Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * dave perry -- Friday 07 December 2007: What is proposed is to make the default turbulence = 0.0 at start-up, not turning off turbulence modeling. You can still use the weather menu to set the desired turbulence or you can [...] OK, before even more people answer who didn't get what I was writing: - low/no default turbulence doesn't make fgfs a toy - high default turbulence doesn't make it professional just as - avoiding really difficult to fly aircraft in the default aircraft collection doesn't make fgfs a toy, and - including them doesn't make it professional I was just making a comparison! :-) In the end I don't care much, as I (like everyone else here) will not use the default package. The question is only, which defaults are least frustrating for someone who just downloaded 200 MB of data via dial up, and what makes the most sense. That we want maximum realism *and* a way to configure as much as possible and reasonable, was never disputed. m. A final comment in ending this discussion (I hope). I agree, as a user, that we do not want the default setting to be zero. I am an advocate of realism. The FG windows gui, in weather -- weather conditions allows one to set the turb to zero with sliders. Setting them to zero does not in fact set turb to zero, at least with my recent build of FG OSG. That would be a bug (in OSG version) should be fixed. A user can, as indicated earlier in this thread, set turb to zero on the command line. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
I don't think turning turbulance to zero by dedault is a good solution. If the problem is only in JSBSim then it should be fixed. Meanwhile we can pro vide the zero turbulance workaround in a wiki page or some other place. I want to know what is the real cause of the problem. turbulance is just one f actor of the cause, I think. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
If you want to make the simulation more realistic turning up the turbulence is not the best way to do it. At the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, the simulations were operated at 1.4 times real-time to give the pilot a task that resembled the real thing. This technique was developed during the X-15 days but was never documented. Lee gerard robin wrote: On ven 7 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Laurence Vanek -- Friday 07 December 2007: Although I like realistic flight my ILS approaches we very unstable with the turb values given in the Preferences.xml file [...] But, but ... some have just told us that we shouldn't make it too easy, or fgfs will be perceived as a toy. So I'd rather turn the values *up*. m. :-P ooohhh :) probably a bad boy. AND you understood i was talking about Aircraft. Yes it may be zero turbulence, yes we can use Metar BY that FG will not be a toy. Cheers - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
I don't think turning turbulance to zero by dedault is a good solution. If the problem is only in JSBSim then it should be fixed. Meanwhile we can provide the zero turbulance workaround in a wiki page or some other place. I want to know what is the real cause of the problem. turbulance is just one f actor of the cause, I think. There are many papers written on turbulence and gust modeling. It's a big topic, really. I wouldn't ask that turbulence be turned off to suit one FDM. If there are other reasons to do so, that's OK. And yes, the real cause of the problem can very well be turbulence modeling. Jon - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
* gerard robin -- Friday 07 December 2007: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/StampeSV4.jpg Wow, that's a nice one! Unfortunately it will not be available before FG stable will be released :( We can postpone the release for it. ;-) m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think turning turbulance to zero by dedault is a good solution. If the problem is only in JSBSim then it should be fixed. Meanwhile we can pro vide the zero turbulance workaround in a wiki page or some other place. The problem is the default AC (c172p) with the default turbulence has the 0 to 500 ft boundary layer turbulence set to 0.1 which is enough to set off this oscillation. I want to know what is the real cause of the problem. turbulance is just one f actor of the cause, I think. There is a long thread discussing what appears to be adverse aileron yaw. Since most AP's control roll with aileron only, right aileron causes a roll to the right with a yaw to the left. It is so noticeable with the SenecaII (with no auto coordination) that the ball is eventually pegged at one extreme and then the other and you see the yaw response and aileron inputs from the AP almost 180 degrees out of phase. If you turn on auto coordination, the oscillations disappear. I tried Jon Berndt's suggestion of adding a scaling value. It had only minimal affect. Even with this set to 0.0, the yaw problem persists. -Dave Perry - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
Stuart Buchanan wrote: --- Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 07 December 2007: - avoiding really difficult to fly aircraft in the default aircraft collection doesn't make fgfs a toy, and Oh, and to take some pressure from the bf109, I declare now the pittss1c the official victim that I'll pick on. That one should definitely not be part of the default aircraft selection. :-P m. That's quite OK. I was originally hoping that the Pitts would be a nice way to transition from the very easy j3cub to the powerful warbirds, but it turned out to be quite handful itself! We have a very nice progression from nose-wheel aircraft to twins for complex/IFR operations: c172p/pa29-161 - c182rg/pa24-250 - Seneca-II However, I don't think we currently have a real equivalent path for taildraggers in terms of handling. The closest I can think of is: j3cub - dhc2W - pittss1c/p51d/bf109/ However, there is a big jump in challenge from the Beaver to the warbirds. Anyone know a good half-way house taildragger ? I've got a Chipmunk T-10 planned when the grob g115 is more complete - was the standard RAF trainer a long time ago, and is still in service for pilots training to fly with the BBMF - would that be suitable? Jon - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Stuart Buchanan wrote: --- Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 07 December 2007: - avoiding really difficult to fly aircraft in the default aircraft collection doesn't make fgfs a toy, and Oh, and to take some pressure from the bf109, I declare now the pittss1c the official victim that I'll pick on. That one should definitely not be part of the default aircraft selection. :-P m. That's quite OK. I was originally hoping that the Pitts would be a nice way to transition from the very easy j3cub to the powerful warbirds, but it turned out to be quite handful itself! We have a very nice progression from nose-wheel aircraft to twins for complex/IFR operations: c172p/pa29-161 - c182rg/pa24-250 - Seneca-II However, I don't think we currently have a real equivalent path for taildraggers in terms of handling. The closest I can think of is: j3cub - dhc2W - pittss1c/p51d/bf109/ However, there is a big jump in challenge from the Beaver to the warbirds. Anyone know a good half-way house taildragger ? -Stuart -Stuart Yes i will have that one, i got training on the real one when i was young ( so many years ago). http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/StampeSV4.jpg Unfortunately it will not be available before FG stable will be released :( -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
* dave perry -- Friday 07 December 2007: What is proposed is to make the default turbulence = 0.0 at start-up, not turning off turbulence modeling. You can still use the weather menu to set the desired turbulence or you can [...] OK, before even more people answer who didn't get what I was writing: - low/no default turbulence doesn't make fgfs a toy - high default turbulence doesn't make it professional just as - avoiding really difficult to fly aircraft in the default aircraft collection doesn't make fgfs a toy, and - including them doesn't make it professional I was just making a comparison! :-) In the end I don't care much, as I (like everyone else here) will not use the default package. The question is only, which defaults are least frustrating for someone who just downloaded 200 MB of data via dial up, and what makes the most sense. That we want maximum realism *and* a way to configure as much as possible and reasonable, was never disputed. m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Wouldn't turning the turbulence down make other FDMs less realistic? Also if JSBSim autopilots are affected, how come autolanding with Concorde while turbulence is enabled (but no crosswind) works perfectly? Concorde uses JSBSim after all... /AnMaster Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Laurence Vanek -- Friday 07 December 2007: Although I like realistic flight my ILS approaches we very unstable with the turb values given in the Preferences.xml file [...] But, but ... some have just told us that we shouldn't make it too easy, or fgfs will be perceived as a toy. So I'd rather turn the values *up*. m. :-P -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWQE1WmK6ng/aMNkRCg9mAKCdJz3wxaAFStEbtMJ3Xm45rcrK9gCdFkPd M8hKNvsjDlI4GszkI8KLKTU= =g4Wc -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
* Stuart Buchanan -- Friday 07 December 2007: j3cub - dhc2W - pittss1c/p51d/bf109/ BTW: the p51d wasn't considered very realistic in IRC discussions, so I'm not even sure if it should be in the default collection. Being a well known and remarkable aircraft in real life isn't enough. But that's not really my area of expertise. m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Jon Stockill wrote: I've got a Chipmunk T-10 planned when the grob g115 is more complete - was the standard RAF trainer a long time ago, and is still in service for pilots training to fly with the BBMF - would that be suitable? Jon that one ? http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chipmunk.htm Better choice , less risk to caught a cold. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 07 December 2007: - avoiding really difficult to fly aircraft in the default aircraft collection doesn't make fgfs a toy, and Oh, and to take some pressure from the bf109, I declare now the pittss1c the official victim that I'll pick on. That one should definitely not be part of the default aircraft selection. :-P m. That's quite OK. I was originally hoping that the Pitts would be a nice way to transition from the very easy j3cub to the powerful warbirds, but it turned out to be quite handful itself! We have a very nice progression from nose-wheel aircraft to twins for complex/IFR operations: c172p/pa29-161 - c182rg/pa24-250 - Seneca-II However, I don't think we currently have a real equivalent path for taildraggers in terms of handling. The closest I can think of is: j3cub - dhc2W - pittss1c/p51d/bf109/ However, there is a big jump in challenge from the Beaver to the warbirds. Anyone know a good half-way house taildragger ? -Stuart -Stuart -Stuart __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
* Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 07 December 2007: - avoiding really difficult to fly aircraft in the default aircraft collection doesn't make fgfs a toy, and Oh, and to take some pressure from the bf109, I declare now the pittss1c the official victim that I'll pick on. That one should definitely not be part of the default aircraft selection. :-P m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
gerard robin wrote: that one ? http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chipmunk.htm Better choice , less risk to caught a cold. Yup, that's the one. Obviously it won't be ready before the next release, but should be available to fill the taildragger gap before the first osg release. Jon - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * gerard robin -- Friday 07 December 2007: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/StampeSV4.jpg Wow, that's a nice one! Unfortunately it will not be available before FG stable will be released :( We can postpone the release for it. ;-) m. No, don't wait i am not predicable . Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
Hi All, Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release? Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft. agl boundary turbulence is 0.1. This is true for the c172p with the kap140 autopilot and the SenecaI with the AltimaticIIIc autopilot. Setting turbulence = 0.0 from fgrun will not zero these values. Using --turbulence=0.0 on the command line will result in all the turbulence values being zero. -Dave Perry - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
On Dec 6, 2007 9:07 PM, dave perry wrote: Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release? Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft. agl boundary turbulence is 0.1. This is true for the c172p with the kap140 autopilot and the SenecaI with the AltimaticIIIc autopilot. Setting turbulence = 0.0 from fgrun will not zero these values. Using --turbulence=0.0 on the command line will result in all the turbulence values being zero. I'll put in my vote for zeroing these out in the preferences.xml file. If someone wants interesting weather they can just enable the real time metar. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
Curtis Olson wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 9:07 PM, dave perry wrote: Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release? Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft. agl boundary turbulence is 0.1 . This is true for the c172p with the kap140 autopilot and the SenecaI with the AltimaticIIIc autopilot. Setting turbulence = 0.0 from fgrun will not zero these values. Using --turbulence=0.0 on the command line will result in all the turbulence values being zero. I'll put in my vote for zeroing these out in the preferences.xml file. If someone wants interesting weather they can just enable the real time metar. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://baron.flightgear.org/%7Ecurt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d This change doesnt exactly affect the weather but is a temp hack until JSBsim developers adjust the modeling of turbulence. I donot see this issue with the other FDM. Calling for METAR or not is irrelevant I believe. I was calling for METAR on my test flights this evening, got real weather but no turb. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
dave perry wrote: Hi All, Would anyone object to setting all the turbulence values in Preferences.xml to 0.0 for this release? Even the small values set by Preferences.xml cause increasing oscillations for most JSBSim autopilots in APR mode because the 500 ft. agl boundary turbulence is 0.1. This is true for the c172p with the kap140 autopilot and the SenecaI with the AltimaticIIIc autopilot. Setting turbulence = 0.0 from fgrun will not zero these values. Using --turbulence=0.0 on the command line will result in all the turbulence values being zero. -Dave Perry Dave - Input from a humble user. I can confirm this on the cvs OSG version. Interestingly, the turbulence sliders in the weather conditions window of the gui all show no turb but only the command line invocation --turbulence=0.0 seems to actually set it to zero (--turbulence=0.0 set in the ~/.fgfsrc file does not do it). Although I like realistic flight my ILS approaches we very unstable with the turb values given in the Preferences.xml file when near the approach end of the runway. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] nonzero turbulence set by Preferences.xml?
* Laurence Vanek -- Friday 07 December 2007: Although I like realistic flight my ILS approaches we very unstable with the turb values given in the Preferences.xml file [...] But, but ... some have just told us that we shouldn't make it too easy, or fgfs will be perceived as a toy. So I'd rather turn the values *up*. m. :-P - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
