Re: [Flightgear-devel]Re: [Simgear-cvslogs]CVS: SimGear/simgear/scene/sky/clouds3dglut_shapes.c, 1.1, 1.2 glut_shapes.h, 1.2, 1.3
On Mar 16, 2004, at 9:38 AM, Erik Hofman wrote: Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi Guys I don't know if this helps in any way but I did a complete rebuild(plib,simgear,flightgear) about 7 days ago under Cygwin on windows 98 and did not have any problem so unless the above area has been changed in the last 7 days it is not simgear or cygwin that is to blame. The problem is only visible when X11 is also installed on Cygwin. Actually, this is not the case. I was successfully building FlightGear under Cygwin last month, it only started failing recently. I deleted Cygwin and did a reinstall _without_ X11 and it still does not build. Jonathan Polley I had a similar problem compiling under Cygwin just a couple of weeks ago. I uninstalled and reinstalled Cygwin so many times I lost count. On my last install I decided to try older versions of the glut files. I'm not sure if this did any thing (or if it was a combination of other factors), but I was then able to compile flightgear. Robert Deters ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] blue angel
- Original Message - From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:05 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] blue angel Robert Deters wrote: Actually the F-4 is unstable, but only marginally. It just means that the plane would eventually diverge if the pilot did nothing to stop it. Not in pitch, certainly? An aircraft that is unstable in pitch, if you pulled the stick a little bit and got the nose going up just a teeny bit, would *continue* diverging from zero AoA all the way up into a tumbling spin. Once in the spin, it wouldn't be humanly recoverable to a forward-pointing state (at wacky AoA's the controls don't do what you expect them to). If you got the nose rotating quickly and then looked down at your engine gauge for a second, you'd lose it completely. Yes in pitch. Besides, I think you are confusing static stability and dynamic stability. The F4 is statically stable, but dynamically unstable. Just because the aircraft is unstable, doesn't mean that it is uncontrollable. Give the F4 a pitch input and it will oscillate and diverge, if the pilot does nothing to stop it. It is not that unstable, so the pilot can easily control it. The longitudinal characteristics of the F4 has what is generally called Tuck. It is when the roots of the phugoid mode (from the longitudinal transfer functions of the aircraft) become real and one goes unstable. Maybe you mean that it was unstable in roll? That's true of many aircraft, including GA ones. This means that given time, the plane will roll over into a tight turn on its own. The negative dihedral on the F-4's tail would cause this kind of effect, for example. This is a relatively benign effect, since a simple autopilot can correct it when the pilot isn't paying attention (and in a dogfight, you're hardly worried about a minor roll divergence). I think you mean the spiral mode is unstable. It is sort of a roll-yaw coupled effect (not to be confused with dutch roll). You can sort of think of the instability in the pitch the same way as the spiral (qualitatively not quantitatively of course). Just because the aircraft has spiral instability doesn't mean it can't be flown. The instability that this discussion focuses on is pitch instability. Roll stability isn't very important for combat aircraft. And conversely, many aircraft that are non-stable in pitch are quite stable in yaw (there's no great advantage to having high yaw agility). Actually roll stability is important and is a requirement for military certification. Rob Deters Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Developer Locations update
The UIUC Model develop group would like to be added. Could you list us as: UIUC Model: Michael Selig, et al. Where et al. is a link to http://amber.aae.uiuc.edu/~m-selig/apasim.html. Our location is Latitude: 40.115900 N, Longitude: 88.228914 W. Thanks, Rob - Original Message - From: Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:08 PM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Developer Locations update Many of you may be aware that I have a Developer Locations page[1] for FlightGear (similar to Debian's). It's completely unofficial, but I received a good response from everyone when I started it. Since then we've gained a few new contributers. So, if you contribute to FG and would like to be listed, just let me know. Thanks [1] http://unbeatenpath.net/software/fgfs/Developers/Developers.html PS - Just did my first -O1 -fno-inline compile, and I love it. Thanks, Andy -- Cameron Moore [ Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? ] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] minor issue simgear with plib-1.4.1
I came across the same problem. Thanks for the solution. Rob - Original Message - From: Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 2:29 PM Subject: [Flightgear-devel] minor issue simgear with plib-1.4.1 On line 49 of io/sg_socket.cxx had to put null values into call for netInit. - netInit() + netInit(NULL, NULL) This is because the declaration in plib-1.4.1 doesn't provide for the default. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] UIUC compile problem
- Original Message - From: Julian Foad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] UIUC compile problem Robert, maybe I'm missing something but it looks to me like you don't need to do all this copying; you just need to tell the file reader function where you want it to put the data. Like this, for example: uiuc_2DdataFileReader(Clfarf_file, Clfarf_aArray[Clfarf_index], Clfarf_rArray[Clfarf_index], Clfarf_ClArray[Clfarf_index], Clfarf_nAlphaArray[Clfarf_index], Clfarf_nr[Clfarf_index]); instead of uiuc_2DdataFileReader(Clfarf_file, datafile_xArray, datafile_yArray, datafile_zArray, datafile_nxArray, datafile_ny); d_2_to_3(datafile_xArray, Clfarf_aArray, Clfarf_index); d_1_to_2(datafile_yArray, Clfarf_rArray, Clfarf_index); d_2_to_3(datafile_zArray, Clfarf_ClArray, Clfarf_index); i_1_to_2(datafile_nxArray, Clfarf_nAlphaArray, Clfarf_index); Clfarf_nr[Clfarf_index] = datafile_ny; Can some one with MSVC or SGI please try the above? If it works, I'll change it. Rob ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] UIUC compile problem
- Original Message - From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] UIUC compile problem Robert Deters wrote: Does anybody have any idea of how to solve this?? Erik What are you using to compile it? It compiles fine with gcc version 2.96 under Redhat 7.1. If i change uiuc_menu.cpp (line 1412) CXfabetaf_aArray[CXfabetaf_index] = datafile_xArray; CXfabetaf_betaArray[CXfabetaf_index] = datafile_yArray; CXfabetaf_CXArray[CXfabetaf_index] = datafile_zArray; CXfabetaf_nAlphaArray[CXfabetaf_index] = datafile_nxArray; CXfabetaf_nbeta[CXfabetaf_index] = datafile_ny; to: CXfabetaf_aArray[CXfabetaf_index][0][0] = datafile_xArray[0][0]; CXfabetaf_betaArray[CXfabetaf_index][0] = datafile_yArray[0]; CXfabetaf_CXArray[CXfabetaf_index][0][0] = datafile_zArray[0][0]; CXfabetaf_nAlphaArray[CXfabetaf_index][0] = datafile_nxArray[0]; CXfabetaf_nbeta[CXfabetaf_index] = datafile_ny; it works, but I doubt this is th intention of the code. :-( BTW, what *is* the intention of the code, assigning pointers, copying one entry, or copying the complete table? Erik The purpose is to copy the complete table. What I have in uiuc_menu is just a short cut instead of writing a bunch of for loops to copy multiple dimension arrays. But since it looks like this doesn't work for all compilers, I guess I be writing some for loops. Rob ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] engine sounds with UIUC models
Just a quick note and question. I've been able to get engine sound for the different models except the UIUC models. Specifically I've been running the different versions of the Cessna 172. JSB and Larcsim both produce engine sound but UIUC doesn't. I've looked at the xml files and larcsim and UIUC both include the same sound files. I'm wondering if I need to add something into the UIUC code for the engine sound to work. Rob **Robert DetersGraduate StudentDepartment of Aeronautical and Astronautical EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign[EMAIL PROTECTED]**
Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim changes
- Original Message - From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim changes [snip] This doesn't hold for the blasphemous engineering units. How many pounds of thrust are required to accelerate an aircraft with a mass of 3000 pounds by one foot per second per second? I dunno. Trying this in SI: How many newtons of thrust are required to accelerate an aircraft with a mass of 1500 kg by one m/s^2? The answer, immediate and obvious, is 1500. To be fair, SI isn't the only system that has this property. There is another metric system that goes by cgs (for centimeter/gram/second -- the basic units) with the same property. Those folks talk about force in dynes and energy in ergs. Lets not forget that english units do work well when one stops using pound-mass and uses slugs for mass (1 slug = 32.2 lb-mass). Then no conversion factors are required 1 lb-force = 1 slug * 1 ft/s^2. This makes life much easier and many of us don't mind using slugs (expect for maybe thermo people who just can't seem to get away from lb-mass). Now we know immediately that it takes 300 lbs to accelerate 300 slugs by 1 ft per second per second. Rob ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
