Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
> I've fixed the missing model problem -- specifying a non-existant > aircraft model (not any other kind) will default to the glider again > rather than throwing an exception. Thanks, 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 22:16, Cameron Moore wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Berndt) [2002.05.30 20:45]: > > > I have not been keeping track of changes on the JSBSim XML formats for > > > several months, so I'll try to update the -180 definitions tonight and > > > see what happens. I will let you know if I get anyway. I'm pretty busy > > > these days, so I'd be happy to hand this off to a willing 3rd party to > > > pick up the pieces. > > > > > > Anyway, I'll see what I can do tonight. Thanks > > > > You can probably just go ahead and write the model as you understand the > > JSBSim config file format. It hasn't changed much at all recently. Any > > recent changes should be easily and quickly fixable. > > I went through and updated the config that is currently in JSBSim CVS. > There were only minor changes needed to get it looking like the c172 > config. I did not make any changes to the aero coefs. I've uploaded > all of my changes to here: > > http://unbeatenpath.net/software/fgfs/PA-28-180/latest/ > > There's a -set.xml file there too that I basically just copied from the > c172. > > My tests show a strong tendency to roll left. I have to maintain about > 60% right aileron to maintain level flight. Replacing the Clb coef with > the c172 one seems to fix the problem, but I left the original coef in > place for someone with more know-how than me to look at it. You need to add FG_BETA to the multipliers for Clb. i.e. replace: FG_QBAR|FG_WINGAREA|FG_WINGSPAN with FG_QBAR|FG_WINGAREA|FG_WINGSPAN|FG_BETA That way it will be zero when sideslip angle is zero. > > Also, the other most notible aero problem I can see is the data tied to > flap deflection. Pitch and drag seem to be a little high relative to > the flap positions, but I'm not sure. > > There are several places in the XML file that have "NEEDS WORK" or > "FIXME" by them. The only major piece that we hadn't gotten to was the > propulsion section. I believe the c172 defaults are still in place. > > Please feel free to do what you want with this aircraft. I've taken it > about as far as I can (with Cameron Munro's help, of course). If you > need any data, let me know, and I'll see if I can help. Thanks > -- > Cameron Moore > / Every so often, I like to stick my head out the \ > \ window, look up, and smile for a satellite photo. / > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Berndt) [2002.05.30 20:45]: > > I have not been keeping track of changes on the JSBSim XML formats for > > several months, so I'll try to update the -180 definitions tonight and > > see what happens. I will let you know if I get anyway. I'm pretty busy > > these days, so I'd be happy to hand this off to a willing 3rd party to > > pick up the pieces. > > > > Anyway, I'll see what I can do tonight. Thanks > > You can probably just go ahead and write the model as you understand the > JSBSim config file format. It hasn't changed much at all recently. Any > recent changes should be easily and quickly fixable. I went through and updated the config that is currently in JSBSim CVS. There were only minor changes needed to get it looking like the c172 config. I did not make any changes to the aero coefs. I've uploaded all of my changes to here: http://unbeatenpath.net/software/fgfs/PA-28-180/latest/ There's a -set.xml file there too that I basically just copied from the c172. My tests show a strong tendency to roll left. I have to maintain about 60% right aileron to maintain level flight. Replacing the Clb coef with the c172 one seems to fix the problem, but I left the original coef in place for someone with more know-how than me to look at it. Also, the other most notible aero problem I can see is the data tied to flap deflection. Pitch and drag seem to be a little high relative to the flap positions, but I'm not sure. There are several places in the XML file that have "NEEDS WORK" or "FIXME" by them. The only major piece that we hadn't gotten to was the propulsion section. I believe the c172 defaults are still in place. Please feel free to do what you want with this aircraft. I've taken it about as far as I can (with Cameron Munro's help, of course). If you need any data, let me know, and I'll see if I can help. Thanks -- Cameron Moore / Every so often, I like to stick my head out the \ \ window, look up, and smile for a satellite photo. / ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
> > Which Roskam did you find the Cherokee numbers in? > > Oops. I was mistaken. It's not Roskam -- it's McCormick, > "Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics", Appendix C. Cameron > Munro sent me copies of it. It's a very complete example. > > You could rough-in a Cherokee in YASim first, just to have something > > to drive your model, then ... > > My model? I hope you mean that collectively since there's probably no > way I'll ever be a 3D modeller. :-) > > I have not been keeping track of changes on the JSBSim XML formats for > several months, so I'll try to update the -180 definitions tonight and > see what happens. I will let you know if I get anyway. I'm pretty busy > these days, so I'd be happy to hand this off to a willing 3rd party to > pick up the pieces. > > Anyway, I'll see what I can do tonight. Thanks You can probably just go ahead and write the model as you understand the JSBSim config file format. It hasn't changed much at all recently. Any recent changes should be easily and quickly fixable. Jon smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
Jim Wilson writes: > Is Innovation3D's texture mapping any better? It has a UV editor, but I haven't tried it. > If not I'm going to take a stab at making a command line texture > re-mapper for ac3d files. To start with it'll probably just be > some sort of script (awk?) that adjusts the x or y coordinates. It would take a lot less time to learn Blender. Besides, batch-mode UV mapping wouldn't be fun. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
Don't forget about wings... http://www.wings3d.com It's BSD licensed ;) (for modelling, not texturing.) > > In any case it'd be awful nice to have a gpl'd modler. Right now > > we've got a choice between two closed source binaries. One from a > > guy that may or may not ever get around to fixing the bugs, let > > alone improve it. And another from a larger company that is now as > > good as gone. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In addition to PPE (ppe.sourceforge.net), there's K3D > (k3d.sourceforge.net) and Innovation3D (innovation3d.sourceforge.net). > I played with innovation 3D a bit, and while it's OK, it's no > Blender. For now, I'm willing to take my chances with a non-free, > unsupported app, as long as I can export into formats that other tools > support. Innovation3D is in Debian, so just type > Is Innovation3D's texture mapping any better? If not I'm going to take a stab at making a command line texture re-mapper for ac3d files. To start with it'll probably just be some sort of script (awk?) that adjusts the x or y coordinates. Probably that statement in my last message should have been more specific: we need a _usable_ 3d gpl'd modling package that is suitable for flightgear. AC3D is actually ideal for what we are doing with a very small number of bugs and weaknesses. For setting up the geometry of an aircraft model, I can't imagine something easier and more effective. The texturing is not good and could be greatly improved with very little effort. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
Jim Wilson writes: > Thanks. I'm doing some major re-work with it now...basicly after > figuring out how to get around some of ac3d limitations. AC3D > works well for this stuff, but it's texturing options are limited > (but in the end sufficient). Blender is looking more attractive > but every time I open it up I just get overwhelmed. It's got a lot > more in it than we need for modeling aircraft. AC3D is easy to > learn and it isn't bad once you figure out how to get around it's > limitations and bugs. Yes, AC3D's lack of useful texturing support pushed me to Blender. Blender is a scary brute, but it took me only a couple of hours playing with online tutorials (start with the castle) before I could make my first DC-3 model. Now the program seems natural and intuitive to me, though I limit myself to mesh work. You can import your current 747 into Blender with only a little loss, then start fine-tuning the textures with the UV editor. You'll need Willian Germano's AC3D import/export scripts. > In any case it'd be awful nice to have a gpl'd modler. Right now > we've got a choice between two closed source binaries. One from a > guy that may or may not ever get around to fixing the bugs, let > alone improve it. And another from a larger company that is now as > good as gone. In addition to PPE (ppe.sourceforge.net), there's K3D (k3d.sourceforge.net) and Innovation3D (innovation3d.sourceforge.net). I played with innovation 3D a bit, and while it's OK, it's no Blender. For now, I'm willing to take my chances with a non-free, unsupported app, as long as I can export into formats that other tools support. Innovation3D is in Debian, so just type apt-get install innovation3d to try it out (assuming you use Debian). Here's a page with a list of 3D modellers and thumbnail reviews: http://www.worldforge.org/dev/eng/3d_compare_html All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
On Wed 29. May 2002 22:21, you wrote: > I've fixed the missing model problem -- specifying a non-existant > aircraft model (not any other kind) will default to the glider again > rather than throwing an exception. > > By the way, the 747 model is looking good. I'm happy that we're > building up a nice stable (er, hangar) of unencumbered, open-source > aircraft models. What next? We're low on Pipers right now (both aero > data and 3D models). Any favourites? > Piper J3-Cub please, please. I have 3-view for my RC model. And there is a lot of MDL models for MSFS. I know that it has Clark Y profile at wings. And met on inet some performance data. Madr -- Martin Dressler e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.musicabona.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
I thought it saves under a 3DS compatible format. I'm not sure as I've never used it before. g. On Wed, 29 May 2002, Cameron Moore wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gene Buckle) [2002.05.29 17:19]: > > Jim, have you tried GMAX? > > Can GMAX save to a format that plib can read? I was under the > impression that it doesn't. > -- > Cameron Moore > / If a person with multiple personalities threatens \ > \ suicide, is that considered a hostage situation? / > > ___ > 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] Missing Model Problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Megginson) [2002.05.29 16:03]: > Cameron Moore writes: > > > We (the two Cameron's) have already done some FDM work on a Piper > > Cherokee PA-28-180. I have a pretty ugly looking 3-view, but I can send > > it to you if you want it. We really need someone to pick up on the aero > > file where we left off. We were close but had some bugs. I should the > > Roskam numbers and the aero files we left off on at home if you would > > like me to send them to you. Just say so, and I'll send them your way. > > Which Roskam did you find the Cherokee numbers in? Oops. I was mistaken. It's not Roskam -- it's McCormick, "Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics", Appendix C. Cameron Munro sent me copies of it. > You could rough-in a Cherokee in YASim first, just to have something > to drive your model, then ... My model? I hope you mean that collectively since there's probably no way I'll ever be a 3D modeller. :-) I have not been keeping track of changes on the JSBSim XML formats for several months, so I'll try to update the -180 definitions tonight and see what happens. I will let you know if I get anyway. I'm pretty busy these days, so I'd be happy to hand this off to a willing 3rd party to pick up the pieces. Anyway, I'll see what I can do tonight. Thanks -- Cameron Moore / I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number \ \of things. -- Dan Rather talking about President Clinton / ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gene Buckle) [2002.05.29 17:19]: > Jim, have you tried GMAX? Can GMAX save to a format that plib can read? I was under the impression that it doesn't. -- Cameron Moore / If a person with multiple personalities threatens \ \ suicide, is that considered a hostage situation? / ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
> We (the two Cameron's) have already done some FDM work on a Piper > Cherokee PA-28-180. I have a pretty ugly looking 3-view, but I can send Slightly off topic. There are a lot of places where we can get 3-view sets with a scale for pretty much any aircraft. It occurs to me that it should be easy to automate finding the three outlines and chop such a scanned image into three bitmaps that are mostly transparent. A fairly brute force approach can generate a painted voxel model that could serve as the basis for a baseline set in our library. (1) Does a program for doing that already exist (easily available) ? or (2) Are any of those archives of 3-views known to have useful licensing ? I figure that, if we have one of those, it is worth pursuing the other. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
Jim, have you tried GMAX? g. On Wed, 29 May 2002, Jim Wilson wrote: > David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > By the way, the 747 model is looking good. > > Thanks. I'm doing some major re-work with it now...basicly after figuring out > how to get around some of ac3d limitations. AC3D works well for this stuff, > but it's texturing options are limited (but in the end sufficient). Blender > is looking more attractive but every time I open it up I just get overwhelmed. > It's got a lot more in it than we need for modeling aircraft. AC3D is easy > to learn and it isn't bad once you figure out how to get around it's > limitations and bugs. > > In any case it'd be awful nice to have a gpl'd modler. Right now we've got a > choice between two closed source binaries. One from a guy that may or may not > ever get around to fixing the bugs, let alone improve it. And another from a > larger company that is now as good as gone. > > 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] Missing Model Problem
Jim Wilson wrote: > > In any case it'd be awful nice to have a gpl'd modler. That's why PPE was started. But it's development has stopped. (Steve Baker still want's to finish it - when he finds the time for it...) CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > By the way, the 747 model is looking good. Thanks. I'm doing some major re-work with it now...basicly after figuring out how to get around some of ac3d limitations. AC3D works well for this stuff, but it's texturing options are limited (but in the end sufficient). Blender is looking more attractive but every time I open it up I just get overwhelmed. It's got a lot more in it than we need for modeling aircraft. AC3D is easy to learn and it isn't bad once you figure out how to get around it's limitations and bugs. In any case it'd be awful nice to have a gpl'd modler. Right now we've got a choice between two closed source binaries. One from a guy that may or may not ever get around to fixing the bugs, let alone improve it. And another from a larger company that is now as good as gone. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
Cameron Moore writes: > We (the two Cameron's) have already done some FDM work on a Piper > Cherokee PA-28-180. I have a pretty ugly looking 3-view, but I can send > it to you if you want it. We really need someone to pick up on the aero > file where we left off. We were close but had some bugs. I should the > Roskam numbers and the aero files we left off on at home if you would > like me to send them to you. Just say so, and I'll send them your way. Which Roskam did you find the Cherokee numbers in? You could rough-in a Cherokee in YASim first, just to have something to drive your model, then work on the JSBSim model as time comes available. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Megginson) [2002.05.29 15:23]: > I've fixed the missing model problem -- specifying a non-existant > aircraft model (not any other kind) will default to the glider again > rather than throwing an exception. I'll mark that off my list. :-) Thanks, David. > By the way, the 747 model is looking good. I'm happy that we're > building up a nice stable (er, hangar) of unencumbered, open-source > aircraft models. What next? We're low on Pipers right now (both aero > data and 3D models). Any favourites? We (the two Cameron's) have already done some FDM work on a Piper Cherokee PA-28-180. I have a pretty ugly looking 3-view, but I can send it to you if you want it. We really need someone to pick up on the aero file where we left off. We were close but had some bugs. I should the Roskam numbers and the aero files we left off on at home if you would like me to send them to you. Just say so, and I'll send them your way. Thanks -- Cameron Moore [ If God was a perl hacker: ($child = 'grave') =~ s/v/c/; ] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Missing Model Problem
I've fixed the missing model problem -- specifying a non-existant aircraft model (not any other kind) will default to the glider again rather than throwing an exception. By the way, the 747 model is looking good. I'm happy that we're building up a nice stable (er, hangar) of unencumbered, open-source aircraft models. What next? We're low on Pipers right now (both aero data and 3D models). Any favourites? All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
