On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 17:29, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 January 2004 00:35, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > No, sorry. AC_EARORP is the published offset from CG to where the forces
> > act. For the F-16 that would be 35% chord (and CG is 25% chord).
>
> Just *maybe* I got it this time around. :
Paul:
The root of the problem - though it is not really a "problem" - is that the
FDM cares about modeling where the aircraft "is" in the world based on the
aircraft CG, and the 3D model wants to be in the correct spot in the world,
too, but how does one decide where to place it? Can one simply ta
Jon Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I asked Tony about the aero reference point and the aerodynamic center the
> other day. Here is his response:
>
>
> Tony writes:
>
> The idea of the aerodynamic center is similar to the idea of the center
> of gravity. It is the location on the aircraft t
Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday, 10 January 2004 00:35, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > No, sorry. AC_EARORP is the published offset from CG to where the forces
> > act. For the F-16 that would be 35% chord (and CG is 25% chord).
>
> Just *maybe* I got it this time around. :)
>
> So
I asked Tony about the aero reference point and the aerodynamic center the
other day. Here is his response:
Tony writes:
The idea of the aerodynamic center is similar to the idea of the center
of gravity. It is the location on the aircraft through which the total
lift and drag can be said to ac
> How about adding a new flight control component: "PID controller"?! I've
> been searching my textbooks on control systems and found a few PID
> controller algorithms. I could begin to implement one that takes care of
> the integrator windup problem and has some other usefull features.
Well ... I
Original Message
Subject: One time post to flightgear-devel
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:17:45 +0100
From: Ralph Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Curt,
would you mind posting my email on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Ralph Paul
---
Roland Häder writes:
>
> On Saturday 10 January 2004 10:33 am, mat churchill wrote:
> > Worrying times though,
> >
> > A Google search for "publicly available maps" revealed this article:
> >
> > http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/092501p1.htm
> >
> > hmm
>
> "Big Brother Is Watching Us"
FW
On Saturday, 10 January 2004 00:35, Erik Hofman wrote:
> No, sorry. AC_EARORP is the published offset from CG to where the forces
> act. For the F-16 that would be 35% chord (and CG is 25% chord).
Just *maybe* I got it this time around. :)
So any distance in the FDM is just an offset from (0,0,0
On Saturday 10 January 2004 10:33 am, mat churchill wrote:
> Worrying times though,
>
> A Google search for "publicly available maps" revealed this article:
>
> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/092501p1.htm
>
> hmm
"Big Brother Is Watching Us"
___
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Paul Surgeon wrote:
> > Aha!
> > So AC_AERORP = (0,0,0) in FlightGear's 3D aircraft model space?
>
> No, sorry. AC_EARORP is the published offset from CG to where the
> forces act. For the F-16 that would be 35% chord (and CG is 25%
> chord).
Surely that's an approximation, no
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:51:40 -0600, Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. And it is true there probably should be an initialization
capability for filters, integrators, etc. I'll try and look into this
very soon.
How about adding a new flight control component: "PID controller"?! I've
On Saturday, 10 January 2004 00:35, Erik Hofman wrote:
> No, sorry. AC_EARORP is the published offset from CG to where the forces
> act. For the F-16 that would be 35% chord (and CG is 25% chord).
How do I go about calculating where the forces act?
Is this data supposed to be published or can I wo
The cadets of 127sqn ATC have decided they want to build themselves a
flight sim, as I'm an instructor there, and they know of my involvement
with flightgear the task has naturally fallen to me to help. I thought
people may be interested in the basic cockpit structure that we're using -
it's docume
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Aha!
So AC_AERORP = (0,0,0) in FlightGear's 3D aircraft model space?
No, sorry. AC_EARORP is the published offset from CG to where the forces
act. For the F-16 that would be 35% chord (and CG is 25% chord).
Maybe it's good to know that I had lots of troubles understanding thi
Worrying times though,
A Google search for "publicly available maps" revealed this article:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/092501p1.htm
hmm
Mat
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listin
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:58:35 +0200
Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:34, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Paul:
We (FDM) simply report the location of the
reference point (I think we agreed it would be the forward-most
position of the aircraft, like the prop hub tip, or nose
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 12:30, David Culp wrote:
> > Take the A320 (on FG) and watch the ball. All I want to know, which
> > property to use for trigger function to keep the ball centered.
> > since you discussed this topic so deeply, I'm sure someone can name me the
> > property...
>
>
> Here's th
On Friday, 9 January 2004 16:41, Innis Cunningham wrote:
> Exactly.
> At the risk of putting my foot squarely in my mouth the FDM does not
> care what the model looks like or where it is.The reference point for the
> model is usually put somewhere close to the centre of the model so the
> model wil
On Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:34, Jon S Berndt wrote:
> Paul:
> We (FDM) simply report the location of the
> reference point (I think we agreed it would be the forward-most
> position of the aircraft, like the prop hub tip, or nose tip) and
> FlightGear places the reference point (tip of nose, for
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:39:20 +0100
Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this should be implemented in the jsbsim source code, not in
the fdm_config xml file.
Yes. And it is true there probably should be an initialization
capability for filters, integrators, etc. I'll try and lo
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:13:33 -0600, Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:52:28 +0100
Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The solution to this is to stop the intergation when the actuator goes
into saturation.
Aha! Good explanation. Yes, I think this should n
* Ilja Moderau -- Friday 09 January 2004 21:59:
> It is a 2d-panel, but it shines through the fuselage, so I removed
> it for a short time.
If it weren't for a short time only, I'd call this a not so bright
idea. fgfs is a flight simulator. It is for flying the dc3, not for
watching it fly from o
Yes I am.
Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is very cool. Especially the seat cushions. Nice job! Are you going
> to
> be doing 3D instrumentation as well?
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
--
Men can´t fly? http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/fly.jpg
_
It is a 2d-panel, but it shines through the fuselage, so I removed it for a short time.
>
> The new dc3 doesn't have a panel any more. Did you leave out too much?
--
Men can´t fly? http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/fly.jpg
__
> Take the A320 (on FG) and watch the ball. All I want to know, which
> property to use for trigger function to keep the ball centered.
> since you discussed this topic so deeply, I'm sure someone can name me the
> property...
Here's the yaw section from the T-38 FCS:
INPUT
Alan King wrote:
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Define 'level', if the wings are level, REALLY level, the rudder will
Also load up the J3 Cub, it gives a really good clip with full right rudder
and no bank. And pretty high left bank to even stop the right turn. Nothing
different over what I descri
David Megginson schrieb:
JD Fenech wrote:
This is pretty sad.
It's times like this when I start to consider relocating to Canadia to
find a job and live there, much as I bash on it (jokingly, of course;
it really wouldn't do to be bashing our 51st state).
Here's a local (New England) version
We probably should steer away from the political discussion stuff (on this
forum) before we forget we are working on an open source simulator. :-)
Curt.
Christian Mayer wrote:
David Megginson schrieb:
JD Fenech wrote:
This is pretty sad.
It's times like this when I start to consider relocatin
David Megginson wrote:
JD Fenech wrote:
This is pretty sad.
It's times like this when I start to consider relocating to Canadia to
find a job and live there, much as I bash on it (jokingly, of course;
it really wouldn't do to be bashing our 51st state).
Here's a local (New England) version o
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> JD Fenech wrote:
>
> > This is pretty sad.
> >
> > It's times like this when I start to consider relocating to Canadia to
> > find a job and live there, much as I bash on it (jokingly, of course; it
> > really wouldn't do to be bashing our 51st state
On Thursday 08 January 2004 23:45, Richard Hornby wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Richard Hornby
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:28 PM
> Subject: Properties Tree and TSR2
>
>
> Can somebody help here?
>
> I am trying to see the properties tree us
JD Fenech wrote:
This is pretty sad.
It's times like this when I start to consider relocating to Canadia to
find a job and live there, much as I bash on it (jokingly, of course; it
really wouldn't do to be bashing our 51st state).
Here's a local (New England) version of the same story, with det
This is pretty sad.
It's times like this when I start to consider relocating to Canadia to
find a job and live there, much as I bash on it (jokingly, of course; it
really wouldn't do to be bashing our 51st state).
David Megginson wrote:
Jon Stockill wrote:
US developers/users need to be carefu
Jon Stockill wrote:
US developers/users need to be careful - you'll be marked as terrorists.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34776.html
The sad part is not the anti-aviation hysteria, bad as it is, but the idea
of a government that encourages citizens to spy on each other and report
rou
> > Quoting Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Markus:
> > > For JSBSim, you can use the flight control components. This is a
> > > quick reply, so maybe I have not thought this all the way out, yet.
> > > But, I suspect you can get a derivative control like this:
> > >
> > > In LaPlace space
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Yes, it's a subtle effect and you may not notice it unless you are
looking for it specifically, but all runway lighting in FlightGear is
directional. In other words the lights are brightest when viewed along
the direction they are pointing and dim out as you move perpend
I just commited a turbulence model that I wrote over the vacation. It
seems to work pretty well, but I'd be curious to see what other people
think. Tuning it is more subjective than I had expected.
Basically, this is a a Perlin noise based scale-invariant vector field
that gets added to the loca
* Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 09 January 2004 15:33:
> I could live with dot lights for runway/taxiway, but vasi/papi look
> ridiculous without 'enhanced-lighting'.
And here's the remedy: put the attached file into $FG_ROOT/Nasal/.
It turns enhanced_lighting on at day (for beautiful VASI/PAPI),
but o
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:15:53 -0600, Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:15 +0100
Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is the solution I'm looking to implement, but sadly my knowlege
about the jsbsim structure is so limited that I could not think of a
David Megginson wrote:
Actually, if you're approaching a runway from about 90 degrees, it's the
taxiway lights that you can see -- the runway lights are invisible until
you're right overhead.
Yes, it's a subtle effect and you may not notice it unless you are
looking for it specifically, but all
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:52:28 +0100
Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, note that the derivative part of the example wing leveler
control was a complete guess - and I think it actually may not play a
large part (or *any* part) in the maintaining wings-level at all.
I have also con
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:15 +0100
Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is the solution I'm looking to implement, but sadly my knowlege
about the jsbsim structure is so limited that I could not think of a
way to do it. Maybe the SWITCH component could be used as an if
structure?
Ye
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:52:28 +0100
Roy Vegard Ovesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The solution to this is to stop the intergation when the actuator
goes into saturation.
Aha! Good explanation. Yes, I think this should not be too hard to
fix, but I don't have time to play with that myself at this
- Original Message -
From: "Hof Markus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autocoordination
> > Hof Markus wrote:
> > >sorry guys, I don't know what to belive in anymore :
Things are getting a little bit too silly now.
US developers/users need to be careful - you'll be marked as terrorists.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34776.html
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROT
"Jon S Berndt" writes
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Shucks ... I must be tired or something because this is getting more and
more confusing by the minute.
What is this "arbitrary point" you are referring to?
It is a location which you can choose. You can use the CG, the nose of the
aircraft, the cente
* David Megginson -- Friday 09 January 2004 15:05:
> Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > And BTW: I know that airport lighting can't easily be implemented
> > in a similar way. Still, turning off all the taxiway lights when
> > looking from further away might be desirable. :-)
farther
> Ac
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:58:11 -, Richard Bytheway
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Knowing nothing about the jsbsim structure, and only a little about PID
control, could you arrange the control loop so that the Integral term is
only updated when the output is between 2% and 98%?
This is the solutio
Melchior FRANZ
> * Frederic BOUVIER -- Friday 09 January 2004 14:02:
> > That remind me that I don't have pictures of the GoldenGate nor
> > the East span of Bay Bridge at night. If someone have some,
> > I am interested.
>
> http://images.google.com/images?q=golden%20gate%20night
Thanks, I sho
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
And BTW: I know that airport lighting can't easily be implemented
in a similar way. Still, turning off all the taxiway lights when
looking from further away might be desirable. :-)
Actually, if you're approaching a runway from about 90 degrees, it's the
taxiway lights that y
>
> When the wings are level and the actuator (roll trim) stays out of
> saturation, this PI controller works great. It does not grow
> a bias as
> long as the actuator is able to do it's job, it only grows a
> bias when the
> actuator does not have enough power (deflection angle) to do it's
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:31:23 -0600, Jon Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First of all, let me know how you played with the JSBSim wing-leveler
example - I mean, did you use JSBSim in its standalone mode, or did you
somehow integrate this with JSBSim within FlightGear. I ask, because I
have
neve
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
> > Thanks, glad to see you like it and it doesn't kill all the framerate.
> > For people that are not following CVS updates, check out :
> > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/sanfran.htm
> > The lights are brighter in FG than on jpeg but yo
* Frederic BOUVIER -- Friday 09 January 2004 14:02:
> That remind me that I don't have pictures of the GoldenGate nor
> the East span of Bay Bridge at night. If someone have some,
> I am interested.
http://images.google.com/images?q=golden%20gate%20night
The bay bridge doesn't seem to be that pop
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I'm waiting for the reflections of the bridge lights in the water. I
saw this in a commercial A320 sim once and it was a really neat effect.
I think the way the aircraft shadows are draw makes this possible. It
probably would look even better than the aircraft shadows rig
> Quoting Jon S Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Markus:
> >
> > For JSBSim, you can use the flight control components. This is a
> > quick reply, so maybe I have not thought this all the way out, yet.
> > But, I suspect you can get a derivative control like this:
> >
> > In LaPlace space, a de
Frederic BOUVIER wrote:
Thanks, glad to see you like it and it doesn't kill all the framerate.
For people that are not following CVS updates, check out :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/sanfran.htm
The lights are brighter in FG than on jpeg but you will have an idea.
That remind me that I
* Frederic BOUVIER -- Friday 09 January 2004 14:02:
> For people that are not following CVS updates, check out :
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/sanfran.htm
Here's another screenshot:
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a8603365/fgfs13.jpeg
And BTW: I know that airport lighting can't easily
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Erik Hofman -- Friday 09 January 2004 11:24:
> > Modified Files:
> > baybridge-e-fb.ac baybridge-fb.ac baybridge-fb.xml ggb-fb.xml
> > Added Files:
> > light-pat-1.rgb
> > Log Message:
> > Frederic Bouvier:
> > here are some updates to the bridges :
> > - GoldenGate : a
* Erik Hofman -- Friday 09 January 2004 11:24:
> Modified Files:
> baybridge-e-fb.ac baybridge-fb.ac baybridge-fb.xml ggb-fb.xml
> Added Files:
> light-pat-1.rgb
> Log Message:
> Frederic Bouvier:
> here are some updates to the bridges :
> - GoldenGate : alpha test added
> - Bay Bri
> I played around with the wing-leveler example from "Automatic flight in
> jsbsim". I noticed that the solution had the problem of intergator-windup.
> I tried to limit and/or clip the intergator component, but that didn't do
> what I thought it would. Does anyone have a solution to this problem?
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Define 'level', if the wings are level, REALLY level, the rudder will
produce a torgue to turn the nose until the counter-acting moment
produced by beta is equal and there she'll stay, in a skid, but no
turning. In fact, as Dave noted, you have to cross control with the
I played around with the wing-leveler example from "Automatic flight in
jsbsim". I noticed that the solution had the problem of intergator-windup.
I tried to limit and/or clip the intergator component, but that didn't do
what I thought it would. Does anyone have a solution to this problem? Note
> Andy Ross wrote:
> >John Wojnaroski wrote:
> >>Believe it or not, what makes an airplane turn is LIFT... think
> >>about it.
Now I belive, sorry for my miss-understanding (if this is correct english
;-) ). Just thougt about and slept over...
simply said: bank causes beta, and beta causes due to
> Hof Markus wrote:
> >sorry guys, I don't know what to belive in anymore :)
no I know, after thinking and slept over a night.
> You might try something like this:
>
> // Apply rudder as required to maintain coordinated flight (ie beta = 0)
> // Treat this as a SAS that is always "on"We'll ad
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Define 'level', if the wings are level, REALLY level, the rudder will
produce a torgue to turn the nose until the counter-acting moment
produced by beta is equal and there she'll stay, in a skid, but no
turning. In fact, as Dave noted, you have to cross control with the
ailer
67 matches
Mail list logo
