Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear'
David Luff writes: > On 1/2/03 at 11:52 AM Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > >Another feature request would be to create a volume and on/off switch > >property and honor them. Volume could go from 0.0 - 1.0 scaled > > BTW, can you hear the audio ATIS OK on your Linux box? There have been a > few problems reported with it over Christmas which I can't reproduce. Personally, I can hear it ok, but a volume control would be really nice. This is really simple to impliment too ... we do it already for the morse code audio idents. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear'
On 1/2/03 at 11:52 AM Curtis L. Olson wrote: >Another feature request would be to create a volume and on/off switch >property and honor them. Volume could go from 0.0 - 1.0 scaled BTW, can you hear the audio ATIS OK on your Linux box? There have been a few problems reported with it over Christmas which I can't reproduce. Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear'
On 1/2/03 at 11:52 AM Curtis L. Olson wrote: >David, > >Another feature request would be to create a volume and on/off switch >property and honor them. Volume could go from 0.0 - 1.0 scaled >appropriately, and on/off is pretty self explanitory. It would also >be nice to have a "servicable" property so we can fail comm1 or comm2. > >Then if anyone is trying to hook flightgear up to real hardware, the >comm audio knobs and on/off switch will work as expected. :-) > OK. Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft-yasim'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lee Elliott I also noticed that there don't appear to be models included for the F-104, F-15 & F-16 and I think I could probably do some and animate them for fgfs if they'd be useful. I would realy like it if someone could add 3D models for those aircraft. I've already noticed I'm just not that great at 3D modelling ... Thanks for the offer! Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16'
Tony Peden wrote: >>I think I've found what causes the instabillity in the F-16 model. It >>looks like the axis systems and me don't get along quite well. Somehow >>it always turns out to be different than what I've thought. > > > Well, hmm. Which system are you getting hung up on. Probably all. :-( I have to take a look at it some time. The F-104 file I sent you proves my suspection. It *was* wrong, and behaved exactly like the F-16. Now it works about right. BTW. DCmin should be CDalpha in that file. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Date: Sun Sep 22 11:21:02 EDT 2002 > Author: cvsroot > > Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/f16 > In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv6423/Aircraft/f16 > > Added Files: > f16.xml > Log Message: > Latest JSBSim updates, including a thrust-only turbofan model. I think I've found what causes the instabillity in the F-16 model. It looks like the axis systems and me don't get along quite well. Somehow it always turns out to be different than what I've thought. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
> On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 06:52, Alex Perry wrote: > > The last ten degrees _are_ mostly drag, but that's what you need > > (a) to get a steep final in rugged terrain > > (b) for fast descents in emergency management > > (c) for a relatively quick flare for short fields > (d) to keep %N1 up (for faster spool up) in a jet. I'd _love_ to have concern in a C172 (grin). ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
Alex Perry writes: > The last ten degrees _are_ mostly drag, but that's what you need > (a) to get a steep final in rugged terrain > (b) for fast descents in emergency management > (c) for a relatively quick flare for short fields Speaking of quick flares, I'm finally getting the hang of *raising* the flaps to shorten my flare on shorter fields (not when the wheels are higher than a few inches above the runway, of course). 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] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
> I don't really object to that -- except that I wonder how many folks > will be able to really tell the difference. Surely, even in the real > thing, the differences are fairly subtle. I'm also not so sure that we > have the fidelity that making that distinction implies. I recommend the split, although I'd tend to move the "P" back to "N". Analogy: Think of driving two cars - one has carb engine, the other fuel injected (you really care in winter) - one has ABS, the other does not (only matters if you brake hard) - one has sports suspension and the other regular (only for bad roads etc) In normal city traffic, you won't notice the difference. However, for emergency stuff, if you forget ... you'll probably die. When operating at full performance (eg mountain roads for skiing) ditto. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
> Does the R have a 40 deg flap detent? My understanding is that the 40 deg flap setting (over the whole family) is actually related to max gross weight. If you want the 40 deg then you will be limited to 2300 lb; if you make do with 30 deg ... you can have more. However, as the interior gets nicer, the avionics become more complete, you add long range tanks, a larger engine, retractable gear, etc etc ... you're adding empty weight, so that after a while 2300 lb is not enough. You're then _forced_ to eliminate the 40 deg setting to be able to fly. The last ten degrees _are_ mostly drag, but that's what you need (a) to get a steep final in rugged terrain (b) for fast descents in emergency management (c) for a relatively quick flare for short fields ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVS update:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft'
Was this a mistake? Best, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Date: Tue Jun 11 13:06:29 EDT 2002 > Author: cvsroot > > Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft > In directory bitless:/tmp/cvslck/cvs-serv8782/Aircraft > > Modified Files: > X15-set.xml > Log Message: > Command line help screen now xml driven > > ___ > Flightgear-cvslogs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-cvslogs > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
