Re: [Flightgear-devel] Comments on FGFS review summary
Curtis L. Olson writes: - There is a severe proplem going to first notch of flaps. Extreme pitch up. You need *full* down trip to fly level with any flaps at all. It is speed range dependent. If you follow the recommended profile of speeds and flap selections, the pitching effects are fairly minor. However, there is a disproportionately larger pitch impact when moving flaps at much higher (or slower) speeds than those. I already reflexively (i.e. involuntarily) push forward on the yoke whenever I lower any flaps, without waiting for the pitching to start Yup, I do the same, but only for a fraction of a second. Immediately after hitting the flap switch, I reach for the trim wheel. -- perhaps Alex Perry can let us know whether this is common for C172 pilots or I'm just developing a bad habit. I've no idea. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Comments on FGFS review summary
On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 14:24:45 -0700 Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meanwhile, it would be a nice upgrade to have a menu item that brings up a dialog which contains _every_ command line parameter that is not otherwise represented in the existing set of run-time accessible menu items. The exit buttons are accept and restart or cancel; if the former is selected, the existing command line is extended with the chosen options and then the application exec()s itself so that they take effect. Over time, as those features become run-time configurable, the dialog will shrink. I seriously doubt whether it will ever become empty, so I think the dialog will be a long term capability (especially on the CVS tree). Actually, I'm working on such a GUI. (I need it for my personnal use of FlightGear). It's a python set of scripts which use wxPython (wxWindows wrap) and pyxml to SAX-interact with the preferences.xml file. It should help to choose your aircraft (with a nice photo), your airport (by re processing the default.apt) and with a screenshot too (if available), your environment conditions : time, weather, ..., the ability to launch Atlas at the same time on the right port, and some additional stuff. At the moment it is only experimentation, but as soon as I have a working script, I put it under GPL, put it online and give a link to try it. All the best, Olivier ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Comments on FGFS review summary
Alex Perry writes: - not to be compared with state-of-the art simulators This can be a good thing, for all their associated features that we hate. When I started my flying lessons, and the JSBSim and YASim 172's were both having problems, I decided not to be prejudiced and to go back and practice some maneuvers in the FLY! 172, which has been praised extensively for its panel and aero. Well, the panel had all the right gauges and switches (except a working thermometer on the air vent), but it updated at such a low rate that it was basically worthless -- cross-checking with the panel actually made me fly worse. Likewise for the aero modelling -- it just didn't feel like a 172 (and I have flown a 172R a couple of times). I have found both the JSBSim and the YASim 172s much, much more useful for practice than FLY!'s; in fact, I plan simply to delete FLY! the next time I boot into Windows (which happens every 2-4 months). This can either mean that most of our cockpits are steam-gauge based, which is true for the reviewed version that doesn't have OpenGC integration, or that it looks flat like the 1999 era simulation programs, which is true for the reviewed version and may be true by default for current release too. I think the 3D cockpit wasn't default due to lacking mouse interaction ? Yes, that's a big TODO item -- we cannot use the 3D cockpit for IFR until it is interactive. - Bad flight characteristics (sometimes planes react too sensitive, sometimes too sluggish), much worse than X-Plane This puzzles me; real planes have huge changes in control sensitivity over the operational speed range, which we (and to a lesser extent) X-Plane try to model. Perhaps the chap is used to playing video games where effectiveness is not context sensitive ? Maybe not a GA pilot ? We certainly have limitations on control realism, but not to the extent that I'd critique us in the same breath as our other limitations. I'm amazed at how close it is now, given the limitations of the environment. I still find FlightGear harder to hold in the flare than the real thing, but that's probably because of the lack of peripheral vision and motion cues. I also find that the viewpoint in the 3D cockpit is still slightly too low for me. 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] Comments on FGFS review summary
Arnt Karlsen writes: ..IMHO, we should have more oddball EAA planes than spam cans and airliners. BlomVoss 141, Me 323, Me 163, and the Horten Vings, Howard Hughes Spruce Goose, Van's RV3-4-5-6-7-8-9, Rutans Vari-Viggen, VariEze, Defiant, Lancair IV, Colomban Cri-Cri, Zenair CH-801, Ryan Spirit of St Louis, Leza AirCam, the Hummelbird, the Volksplane etc. Sure, but I'm also interested in getting FlightGear set up as a decent general-aviation FTD -- some of the stuff in the flight schools is ancient, and FTD's are way overpriced. 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] Comments on FGFS review summary
Curtis L. Olson writes: - There is a severe proplem going to first notch of flaps. Extreme pitch up. You need *full* down trip to fly level with any flaps at all. Lowering flaps does cause a very nasty pitching moment during low-speed maneuvers on a C172 (i.e. approach, when you're too close to stall-speed and too close to the ground already) -- not as nasty as what you describe, but perhaps a little nastier than what JSBSim currently models. Even with my limited experience, I already reflexively (i.e. involuntarily) push forward on the yoke whenever I lower any flaps, without waiting for the pitching to start -- perhaps Alex Perry can let us know whether this is common for C172 pilots or I'm just developing a bad habit. Last week, my first time in a C172M (which has an annoying rocker switch instead of a sliding flap-position switch), I accidentally lowered 40 degrees of flaps on the base leg -- I descended a little too far, and ended up needing full throttle just to level my descent briefly at 70 KIAS. It's like dragging a parachute. 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] Comments on FGFS review summary
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:48:49 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lowering flaps does cause a very nasty pitching moment during low-speed maneuvers on a C172 (i.e. approach, when you're too close to stall-speed and too close to the ground already) -- not as nasty as what you describe, but perhaps a little nastier than what JSBSim currently models. Tony: Should we make it nastier? Is there a human factors scale anywhere that has Nasty on it? :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Comments on FGFS review summary
Jon S Berndt wrote: On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:48:49 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lowering flaps does cause a very nasty pitching moment during low-speed maneuvers on a C172 (i.e. approach, when you're too close to stall-speed and too close to the ground already) -- not as nasty as what you describe, but perhaps a little nastier than what JSBSim currently models. Tony: Should we make it nastier? Is there a human factors scale anywhere that has Nasty on it? :-) Hmm, nasty enough? Eff = (16*h / b)*(16*h / b) Oe = Eff*Eff/(1 + Eff*Eff)(where 0 = Oe = 1) D = q_infinite * S * (CDo + 0e * ( (CL*CL)/(pi * e * A * r) ) ) D: decrease in drag h: height of the wing above the ground b: wingspan :-0 Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Comments on FGFS review summary
Tony: Should we make it nastier? Is there a human factors scale anywhere that has Nasty on it? :-) Hmm, nasty enough? Eff = (16*h / b)*(16*h / b) Oe = Eff*Eff/(1 + Eff*Eff)(where 0 = Oe = 1) D = q_infinite * S * (CDo + 0e * ( (CL*CL)/(pi * e * A * r) ) ) D: decrease in drag h: height of the wing above the ground b: wingspan :-0 ...and thus begat the FlightGear Smackdown flap system... g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Comments on FGFS review summary
Jon S Berndt writes: Should we make it nastier? Is there a human factors scale anywhere that has Nasty on it? :-) One American Nasty unit =~ 0.789 Metric Paris Cabbies. 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] Comments on FGFS review summary
For what it's worth, I'm involved in a side project that is using FlightGear + a commercial C172 flight dynamics model + cockpit hardware to hopefully achieve an FAA (and JAR) certified sim by late summer / early fall. The commercial fdm will run as a seperate program [...] Hmm, _this_ is what I'm waiting for. Will there be any documentation on how the network protocol will look like ? I'm recognizing that you have checked in several patches to the ExternalNet interface over the time. I would love to profit from this. Imagine being able to run with the default stable JSBSim, or the previous stable version, or the one you are currently hacking on, just by restarting the desired fdm process. maybe with FlightGear getting run from 'inetd', if the FDM sits on a remote machine !? O.k., this might be difficult because of X server write permissions, but I'd like to take care of that if times come, 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] Comments on FGFS review summary
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:35:47 -0400, David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen writes: ..IMHO, we should have more oddball EAA planes than spam cans and airliners. BlomVoss 141, Me 323, Me 163, and the Horten Vings, Howard Hughes Spruce Goose, Van's RV3-4-5-6-7-8-9, Rutans Vari-Viggen, VariEze, Defiant, Lancair IV, Colomban Cri-Cri, Zenair CH-801, Ryan Spirit of St Louis, Leza AirCam, the Hummelbird, the Volksplane etc. Sure, but I'm also interested in getting FlightGear set up as a decent general-aviation FTD -- some of the stuff in the flight schools is ancient, and FTD's are way overpriced. ..a market and a tool. I agree. GA is mainly built on volonteered efforts, like in aero clubs. Also add to the geek factor as in 'done the right way', as GA is not mainstream, either. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
