an almost unconcious act. When you are flying from mouse/keyboard it's just not the same and these sorts of effects can be surprising. Even just with flying with a yoke and having your hands on it, you really don't need to add much down force to keep the nose from ballooning. I've never noticed a nose-up tendency when I pull on the flaps. But, I tend to pull them on slowly and gently - and at a lower airspeed (= 90mph for landing). The flaps in the C172 make you go down, not up. OTOH, when you have full flaps down and you hit the throttle (in a go-around type situation), the nose almost shoots up into the air. It takes a lot of forward force on the yoke to keep the plane level with the ground. The lack of nose-up when I'm pulling on the flaps may just be because I'm correcting for the nose-up without thinking about it. I'll try to note this (along with the left-roll tendency) the next time I go flying. -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Wrong base package ?
I just changed the version file (/usr/local/FlightGear/version ) to contain 0.9.1 instead of 0.90 As I understand it, 0.9.1 is the unstable development version. These sort of gotchas are either not an issue for those who like to live on the bleeding edge -- or intentional so that people ask this question. -Luke On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 13:59, Danie Heath wrote: Hi all, So I compiled the new 0.9.1, but as soon as I try to run it, this happens : [root@SECKS bin]# ./fgfs --fg-root=/usr/local/FlightGear/ FlightGear: Version 0.9.1 Built with GNU C++ version 3.2 Scanning command line for: --fg-root= fg_root = /usr/local/FlightGear/ Base package check failed ... Found version 0.9.0 at: /usr/local/FlightGear/ Please upgrade to version0.9.1 The newest base package on the website is only version 0.9.0 ... where do I get the base package version 0.9.1 ? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] What's involved in adding photo-realisticscenery?
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 16:33, David Megginson wrote: Luke Scharf writes: I figured that I'd take the pictures myself at whatever resolution makes sense. It's a good excuse to go flying. :-) Can you take pictures straight down? I guess it would be possible with a high-winged plane and a ferociously-steep bank. I usually rent a Cessna 172, so a well-coordinated 45 degree bank might work. Once that's established, my passenger might be able to hold the camera so that it's perpendicular to the ground. Or, I could just find a plane with a camera port. So, assuming that I have a TIFF or a JPEG, where do I go next? Don't use JPEG -- stick to something lossless. You'll have to download TerraGear and dig through the source, looking for explanatory comments, unless Curt documented it all somewhere. I'll give it a shot! Thanks! I'm struggling to get the down payment together for a Cessna 150... Flightgear is a lot cheaper! Good luck. Why not go for a 140 and do the taildragger thing as well? The polished aluminum ones look very spiffy. :-)~ -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] What's involved in adding photo-realistic scenery?
I've just started working with Flightgear. It has occurred to me that it might be fun to to take aerial photos of my local airports and turn them into scenery for the simulator. I'm a Linux geek with a CS degree and also a private pilot... But, I'm definitely not a GIS expert. What is involved in adding photo-realistic scenery to the Flightgear scenery database? Is there any documentation that I should read before starting on such an endeavor? Any pitfalls? Thanks in advance, -Luke -- Luke Scharf, Jack of Several Trades http://www.ccm.ece.vt.edu/~lscharf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
