[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear'
On 12/30/02 at 7:47 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon Dec 30 14:47:23 EST 2002 Author: cvsroot Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv15423 Modified Files: preferences.xml Log Message: Changed default frequencies. KSFO ATIS is not on standby on COM1, and KOAK ATIS is on standby on COM2 (this one doesn't seem to work, though). Currently only comm1 is considered in the ATC frequency search code. I'll fix it... Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/Instruments'
On 12/28/02 at 7:10 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat Dec 28 14:10:41 EST 2002 Author: cvsroot Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/Instruments In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv31667/Instruments Modified Files: single-magneto-switch.xml Log Message: Changed to use the new mod-up support for panel mouse actions. Now, you simply click with the left mouse button to advance to 'both'; after that, if you click again, the start engages until you let go of the mouse button, at which point the knob snaps back to 'both'. This is fantastic and works beautifully! Unfortunately the default startup at the moment leaves the magneto switch stuck in the starter position, and the only way to get it back so the above can work properly if required is to hit the space bar as before. Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear'
David Luff writes: On 12/30/02 at 7:47 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon Dec 30 14:47:23 EST 2002 Author: cvsroot Update of /home/cvsroot/FlightGear/FlightGear In directory bitless:/tmp/cvs-serv15423 Modified Files: preferences.xml Log Message: Changed default frequencies. KSFO ATIS is not on standby on COM1, and KOAK ATIS is on standby on COM2 (this one doesn't seem to work, though). Currently only comm1 is considered in the ATC frequency search code. I'll fix it... 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. :-) 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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/Instruments'
David Luff writes: This is fantastic and works beautifully! Unfortunately the default startup at the moment leaves the magneto switch stuck in the starter position, and the only way to get it back so the above can work properly if required is to hit the space bar as before. Can you find what's causing that? I took a quick look but couldn't figure it out. 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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
Tony Peden writes: The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with that) You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea. Right now, we're more-or-less targetting a 172R, but the 48 number (and perhaps many others) come from a POH for earlier models. I have the performance tables and WB both for the 172R and the 172P -- let me know what numbers you'd like. My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead. 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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 04:26, David Megginson wrote: Tony Peden writes: The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with that) You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea. Right now, we're more-or-less targetting a 172R, but the 48 number (and perhaps many others) come from a POH for earlier models. I have the performance tables and WB both for the 172R and the 172P -- let me know what numbers you'd like. My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead. 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. 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 -- 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] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
Tony Peden writes: It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn very slowly in 20 knots. Let us know what you think. I'll test it more today, but it must have been a fairly recent change that put the nosewheel into the NONE group. I have some photocopies from a C172R POH, so I can also correct some of the arms, but I didn't want to do that without discussing it with you (Tony) first. Using the firewall in front of the pilot as the reference datum (as both the POH and c172.xml do), here are the arms, or x-positions, of various masses: * Usable fuel: 38in (c172.xml has 56in) * Pilot and front passenger: 34-46in, typically 37in (c172.xml has 36in, which is OK) * Rear passengers: 73in (not in c172.xml) * Baggage area 1: typically 95in (not in c172.xml) * Baggage area 2: typically 123in (not in c172.xml) The empty weight and arm (i.e. CG) obviously vary depending on configuration. Here are the default values for a C172R: * Empty weight (including oil and unusuable fuel): 1639lb (c172.xml has 1500lb) * Empty arm (CG): 39.3in (c172.xml has 41in) Here are the current values for our club's C172R, which has a 180HP upgrade: * Empty weight (including oil and unusable fuel): 1681.5lb * Empty arm (CG): 39.1in 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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:52, David Megginson wrote: Tony Peden writes: It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn very slowly in 20 knots. Let us know what you think. I'll test it more today, but it must have been a fairly recent change that put the nosewheel into the NONE group. I didn't look at everything, but the nose wheel was in NONE and the mains CASTERED as far back as I looked (which went back to the beginning of time for the configurable gear). I can't explain the CASTERED mains, but I understood what you call steer groups to be brake groups. It never occurred to me that that would affect the steering control. (and maybe it didn't, changing the mains from CASTERED to fixed could have a significant effect). I need to experiment with it some more. I have some photocopies from a C172R POH, so I can also correct some of the arms, but I didn't want to do that without discussing it with you (Tony) first. Using the firewall in front of the pilot as the reference datum (as both the POH and c172.xml do), here are the arms, or x-positions, of various masses: * Usable fuel: 38in (c172.xml has 56in) Hmm, I got my numbers from a POH as well. I'll have to double check. * Pilot and front passenger: 34-46in, typically 37in (c172.xml has 36in, which is OK) * Rear passengers: 73in (not in c172.xml) * Baggage area 1: typically 95in (not in c172.xml) * Baggage area 2: typically 123in (not in c172.xml) The empty weight and arm (i.e. CG) obviously vary depending on configuration. Here are the default values for a C172R: * Empty weight (including oil and unusuable fuel): 1639lb (c172.xml has 1500lb) * Empty arm (CG): 39.3in (c172.xml has 41in) Here are the current values for our club's C172R, which has a 180HP upgrade: * Empty weight (including oil and unusable fuel): 1681.5lb * Empty arm (CG): 39.1in 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 -- 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] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
Tony Peden writes:
I didn't look at everything, but the nose wheel was in NONE and the
mains CASTERED as far back as I looked (which went back to the beginning
of time for the configurable gear). I can't explain the CASTERED mains,
but I understood what you call steer groups to be brake groups. It
never occurred to me that that would affect the steering control.
Here's an excerpt from FGLGear.cpp:
case bgNose:
SteerGain = -0.50;
BrakeFCoeff = rollingFCoeff;
break;
case bgTail:
SteerGain = -0.10;
BrakeFCoeff = rollingFCoeff;
break;
case bgNone:
SteerGain = 0.0;
BrakeFCoeff = rollingFCoeff;
break;
and, a little further down:
switch (eSteerType) {
case stSteer:
SteerAngle = SteerGain*FCS-GetDrPos();
break;
In other words, if gear belongs to bgNone, it gets SteerGain=0.0, so
SteerAngle is always 0. Perhaps it's a recent C++ change that caused
this problem.
Note a second problem with this code: it uses getDrPos (the actual
rudder position) and ignores maxSteerAngle from the config file. A
better option would probably be
SteerAngle = SteerGain*FCS-GetDrCmd()*maxSteerAngle*RADTODEG;
It would also be nice to be able to specify SteerGain in the XML
config file rather than hard-coding it in FGLGear.cpp.
(and maybe it didn't, changing the mains from CASTERED to fixed could
have a significant effect). I need to experiment with it some more.
The castoring doesn't make a difference (yet), because FGLGear.cpp
still treats castoring gear as fixed anyway:
case stFixed:
SteerAngle = 0.0;
break;
case stCaster:
// Note to Jon: This is not correct for castering gear. I'll fix it later.
SteerAngle = 0.0;
break;
* Usable fuel:
38in (c172.xml has 56in)
Hmm, I got my numbers from a POH as well. I'll have to double check.
That's from the C172R POH. The C172P POH puts usable fuel at 48in,
probably because of the different wing shape, but it's still not as
far as c172.xml.
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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
David Megginson writes: Note a second problem with this code: it uses getDrPos (the actual rudder position) and ignores maxSteerAngle from the config file. A better option would probably be SteerAngle = SteerGain*FCS-GetDrCmd()*maxSteerAngle*RADTODEG; For RADTODEG, read DEGTORAD. 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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:29:40 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's an excerpt from FGLGear.cpp: case bgNose: SteerGain = -0.50; BrakeFCoeff = rollingFCoeff; break; In other words, if gear belongs to bgNone, it gets SteerGain=0.0, so SteerAngle is always 0. Perhaps it's a recent C++ change that caused this problem. I may be guilty, here. Note that this file needs to be gone through again with a fine tooth comb and validated. Just when I think I can't become more overwhelmed than I already am ... :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:15:54 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For RADTODEG, read DEGTORAD. Use degtorad and radtodeg These are consts from the FGJSBBase class. This is where commonly used constants are being migrated to, instead of #defines, which we are moving away from. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
Jon S Berndt writes: I may be guilty, here. Note that this file needs to be gone through again with a fine tooth comb and validated. Just when I think I can't become more overwhelmed than I already am ... Wife pregnant with triplets again? (Don't laugh, my wife has a friend who had two sets of twins less than two years apart ... 4 kids less than 2 and in diapers. Yikes! Talk about bad luck.) :-) 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 CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'
Is there some reasoning behind setting the steering gains according to the brake selection? This makes no sense to me. It looks to me like their needs to be a separate steering selection (or just specify the gain in the config file). Agreed. I beg your indulgence - let me have a look at this this evening. I'll try and get it resolved. I'll have to wait til the season opener for Enterprise is over though. :-) Jon smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
