Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASIM Issues- Contact Points / Tail Strike
Hello Anders, Fantastic! That solves it all... I owe you a coffee when you drop by at Singapore... Thank you very much cheers! On Tuesday 28,June,2011 08:23 PM, Anders Gidenstam wrote: > > > 10.0 > > -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASIM Issues- Contact Points / Tail Strike
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, xsaint wrote: > Hello Anders, > > Yes you are right, after i moved the offset position, the plane do take > off without sinking into the ground. > But this give rise to another issue, as long as i am on external views > (eg chase, fly by views), it renders as if the CG is at the tail. When i > pitch up/down, the origin seems to be the tail. > > I guess the external views are controlled by FG globally, is there a > variable/node i can manipulate via nasal? As i was flying, i tried to > change some offset positions on Sim/View node (for chase view), nothing > seems to move the origin back to the ctr of the plane. You can offset the target point for external views (which by default is the origin of the main 3d model coordinate system, not the CG). See for example Aircraft/Short_Empire/Short_Empire-set.xml: 10.0 ... Note that your aircraft still rotates around its current CG, the effect you see is caused by the camera targeting the 3d model coordinate system origin, which in your case apparently is close to the tail. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASIM Issues- Contact Points / Tail Strike
Hello Anders, Yes you are right, after i moved the offset position, the plane do take off without sinking into the ground. But this give rise to another issue, as long as i am on external views (eg chase, fly by views), it renders as if the CG is at the tail. When i pitch up/down, the origin seems to be the tail. I guess the external views are controlled by FG globally, is there a variable/node i can manipulate via nasal? As i was flying, i tried to change some offset positions on Sim/View node (for chase view), nothing seems to move the origin back to the ctr of the plane. and Yes, the CG of the plane is at the center as according to YASIM solver Thank you for your guidance Cheers On Monday 27,June,2011 09:29 PM, Anders Gidenstam wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, xsaint wrote: > >> Hello All... >> >> I am trying to better understand how YASIM calculates its contacts >> points >> >> 2) Eventhough CG looks like it is in correct place, in YASIM, the plane >> do sink to the ground before take off. Insufficient lift maybe but >> the back of the fuselage do sink into the runway. As such, as >> possibility of implementing tail strikes? >> >> Much all appreciate all valuable replies and also if you could point me >> towards any valuable YASIM documents. > Another thing to check is the alignment between the 3d model and the FDM > config - make sure that your main (3d) model XML file uses the same origin > as the FDM config uses. If the 3d model itself uses a different origin > you will have to apply offsets in the main 3d model XML file to bring it > in line with the coordinate system of the FDM config. Note that shifting > the main model origin will affect the locations of views and sounds too. > > For JSBSim FDM configs it is possible to move the FDM visual reference > point, VRP, in the FDM config to match the origin of the main 3d model XML > file instead, which will not affect the other coordinate systems used in > FG. > > Cheers, > > Anders -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASIM Issues- Contact Points / Tail Strike
Thank you Adrian, You have much cleared my doubts in YASIM with regards to contact point issues. As for Gears sinking into the ground, even adding a fake gear was not much of a help. Later i got reply from Andres and he was mentioning the origin offset could be the cause and he seems right on that. I will be replying him on that soon, please look out for that reply. Once again, thank you for your valuable input Much appreciated Txs On Monday 27,June,2011 08:56 PM, Adrian Musceac wrote: > On Sunday, June 26, 2011 17:27:06 xsaint wrote: >> Hello All... >> >> I am trying to better understand how YASIM calculates its contacts >> points >> > Hi there, I'll try to answer, see below: > > >> 1) As from my experience, the SIM crashes when some part of the wings >> comes in contact with a building or ground and it does not crash if >> other parts of the wings hit the ground of a building.The wing >> specification is correct in FDM as checked againts the blender script. >> So how does it deduce the contact points? >> > There might be a difference between regular collision detection provided by > the FG engine itself, about which I have no information, and YASim _ground_ > collision detection. The latter is implemented as follows: > Contact points (internally represented as gear objects but with special > properties and hardcoded values for friction) are compiled from the wingtips > and the fore and aft tips of the fuselage. These contact points will hold at > full compression 10 times the plane's mass. > So for a conventional airplane there will be two contact points for the > fuselage (nose and tail), the main wing tips, the tips of the horizontal and > vertical stabiliser. Any collision detected with these contact points will be > treated by YASim as a special case of gear collision and compared to the force > mentioned above. > >> 2) Eventhough CG looks like it is in correct place, in YASIM, the plane >> do sink to the ground before take off. Insufficient lift maybe but >> the back of the fuselage do sink into the runway. As such, as >> possibility of implementing tail strikes? >> > It is possible that either the aft end of the fuselage as defined in XML is > higher than the lowest part of the model, or that the mass which it has to > sustain is larger than the spring compression of the contact point can > sustain. You can try to compensate the first issue by placing a fake gear > object at the lowest point where the fuselage touches the ground. > >> Much all appreciate all valuable replies and also if you could point me >> towards any valuable YASIM documents. >> > There is a technical document floating on the web, can't quite remember where > but try to google YASim-simnotes.pdf > Other than that, your best reference is the source code. > Hope it helps, > > Adrian > > > -- > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASIM Issues- Contact Points / Tail Strike
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, xsaint wrote: > Hello All... > > I am trying to better understand how YASIM calculates its contacts > points > > 2) Eventhough CG looks like it is in correct place, in YASIM, the plane > do sink to the ground before take off. Insufficient lift maybe but > the back of the fuselage do sink into the runway. As such, as > possibility of implementing tail strikes? > > Much all appreciate all valuable replies and also if you could point me > towards any valuable YASIM documents. Another thing to check is the alignment between the 3d model and the FDM config - make sure that your main (3d) model XML file uses the same origin as the FDM config uses. If the 3d model itself uses a different origin you will have to apply offsets in the main 3d model XML file to bring it in line with the coordinate system of the FDM config. Note that shifting the main model origin will affect the locations of views and sounds too. For JSBSim FDM configs it is possible to move the FDM visual reference point, VRP, in the FDM config to match the origin of the main 3d model XML file instead, which will not affect the other coordinate systems used in FG. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASIM Issues- Contact Points / Tail Strike
On Sunday, June 26, 2011 17:27:06 xsaint wrote: > Hello All... > > I am trying to better understand how YASIM calculates its contacts > points > Hi there, I'll try to answer, see below: > 1) As from my experience, the SIM crashes when some part of the wings > comes in contact with a building or ground and it does not crash if > other parts of the wings hit the ground of a building.The wing > specification is correct in FDM as checked againts the blender script. > So how does it deduce the contact points? > There might be a difference between regular collision detection provided by the FG engine itself, about which I have no information, and YASim _ground_ collision detection. The latter is implemented as follows: Contact points (internally represented as gear objects but with special properties and hardcoded values for friction) are compiled from the wingtips and the fore and aft tips of the fuselage. These contact points will hold at full compression 10 times the plane's mass. So for a conventional airplane there will be two contact points for the fuselage (nose and tail), the main wing tips, the tips of the horizontal and vertical stabiliser. Any collision detected with these contact points will be treated by YASim as a special case of gear collision and compared to the force mentioned above. > 2) Eventhough CG looks like it is in correct place, in YASIM, the plane > do sink to the ground before take off. Insufficient lift maybe but > the back of the fuselage do sink into the runway. As such, as > possibility of implementing tail strikes? > It is possible that either the aft end of the fuselage as defined in XML is higher than the lowest part of the model, or that the mass which it has to sustain is larger than the spring compression of the contact point can sustain. You can try to compensate the first issue by placing a fake gear object at the lowest point where the fuselage touches the ground. > Much all appreciate all valuable replies and also if you could point me > towards any valuable YASIM documents. > There is a technical document floating on the web, can't quite remember where but try to google YASim-simnotes.pdf Other than that, your best reference is the source code. Hope it helps, Adrian -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 16:13:01 ThorstenB wrote: > On 18.04.2011 23:13, Maik Justus wrote: > > By the way: I would prefer to use the old default values for the gear > > solver. The spring constants of a gear should not be a function of the > > approach fuel settings. Maybe some gears would need some tuning with the > > patch otherwise. The > > _approachWeight = _emptyWeight + totalFuel*_approachFuel; > > should be moved behind the gear solver call. > > What's the status here, do we want to change this? Would anyone provide > a patch? > > cheers, > Thorsten > As far as I can tell, the gear solver needs to work with approachSpeed and approachWeight: float descentRate = 2.0f*_approachSpeed/19.1f; float energy = 0.5f*_approachWeight*descentRate*descentRate; Since approachWeight depends on fuel too, it's the old question - fix the physics engine and patch all aicraft that use these values, or keep the old values in the engine and don't touch the aircraft. More feedback from aircraft devs would be welcome. Adrian -- WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On 18.04.2011 23:13, Maik Justus wrote: > By the way: I would prefer to use the old default values for the gear > solver. The spring constants of a gear should not be a function of the > approach fuel settings. Maybe some gears would need some tuning with the > patch otherwise. The > _approachWeight = _emptyWeight + totalFuel*_approachFuel; > should be moved behind the gear solver call. What's the status here, do we want to change this? Would anyone provide a patch? cheers, Thorsten -- WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution. http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Hello, So I tested the bo105 now with the HudsonBuild 262 win32-installer (before YASim-patch) vs. the latest HudsonBuild 272 win32-installer. (after YASim-patch) I used the Bo105, KMTN, rwy15 METAR: 012345Z 15000kt 12SM 20/08 Q1013 NOSIG I set Vy= 65, TOW 4531 lbs, Torque at 80% (end of green arch), Heading 150: Before patch: average climbrate 900-1000 fpm After patch: average climbrate 900-1000 fpm Now with TOW 5512 lbs (=MTOW): Before patch: average climbrate 200-300 fpm After patch: average climbrate 200-300 fpm With the patch there is no change to see, and I wonder where my mistake was. So thanks for the patch, currently it seems according to the bugtracker that only the ASK13 needs a change Heiko -- Fulfilling the Lean Software Promise Lean software platforms are now widely adopted and the benefits have been demonstrated beyond question. Learn why your peers are replacing JEE containers with lightweight application servers - and what you can gain from the move. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfemails ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Hi, > Hello Heiko, > > does your local FDM still uses default approach fuel etc? > But even if > not, there should be no difference in the flight behavior. > The only > effect of the approach fuel level is (for a rotorcraft) > within the gear > solver. > Heiko, and anyone else: if you think there is a major change, then > directly compare the FDM behaviour with and without the patch - and let > us know if there was trouble. I was already aware of that, and used the approach settings to improve the behaviour of the gear on the EC130 B4. I wanted compare before and aft patch-version anyway to see if I'm wrong here and mixed something up, but unfortunately real life came with night shift working and having a damaged car by an arson attack the last night before one. A lot of things to manage, so I'll have to wait for the easter-weekend for some free time. I hope I'm not doing too much noise here, especially when I'm wrong. Kind Regards Heiko -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Hello Heiko, does your local FDM still uses default approach fuel etc? But even if not, there should be no difference in the flight behavior. The only effect of the approach fuel level is (for a rotorcraft) within the gear solver. By the way: I would prefer to use the old default values for the gear solver. The spring constants of a gear should not be a function of the approach fuel settings. Maybe some gears would need some tuning with the patch otherwise. The _approachWeight = _emptyWeight + totalFuel*_approachFuel; should be moved behind the gear solver call. Maik Am 17.04.2011 22:37 schrieb Heiko Schulz: > Hi, > > >> Well, I'm glad it helps. The patch should not affect the >> solution >> too much in most cases, I've checked this myself. > I have tested it, and well, at least for helicopters there seems a > difference. No idea how long we have this bug now- but I guess a very long > time. > > I was working on the bo105 to get to a more realistic climb rate by keeping > the flight behavior matching to the known detailed datas. > The bo105 doesn't have a realistic climbrate, but while reaction time, rate > and control sensibility matches exactly the real one. > > I can now see a difference between before and after this patch, and now it > seems the climb rate is even less than before. > > > Heiko > > > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Monday, April 18, 2011 20:51:17 ThorstenB wrote: > And you also checked that approach glide angle isn't used? Otherwise, > the new default cruise angle (0.0) might not match the original approach > angle setting... > No mention of approach glide angle either. I have no idea how this applies to rotorcraft since I only dug into the traditional "winged" code. A quick search through fgdata/Aircraft revealed the following aircraft to have different glide angles specified for approach and cruise: - ASK13 - ASK21 - ASK21-MI - IAR80 (fixed by Emilian I believe) - PaperAirplane ASK13 and PaperAirplane have the biggest difference between the two numbers (23 vs 2). The fuel is a different matter, a very large number of aircraft have numbers other than default. As far as the solver is concerned, the glide angle has a very large influence on the coefficients, while the fuel has a relatively small relevance in the final numbers. Adding a tag which would be used on the new models could retain compatibility for older aircraft which are no longer developed. On the other hand, it would be a pity to have the very clean code of YASim cluttered by special cases for bugs. It's a tough choice, your call I guess. Adrian > Anyway, we've committed the patch since it was assumed to not cause > major differences. These bugs have been there since the beginning of > YASim - so for 10+ years. > If it's confirmed that the patch actually caused major differences, then > we should "improve" the patch. We could restore the old "buggy" > behaviour by default and only use the new "correct" FDM configuration > behaviour for new FDMs, e.g. add a switch, such as a new FDM parameter > or YASim FDM version number in the xml file to enable the bugfix. > > Heiko, and anyone else: if you think there is a major change, then > directly compare the FDM behaviour with and without the patch - and let > us know if there was trouble. > > And that's the relevant patch: > http://www.gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/commit/7f5a0e35184677c21f1eafdfbe643 > 8eb644cdbff > > cheers, > Thorsten > > --- > --- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On 18.04.2011 14:51, Adrian Musceac wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2011 01:09:56 Heiko Schulz wrote: >> I had a fix locally but with the patch fixing the YASim issue I have now to >> begin again. I see the problem in the airfoil, but a change to this means >> that I have to change a lot of other parameters as well to keep the >> behavior 100% correct. Means a lot of tuning > I took a quick look inside the FDM file. Unless your version is significantly > different than mine, this patch should not affect the behaviour. There is no > mention of cruise glide angle or approach and cruise fuel levels inside the > file. > The defaults provided inside FGFDM.cpp are the same as those that were > previously hardcoded in Airplane.cpp. Maybe the problem is not at all related > to this change? And you also checked that approach glide angle isn't used? Otherwise, the new default cruise angle (0.0) might not match the original approach angle setting... Anyway, we've committed the patch since it was assumed to not cause major differences. These bugs have been there since the beginning of YASim - so for 10+ years. If it's confirmed that the patch actually caused major differences, then we should "improve" the patch. We could restore the old "buggy" behaviour by default and only use the new "correct" FDM configuration behaviour for new FDMs, e.g. add a switch, such as a new FDM parameter or YASim FDM version number in the xml file to enable the bugfix. Heiko, and anyone else: if you think there is a major change, then directly compare the FDM behaviour with and without the patch - and let us know if there was trouble. And that's the relevant patch: http://www.gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/commit/7f5a0e35184677c21f1eafdfbe6438eb644cdbff cheers, Thorsten -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Monday, April 18, 2011 01:09:56 Heiko Schulz wrote: > > I had a fix locally but with the patch fixing the YASim issue I have now to > begin again. I see the problem in the airfoil, but a change to this means > that I have to change a lot of other parameters as well to keep the > behavior 100% correct. Means a lot of tuning > Hi, I took a quick look inside the FDM file. Unless your version is significantly different than mine, this patch should not affect the behaviour. There is no mention of cruise glide angle or approach and cruise fuel levels inside the file. The defaults provided inside FGFDM.cpp are the same as those that were previously hardcoded in Airplane.cpp. Maybe the problem is not at all related to this change? Adrian -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
>>Actually, I find it rather odd that it should have all this trouble to climb in an hover at sea level. I love the Bo105, it's my plane of choice, but making a neat vertical take off is very hard. >>Alessandro I had a fix locally but with the patch fixing the YASim issue I have now to begin again. I see the problem in the airfoil, but a change to this means that I have to change a lot of other parameters as well to keep the behavior 100% correct. Means a lot of tuning -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Actually, I find it rather odd that it should have all this trouble to climb in an hover at sea level. I love the Bo105, it's my plane of choice, but making a neat vertical take off is very hard. Alessandro > Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:37:42 +0100 > From: aeitsch...@yahoo.de > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues > > Hi, > > > > Well, I'm glad it helps. The patch should not affect the > > solution > > too much in most cases, I've checked this myself. > > I have tested it, and well, at least for helicopters there seems a > difference. No idea how long we have this bug now- but I guess a very long > time. > > I was working on the bo105 to get to a more realistic climb rate by keeping > the flight behavior matching to the known detailed datas. > The bo105 doesn't have a realistic climbrate, but while reaction time, rate > and control sensibility matches exactly the real one. > > I can now see a difference between before and after this patch, and now it > seems the climb rate is even less than before. > > > Heiko > > > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Hi, > Well, I'm glad it helps. The patch should not affect the > solution > too much in most cases, I've checked this myself. I have tested it, and well, at least for helicopters there seems a difference. No idea how long we have this bug now- but I guess a very long time. I was working on the bo105 to get to a more realistic climb rate by keeping the flight behavior matching to the known detailed datas. The bo105 doesn't have a realistic climbrate, but while reaction time, rate and control sensibility matches exactly the real one. I can now see a difference between before and after this patch, and now it seems the climb rate is even less than before. Heiko -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Saturday 16 April 2011 15:29:52 Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ..more ways to skin this cat: IRL, flying or stalling like this > into the grass, should bend metal or break wood propeller blades, > but the engine should turn another 2/3 to 2 or 3 more revolutions > plowing into the field. At high speed, the plane might bounce off > the ground and might then be glided "out of the enemy airbase to > evade capture" by e.g. FAA or TSA ;o), simulating this would > require a gradual kind of e.g. structural damage modeling. Well it's kinda thought that way with the iar80, but this "oversight" in gear position calculation prevents other things from working corectly ;). There is a fake "gear" below the nose that detects prop strike and bends it, stopping the engine too. But the crash detection gets activated earlier, and all my work on that damage modelling doesn't get any screen time ;). (bent prop mainly). Further damage modelling will come with future versions... -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:07:42 +0300, Emilian wrote in message <201104151807.42441.emili...@gmail.com>: > On Friday 15 April 2011 17:36:12 syd adams wrote: > > > Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally > > > represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff > > > and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think > > > using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking > > > precision, wouldn't it? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Adrian > > > > Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than > > i have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been > > tried . > > I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able > > too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash > > property remains unset > > Cheers > > > To trigger it you'd have to use a plane with "tall" gear struts, as > the iar80. It will trigger the crash as you're barely touching the > ground with the prop (it might not even touch the ground and still > trigger it if you're not perfectly level). Even with a fake gear > under the belly, to prevent yasim triggering the crash property, it > needs to be set pretty low, and as such the plane seems to float > ~1-2ft off the ground. (propeller hast enable-hot set to false) > Take a look at this: http://ompldr.org/vOGEyaQ > (Forgot to put the crashed property up there too :( ) ..more ways to skin this cat: IRL, flying or stalling like this into the grass, should bend metal or break wood propeller blades, but the engine should turn another 2/3 to 2 or 3 more revolutions plowing into the field. At high speed, the plane might bounce off the ground and might then be glided "out of the enemy airbase to evade capture" by e.g. FAA or TSA ;o), simulating this would require a gradual kind of e.g. structural damage modeling. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Ok success. It does rest slightly off the ground at the nose ... i removed the fake gear and all the mstab objects (clever use of mstab , by the way :)) , and still the same results... I have to admit I've never noticed this behavior before. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Adrian Musceac wrote: > On Friday, April 15, 2011 20:43:45 syd adams wrote: >> One small ,narrow fuselage piece inside and at the bottom of the main >> fuselage doesnt make a difference here, you don't need a lot . And >> they don't seem to trigger a crash like gear does. >> > > The gear only triggers a crash when its absolute height above ground level is > -1. This happens because gear position doesn't change when retracted > (obviously it would be quite hard to calculate its position during the > extension phase, because every airplane might have a different way to extend > and retract). > There is no force computed and applied to the model when the gear is > retracted, however the collision check still happens and if you have a long > enough gear strut it will go below -1 AGL when flying low or crash landing. > It should be pretty easy to replicate this with the IAR80, I haven't tried > with other aircraft. > > Adrian > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Friday, April 15, 2011 20:43:45 syd adams wrote: > One small ,narrow fuselage piece inside and at the bottom of the main > fuselage doesnt make a difference here, you don't need a lot . And > they don't seem to trigger a crash like gear does. > The gear only triggers a crash when its absolute height above ground level is -1. This happens because gear position doesn't change when retracted (obviously it would be quite hard to calculate its position during the extension phase, because every airplane might have a different way to extend and retract). There is no force computed and applied to the model when the gear is retracted, however the collision check still happens and if you have a long enough gear strut it will go below -1 AGL when flying low or crash landing. It should be pretty easy to replicate this with the IAR80, I haven't tried with other aircraft. Adrian -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Friday 15 April 2011 21:07:12 syd adams wrote: > Still trying to take off ;) .Very nicely done model ...but a bit too > much detail for my laptop ...I get 10 fps where I'm used to getting > 30-40 . > No need to take off :), just raise the gear with the engine running (otherways it doesn't raise :) )while on gound. -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Still trying to take off ;) .Very nicely done model ...but a bit too much detail for my laptop ...I get 10 fps where I'm used to getting 30-40 . On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Adrian Musceac wrote: > >> Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i >> have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been >> tried . >> I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able >> too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash >> property remains unset >> Cheers >> > > Indeed, I think it's impossible to trigger the crash with the aerostar, > because the distance between the gear positions and the lowest contact points > is smaller than 1 meter. Would you please try with the IAR80? > > Adrian > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
One small ,narrow fuselage piece inside and at the bottom of the main fuselage doesnt make a difference here, you don't need a lot . And they don't seem to trigger a crash like gear does. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote: > Hi Syd, > > As Oliver Thurau (ot-666) found out, many fuselage sections will decrease > framerates. > > That's why it is better to have fuselage section only when necessary. > > Heiko > >> Von: syd adams >> Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues >> An: "FlightGear developers discussions" >> >> Datum: Freitag, 15. April, 2011 16:36 Uhr >> > Syd, about the fuselage contact >> points: they are internally >> > represented as a gear object, only without the >> compression stuff >> > and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic >> friction. I think >> > using fake gears directly would give a little better >> tweaking >> > precision, wouldn't it? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Adrian >> >> Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the >> code than i >> have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it >> hadn't been >> tried . >> I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't >> been able >> too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the >> crash >> property remains unset >> Cheers >> >> -- >> Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial >> Workload >> Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server >> virtualization is a top >> priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify >> management, and improve >> application availability and disaster protection. Learn >> more about boosting >> the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev >> ___ >> Flightgear-devel mailing list >> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel >> > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Friday 15 April 2011 17:36:12 syd adams wrote: > > Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally > > represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff > > and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think > > using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking > > precision, wouldn't it? > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i > have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been > tried . > I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able > too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash > property remains unset > Cheers > To trigger it you'd have to use a plane with "tall" gear struts, as the iar80. It will trigger the crash as you're barely touching the ground with the prop (it might not even touch the ground and still trigger it if you're not perfectly level). Even with a fake gear under the belly, to prevent yasim triggering the crash property, it needs to be set pretty low, and as such the plane seems to float ~1-2ft off the ground. (propeller hast enable-hot set to false) Take a look at this: http://ompldr.org/vOGEyaQ (Forgot to put the crashed property up there too :( ) -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
> Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i > have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been > tried . > I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able > too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash > property remains unset > Cheers > Indeed, I think it's impossible to trigger the crash with the aerostar, because the distance between the gear positions and the lowest contact points is smaller than 1 meter. Would you please try with the IAR80? Adrian -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Hi Syd, As Oliver Thurau (ot-666) found out, many fuselage sections will decrease framerates. That's why it is better to have fuselage section only when necessary. Heiko > Von: syd adams > Betreff: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues > An: "FlightGear developers discussions" > > Datum: Freitag, 15. April, 2011 16:36 Uhr > > Syd, about the fuselage contact > points: they are internally > > represented as a gear object, only without the > compression stuff > > and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic > friction. I think > > using fake gears directly would give a little better > tweaking > > precision, wouldn't it? > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the > code than i > have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it > hadn't been > tried . > I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't > been able > too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the > crash > property remains unset > Cheers > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial > Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server > virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify > management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn > more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
> Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally > represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff > and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think > using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking > precision, wouldn't it? > > Cheers, > Adrian Possibly , I think you've probably looked deeper into the code than i have there . Thought I'd bring up the idea in case it hadn't been tried . I,ve also tried to trigger that gear up crash but haven't been able too , (with my aerostar) , it does a belly landing and the crash property remains unset Cheers -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 21:40:10 Gary Neely wrote: > Adrian, > > Great catch on the fuel and glideslope issues. You're right-- despite > parsing the fuel attributes and supplying defaults if necessary, it > has the defaults hard-coded right in the Airplane::compile block. It > seems to consider the user-supplied values for aircraft mass, but not > elsewhere. Makes me feel dumb that I'd not noticed this before. I hope > this one makes it in the new build! > > -Gary > Well, I'm glad it helps. The patch should not affect the solution too much in most cases, I've checked this myself. Syd, about the fuselage contact points: they are internally represented as a gear object, only without the compression stuff and with hardcoded values for static and dynamic friction. I think using fake gears directly would give a little better tweaking precision, wouldn't it? Cheers, Adrian -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Adrian, Great catch on the fuel and glideslope issues. You're right-- despite parsing the fuel attributes and supplying defaults if necessary, it has the defaults hard-coded right in the Airplane::compile block. It seems to consider the user-supplied values for aircraft mass, but not elsewhere. Makes me feel dumb that I'd not noticed this before. I hope this one makes it in the new build! -Gary On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Adrian Musceac wrote: > Hello, > I have found a couple of YASim issues, more details here: > https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=302 > https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=303 > > Would anyone still maintaining YASim please have a look and provide > some feedback? > > Cheers, > Adrian > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim issues
Just a note about the belly landing ... you can use fuselage objects instead of fake gear each end of a 'fuselage' is a contact point , and like the doc says you can have as many and in any orientation you like ... though most people seem to be under the impression that you can only model the main fuselage this way. Works great for me , and Ive never noticed this retracted gear problem ... I'll try some tests here. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Adrian Musceac wrote: > Hello, > I have found a couple of YASim issues, more details here: > https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=302 > https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=303 > > Would anyone still maintaining YASim please have a look and provide > some feedback? > > Cheers, > Adrian > > -- > Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload > Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top > priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve > application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting > the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
