Hi,
FlightGear runs very fine on my customized Knoppix-CD. The remaining problems
are related to FlightGear itself.
Besides the flickering when starting full-screen I have another problem:
I want to include FlightGear in a localized version. The kids here just speak
German, Swiss German and Bad
Jon Stockill wrote:
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
Quoting "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 i
Norman Vine wrote:
I just wish that the rest of the world was as generous with data :-)
Very true.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
William Earnest wrote:
- F-16 Model:
Back in november there was some discussion about an F-16 Model for
high angle of
attack simulation. While browsing the NASA Langley tech report server
today, I
stumbled across 2 interesting documents: 1.) the much cited 1979 "F16"
report
TP-1538 (use
Ronny Standtke wrote:
Hi,
FlightGear runs very fine on my customized Knoppix-CD. The remaining problems
are related to FlightGear itself.
Besides the flickering when starting full-screen I have another problem:
I want to include FlightGear in a localized version. The kids here just speak
German
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Ronny Standtke wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > FlightGear runs very fine on my customized Knoppix-CD. The remaining
problems
> > are related to FlightGear itself.
> >
> > Besides the flickering when starting full-screen I have another problem:
> > I want to include FlightGear in a loca
> Surely that's an approximation, no? A rigid body's response to a
> (force + torque) moment has 7 degrees of freedom (one value for mass,
> and a 6DOF inertia tensor). A single offset doesn't have enough
> complexity to capture that behavior.
>
> Andy
The rigid body response to a force and torq
I have a pitch hold function modelled for the A320, activeted if Input = 0.
If the A/C is in pitch-rate command, the Integrator for pitch hold is becoming
more and more.
How do I reset an Integrator component based on a switch like
elevator-cmd-norm=0?
thx
markus
PS: I hope you know what I mean,
Good morning,
Actually, this begs the question of where to get a
good, rugged floor mounted fighter stick. I only know of the jetliner
yokes from precision flight controls.
http://www.flypfc.com/entertainment%20products/jetliner.html
Nickolas HeinMorgantown WV
- Original Message
On Saturday 10 January 2004 01:43, Norman Vine wrote:
> 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/0
On Saturday 10 January 2004 02:35, Jim Wilson wrote:
[snip...]
> Take a look at the p51d as an example of an aircraft with 0,0,0 at the
nose.
> In the file p51d-yasim-set.xml there are several "target offset"
settings (one
> for each view) that represent the distance from the nose to a very
ap
On Saturday 10 January 2004 03:09, Jon Berndt wrote:
> 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,
> t
On Saturday 10 January 2004 02:35, Jim Wilson wrote:
> 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% chor
On Saturday 10 January 2004 08:17, Ronny Standtke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FlightGear runs very fine on my customized Knoppix-CD. The remaining
> problems are related to FlightGear itself.
>
> Besides the flickering when starting full-screen I have another problem:
> I want to include FlightGear in a local
This is a programming issue I'll tryu and get to ASAP. Today, though, is my
twin boys' second birthday.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hof Markus
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Flightgear
> Perhaps some published 'Standards' might be a good idea - I remember the
> earlier discussions about the model origin but didn't realise
> that a standard
> had been established, and so in ignorance, I haven't been following it:(
I'm working on it.
___
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> The rigid body response to a force and torque can be in roll, pitch,
> yaw, and/or X, Y, Z translation. That's six DoF. How does the
> seventh degree come into play?
I wasn't clear: the rigid body response function takes a 6DOF space
(force + torque) to another 6DOF space
On Saturday 10 January 2004 15:23, Jon Berndt wrote:
> > Perhaps some published 'Standards' might be a good idea - I remember the
> > earlier discussions about the model origin but didn't realise
> > that a standard
> > had been established, and so in ignorance, I haven't been following it:(
>
> I'
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Erik Hofman wrote:
> ?? This puzzles me, what type of aircraft are you planning to simulate?
> It's and F-16 cockpit (which obviously needs a side stick).
Well the ideal would be a Grob Tutor - since that's what the cadets do
most of their flying in :-) The basic cockpit layo
Jim Wilson wrote:
That is mostly correct. There is also a visual effect that occurs when you
render a 3D scene with the camera tracking an object. The point you are
tracking always appears stationary. Examples of this in FlightGear are the
"helicopter view" and the "tower view". If the origin i
Alan King wrote:
> The 'nose' is a bad choice for either the viewing center or the FDM
> center.
Except for the obvious fact that it's 100% unambiguous. It's not
uncommon for the FDM definition and 3D model to be done by different
authors. Take 21 people and ask them to identify the "POS" (or
qu
Good morning,
I've been told by my colleagues that you can also
get worldwide terrain and texture data from Mapquest.
Nickolas HeinMorgantown WV
- Original Message -
From:
Lee Elliott
To: FlightGear developers
discussions
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 9:46
AM
On Saturday 10 January 2004 15:47, Andy Ross wrote:
> Alan King wrote:
> > The 'nose' is a bad choice for either the viewing center or the FDM
> > center.
>
> Except for the obvious fact that it's 100% unambiguous. It's not
> uncommon for the FDM definition and 3D model to be done by different
> a
Lee Elliott wrote:
> The tip of the nose is fine with me but we need to clarify whether
> the tip includes any nose-mounted pitots or probes.
Sure. Obviously it doesn't *really* matter. But picking some
unambiguous, obvious point on the fuselage just seems much more sane
to me than trying to exp
On Saturday 10 January 2004 16:08, Andy Ross wrote:
> Lee Elliott wrote:
> > The tip of the nose is fine with me but we need to clarify whether
> > the tip includes any nose-mounted pitots or probes.
>
> Sure. Obviously it doesn't *really* matter. But picking some
> unambiguous, obvious point on
On Saturday, 10 January 2004 17:47, Andy Ross wrote:
> Having the FDM coordinates and model coordinates match up is
> critically important for collision issues like gear compression.
That is exactly my concern which made me ask about the FDM and model origins
in the first place.
I don't mind if
Andy Ross wrote:
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.
Thank you for doing this. I gave the turbulence a test drive with these
command
On Saturday 10 January 2004 16:34, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 January 2004 17:47, Andy Ross wrote:
> > Having the FDM coordinates and model coordinates match up is
> > critically important for collision issues like gear compression.
>
> That is exactly my concern which made me ask about
Paul wrote:
> I don't mind if the origin of the FDM and model can be adjustable but once
> they are set they MUST be static regardless of CG changes.
The Model Reference Point (MRP) must be static, yes. The CG will change,
but so will the vector from the CG to the MRP. It balances out. When th
David Megginson wrote:
> First, the intensity is far too low. At 0.5, I wasn't sure if
> turbulence was working, and at 1.0 (maximum), I was still able to
> control the aircraft easily.
Hrm, so it is. :)
I must have changed something right at checkin. My memory of the
final code is that the Cub
I was flying from Philly to Chicago yesterday morning at O'Dark Thirty and saw
the Space Station fly by. It was slightly brighter then the planet it was
going past (Jupiter? Saturn?), and I assume it was the ISS rather than some
other satellite. Anyway, does anyone think an AISatellite class w
On Saturday 10 January 2004 17:36, David Culp wrote:
> I was flying from Philly to Chicago yesterday morning at O'Dark Thirty and
> saw the Space Station fly by. It was slightly brighter then the planet it
> was going past (Jupiter? Saturn?), and I assume it was the ISS rather than
> some other sa
On Saturday 10 January 2004 17:45, Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Saturday 10 January 2004 17:36, David Culp wrote:
> > I was flying from Philly to Chicago yesterday morning at O'Dark Thirty
> > and saw the Space Station fly by. It was slightly brighter then the
> > planet it was going past (Jupiter? Sat
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:20:07 -0800,
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > The rigid body response to a force and torque can be in roll, pitch,
> > yaw, and/or X, Y, Z translation. That's six DoF. How does the
> > seventh degree come into
Hi, enjoy your kids birthday. I got one Version running, but don't know if you
like this way of implementaion, You maybe want to create an extra Node for this
property.
I took the keyword: RESET and any other input than 0 resets and holds the
integrator to 0.
Here is the patch:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andy Ross wrote:
Alan King wrote:
The 'nose' is a bad choice for either the viewing center or the FDM
center.
Except for the obvious fact that it's 100% unambiguous. It's not
uncommon for the FDM definition and 3D model to be done by different
authors. Take 21 people and ask them to identify
Lee Elliott wrote:
Definitely - I don't think I could accurately position a model to an
aerodynamic center.
LeeE
Then your model's relationship to how it flies is just as inaccurate. It
isn't by your or my or anyone else's vote or choice.
If the NOSE agrees in both, and you haven't gott
>There is no choice in the matter. The center of the aircraft is the
center
> of the aircraft and is the simplest point of agreement between the visual
and
> the FDM, and simplest point of calculations for both. You can use the
nose as a
> reference point, but you still better make very sure
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 12:14, Alan King wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
>
> > Alan King wrote:
> >
> >>The 'nose' is a bad choice for either the viewing center or the FDM
> >>center.
> >
> >
> > Except for the obvious fact that it's 100% unambiguous. It's not
> > uncommon for the FDM definition and 3
Is this a comprehensible explanation? Comments/improvements/corrections
welcome and solicited:
It is important to point out the differences in the coordinate frames and
point of origin used for defining the particular flight model for an
aircraft, and the way the aircraft is
Jon Berndt wrote:
You are in an A-10 with a maverick on one side. You have an aircraft CG
(which the FDM is reporting the position of) and an MRP, which the FDM is
also supplying to FlightGear. The MRP is given to FlightGear in lat/lon/alt.
The FDM calculates that position because it knows where
Jon Berndt wrote:
This is a programming issue I'll try and get to ASAP. Today, though, is my
twin boys' second birthday.
Happy birthday Max and Erik.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo
Jon Stockill wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Erik Hofman wrote:
?? This puzzles me, what type of aircraft are you planning to simulate?
It's and F-16 cockpit (which obviously needs a side stick).
Well the ideal would be a Grob Tutor - since that's what the cadets do
most of their flying in :-) The
Andy Ross wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
The tip of the nose is fine with me but we need to clarify whether
the tip includes any nose-mounted pitots or probes.
Sure. Obviously it doesn't *really* matter. But picking some
unambiguous, obvious point on the fuselage just seems much more sane
to me tha
>It is hard to tell from what's said whether you're using the
> COL as the
> reference or the CG. COL is the real reference to use in the
> FDM, the CG is
> purposefully forward on most craft for stability. The CG swings
> around the COL
> pivot point noticably when you change pitch. Also al
> Jon Berndt wrote:
> > This is a programming issue I'll try and get to ASAP. Today,
> though, is my
> > twin boys' second birthday.
>
> Happy birthday Max and Erik.
:-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear
Alan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Andy Ross wrote:
>
> > Alan King wrote:
> >
> >>The 'nose' is a bad choice for either the viewing center or the FDM
> >>center.
> >
> >
> > Except for the obvious fact that it's 100% unambiguous. It's not
> > uncommon for the FDM definition and 3D model t
Alan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>The 'nose' is a bad choice for either the viewing center or the FDM center.
It wouldn't be an FDM center. It is only an easy to define reference point.
> Everything works around the POS. The nose is just an arbitrary point how ever
> many feet ahea
Lee Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> The tip of the nose is fine with me but we need to clarify whether the tip
> includes any nose-mounted pitots or probes.
>
> I'm specifically thinking about the TSR2 here, which has a nose mounted probe
> but there will probably be others, if there aren
> Maybe a description of the nose location should be a standard
> comment at the top of the FDM config files?
Yes, that is a very good idea. In fact, the last model I started to write
(B747) contained all the data the model was based on as well as source
references. The DAVE-ML standard being fo
>On Behalf Of Alan King
Alan: Visit jsbsim.org, select the "Links" item, and look for the references
marked with a yellow checkbox square. Those references are the most
important and helpful ones.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 14:10, Alan King wrote:
> Jon Berndt wrote:
>
> > You are in an A-10 with a maverick on one side. You have an aircraft CG
> > (which the FDM is reporting the position of) and an MRP, which the FDM is
> > also supplying to FlightGear. The MRP is given to FlightGear in lat/lon
Here is a first cut suggestion for a JSBSim "simulation environment" config
file:
RATE_IN_HZ 120
SIMULATION OFF
ATMOSPHERE ON
MASSPROPSON
AEROSURFACES ON
RATESON
VELOCITIES ON
FORCES ON
MOMENTS
Jon Berndt wrote:
structural frame. The 3D modeler has no clue about (and probably doesn't
care to know about) where the CG is - and that's fine. The FDM and the 3D
model, though, *do* need to agree on a common MRP (Model Reference Point)
that the FDM can supply to the FlightGear scene code for pr
>I see what you're doing now. You are letting them just use
> the nose, and
> then shifting the FDM nose point until the FDM center is near the
> visual center.
Not really. The FDM still calculates the position of the CG of the aircraft.
It's just that we know exactly where the agreed-upon MR
Jim Wilson wrote:
Maybe this will help: Unless you crash the plane, or you are flying a
concored sst, the nose will _always_ have exactly the same relationship in 3D
space to the furthest aft point of it's tail. The x, y, z distances between
the two points will always always be the same no matte
Tony Peden wrote:
Once the wheels are off the ground, the center of gravity is the point
about which the aircraft rotates. It does not rotate around the aero
center or any other point.
Yes, been a while since I'd used the POS. It is the other way around, with a
fixed POS it's the best point t
Jon Berndt wrote:
I see what you're doing now. You are letting them just use
the nose, and
then shifting the FDM nose point until the FDM center is near the
visual center.
Not really. The FDM still calculates the position of the CG of the aircraft.
It's just that we know exactly where the agr
I said the other day and I will say it now the FDM does NOT require
a 3D model.
Have a look at the attachment this is the 747 flying sideways,quite happily,
as a 737.If the 3D model affected the FDM then this should not fly.
The 3D model should have its MRP as close to the CofG as you can get, if
n
> I said the other day and I will say it now the FDM does NOT require
> a 3D model.
True. Our discussion centers on the occasion when a 3D modeler *wants* to
add a 3D model to an FDM.
> Have a look at the attachment this is the 747 flying sideways,quite
happily,
> as a 737.If the 3D model affect
Alan King writes
> You do a 20 foot long plane FDM, with CG at 10 feet. I draw a
3000 foot long plane. The noses match. Does about 2980 feet of my plane
sink into the ground? What makes sure that the CG is put at the right
place in the visual model with the nose as the only reference?
On Saturday 10 January 2004 20:17, Alan King wrote:
> Lee Elliott wrote:
> > Definitely - I don't think I could accurately position a model to an
> > aerodynamic center.
> >
> > LeeE
>
>Then your model's relationship to how it flies is just as inaccurate.
> It isn't by your or my or anyone els
"Jon Berndt writes>
> Have a look at the attachment this is the 747 flying sideways,quite
happily,
> as a 737.If the 3D model affected the FDM then this should not fly.
Nobody is saying the 3D model affects the FDM - that's not the point.
Reading some of the replys it seem to me that it does
> T
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:20, Alan King wrote:
> Jon Berndt wrote:
>
> >> I see what you're doing now. You are letting them just use
> >>the nose, and
> >>then shifting the FDM nose point until the FDM center is near the
> >>visual center.
> >
> >
> > Not really. The FDM still calculates the p
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 18:31, Alan King wrote:
> Tony Peden wrote:
>
> >
> > Once the wheels are off the ground, the center of gravity is the point
> > about which the aircraft rotates. It does not rotate around the aero
> > center or any other point.
>
>Yes, been a while since I'd used the
Last night I played with one of the recently received PanCam pictures from
the "Spirit" MER on Mars:
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/ColorMars.jpg
>From what I hear from a friend at one of the NASA centers, some of the JPL
guys got a kick out of it.
--
Jon
JPL Scientist: "We've made two very import
On Saturday 10 January 2004 21:57, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Lee Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The tip of the nose is fine with me but we need to clarify whether the
> > tip includes any nose-mounted pitots or probes.
> >
> > I'm specifically thinking about the TSR2 here, which has a nose mounted
> Including prop cones sounds fine. I'm not sure about the three inch limit
> though - one of the later B-52 experimental a/c had a long probe attached
to
> it, that looked thicker than 3" but I'd be inclined not to use that as the
> reference point, but use the nose location on a standard a/c.
>
Lee Elliott wrote:
Heh - it seem to me that most of the kids here (UK) just speak pretty bad
english;)
That depends on how you look at it. You could say that english is whatever
english speaking people are speaking these days. Or you could flip that
around and come up with some defined structu
70 matches
Mail list logo
