Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Small glitch at run time : route = 0D7673D8 Failed to load autopilot configuration: fgfsbase/Aircraft/Generic/generic-autopilot.xml CVS Updated and no generic-autopilot.xml Gaahhh! I swear I added that file. Ok, it's there now. Sorry about that. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Autopilot update.
Curtis L. Olson wrote: > David Culp wrote: > >>Comments? Any objections to committing my updates? > > > > > > It looks great, and I think the sooner it gets commited the better, so we'll > > have plenty of time to work with it before 0.9.4. > > > > I already have a wish list :) mach hold, and vertical speed hold. > > Ok, it's been at least an hour and no one has objected. :-) > > I will try to follow up with some documentation this weekend still. Small glitch at run time : route = 0D7673D8 Failed to load autopilot configuration: fgfsbase/Aircraft/Generic/generic-autopilot.xml CVS Updated and no generic-autopilot.xml -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
On Saturday 31 January 2004 20:00, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Norman Vine wrote: > > Hmm... 1 hour 08 minutes on a weekend > > > > Was any discussion really wanted :-) > > Being a volunteer and doing this on weekends and evenings, I've got to move > quickly when I do get the chance. I've been working hard on this and > trying to factor in comments and suggestions made over the last week or > two. I was just giving people a last chance "speak now or forever hold > your peace." :-) > > Regards, > > Curt. Aye, go for it :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Ok, it's been at least an hour and no one has objected. :-) Ah! Oh! Should've been checking my email! ;-) > I will try to follow up with some documentation this weekend still. Even very rudimentary unedited notes would help. Thinking about trying to get the 747 running again in the next day or so. If you got anything at all please forward or post to the list. Thanks, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
Norman Vine wrote: Hmm... 1 hour 08 minutes on a weekend Was any discussion really wanted :-) Being a volunteer and doing this on weekends and evenings, I've got to move quickly when I do get the chance. I've been working hard on this and trying to factor in comments and suggestions made over the last week or two. I was just giving people a last chance "speak now or forever hold your peace." :-) Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Autopilot update.
Curtis L. Olson writes: > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 2:40 PM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update. > >> Curtis L. Olson >> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:32 PM >> To: FlightGear developers discussions >> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.> >>Comments? Any objections to >> committing my updates? > > Ok, it's been at least an hour and no one has objected. :-) Hmm... 1 hour 08 minutes on a weekend Was any discussion really wanted :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
> Comments? Any objections to committing my updates? It looks great, and I think the sooner it gets commited the better, so we'll have plenty of time to work with it before 0.9.4. I already have a wish list :) mach hold, and vertical speed hold. Dave -- David Culp davidculp2[at]comcast.net ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
David Culp wrote: Comments? Any objections to committing my updates? It looks great, and I think the sooner it gets commited the better, so we'll have plenty of time to work with it before 0.9.4. I already have a wish list :) mach hold, and vertical speed hold. Ok, it's been at least an hour and no one has objected. :-) I will try to follow up with some documentation this weekend still. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Autopilot update.
Jon Berndt wrote: Yes this is where it gets complicated. There are modes that are obviously relevant to mere flight dynamics, such as attitude hold, heading select, wings level, terrain following, etc. -- and even these use *sensor* inputs as opposed to actual FDM aircraft state data. The other modes that are tied more firmly to instrument/navigation/ILS etc. are of no interest to JSBSim. So, the answer might be to allow a split. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that ought not to be impossible. I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't be straightforward and doable. This question arises for several reasons, one of which is that I might want to model "non-standard" craft (I'll leave it at that for the moment). I want to control it in a specified way without worry that the flight will be affected in ways that I am unaware of -- that is, I'd like complete control (and *know* that I have complete control). I think it would be totally up to the aircraft designer how they want to impliment the FG autopilot vs the JSBSim autopilot or some mix of the two. The FG side is completely reconfigurable on a per-aircraft basis. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Autopilot update.
> If the autopilot is defined within JSBSim, how will it be manipulated from > FlightGear (as far as activating/deactivating the different modules or > adjusting the reference/target points.) What about things like route > following (gps) or Nav CDI/GS holds? How does that get > communicated to JSBSim? Yes this is where it gets complicated. There are modes that are obviously relevant to mere flight dynamics, such as attitude hold, heading select, wings level, terrain following, etc. -- and even these use *sensor* inputs as opposed to actual FDM aircraft state data. The other modes that are tied more firmly to instrument/navigation/ILS etc. are of no interest to JSBSim. So, the answer might be to allow a split. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that ought not to be impossible. This question arises for several reasons, one of which is that I might want to model "non-standard" craft (I'll leave it at that for the moment). I want to control it in a specified way without worry that the flight will be affected in ways that I am unaware of -- that is, I'd like complete control (and *know* that I have complete control). Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autopilot update.
Jon Berndt wrote: Does this make it any easier to bypass the FlightGear autopilot (and perhaps soon-to-exist) FCS system, so the FDM could provide this functionality, if desired - perhaps by simply not including an autopilot/FCS file or definition through your new method? This is very important to the JSBSim guys, to have that capability. Not defining an autopilot for a particular aircraft (or defining a null autopilot) is trivial to do. If the autopilot is defined within JSBSim, how will it be manipulated from FlightGear (as far as activating/deactivating the different modules or adjusting the reference/target points.) What about things like route following (gps) or Nav CDI/GS holds? How does that get communicated to JSBSim? Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab 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] Autopilot update.
> Comments? Any objections to committing my updates? > > Thanks, > > Curt. Does this make it any easier to bypass the FlightGear autopilot (and perhaps soon-to-exist) FCS system, so the FDM could provide this functionality, if desired - perhaps by simply not including an autopilot/FCS file or definition through your new method? This is very important to the JSBSim guys, to have that capability. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
