* Jim Wilson -- Thursday 20 May 2004 01:46:
Melchior FRANZ said:
Here's a small MetaPost file that I used to make the Bo105 rotor tacho
(which is totally made up; need some expert advice first):
Check out:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/438320/L/
Hey, very cool. The best cockpit
* Roy Vegard Ovesen -- Wednesday 19 May 2004 22:22:
http://home.tiscali.no/rvovesen/fuel.png (19,964 bytes)
Nice! With the MetaPost user number at least doubling within just one day
I'd say that this is now the preferred way to make instrument faces. ;-)
* Melchior FRANZ -- Thursday 20 May 2004 09:37:
What I would [...]:
(1) [...]
(2) [...]
(2) [...]
(3) [...]
And finally:
(7) learn to count
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi. I should probably be asking this in atlas-devel, but at first
glance it looks pretty dead there; and I'm guessing someone here
has encountered this, or can easily.
I recently built Atlas from CVS (that took some work, but that's a
different conversation). I then set about generating maps,
* Josh Babcock -- Thursday 20 May 2004 01:01:
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 19:09, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
http://members.aon.at/mfranz/tach.mp (1.9kB)
[instrument faces created with MetaPost]
Ok, this stuff looks really cool, but I am encountering a pretty steep learning
curve with MetaPost.
Jim Wilson wrote
Andy Ross said:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Performance: max = 437mph at combat emergency power at 25000ft,
413mph at 15000ft, 395mph at 5000ft, cruising speed 362mph, climb
rate 3475 ft/min. Service ceiling 41,900ft.
How much is combat emergency power? The
BTW: this is my little transparency trick: in my fgfs.mp library file I have this:
color foreground, transparent;
background:=black;
transparent:=white;
white:=255/256white;
foreground:=white;
which lets white actually be written as 254/254/254 ... white enough (who needs true
On 5/17/04 at 12:58 PM Chris Metzler wrote:
At any rate, as far as manually placing them and putting that
capability in TaxiDraw, sure, that'd be cool! In the short-term,
though, I have another request: a scrollbar slider for the taxiway
list brought up with the z key.
You can use numpad 9
Jon Berndt wrote:
Thanks, David. There are a couple of things I can think of to do, here. One is that I
sure
wish I had time to make a DATCOM model of the C-172 that could give me some aero data
for
comparison. But with my schedule now I can't make any promises, but I will get to this
someday!
Jon Berndt wrote:
Given these numbers I'd suspect that if there is a problem, perhaps we need to review
our
MoI's.
That makes a lot of sense -- I was worried that the damping numbers were
masking a different problem.
All the best,
David
___
That is a tricky issue, because using spring-loaded controllers gives a
significantly different feel than fully-loaded aircraft controls, and there
is always a danger of altering the flight characteristics to compensate for
the control differences.
FWIW, I sent an email to Cessna customer
On Thursday 20 May 2004 08:13, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Looks like Maik's rotor RPM numbers are off
(442 RPM). I can't make sense of the dual tacho.
What doesn't make sense?
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone on the
list. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
Many of the spams are arriving with Curt's e-mail address spoofed on them,
and unfortunately, baron.me.umn.edu seems happy to relay them for
David Megginson wrote:
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone
on the list. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
Many of the spams are arriving with Curt's e-mail address spoofed on
them, and unfortunately, baron.me.umn.edu seems
Melchior FRANZ said:
* Jim Wilson -- Thursday 20 May 2004 01:46:
Melchior FRANZ said:
Here's a small MetaPost file that I used to make the Bo105 rotor tacho
(which is totally made up; need some expert advice first):
Check out:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/438320/L/
Hey,
I think I found another bug in the animation code. Here is a snippet of the
xml. This code (with the comment) causes both of the right hand objects to move
when the right brake is applied. This does not happen to the left pedal arm
since I commented out the left pedal from the rudder
* Al West -- Thursday 20 May 2004 14:43:
On Thursday 20 May 2004 08:13, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Looks like Maik's rotor RPM numbers are off
(442 RPM). I can't make sense of the dual tacho.
What doesn't make sense?
The ticks are labeled from 0 to 140, with a lot of colored marks around
100.
* Jim Wilson -- Thursday 20 May 2004 15:18:
The rotor can exceed the drive shaft speed (e.g. autorotation). Is that what
you are asking?
No, I couldn't see where 442 would fit into that scale, and what 140 should
stand for (140 RPM? ... too low; or 14000 RPM? ... too high), but ...
Those
Curtis L. Olson said:
David Megginson wrote:
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone
on the list. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
Many of the spams are arriving with Curt's e-mail address spoofed on
them, and
Josh Babcock said:
I think I found another bug in the animation code. Here is a snippet of the
xml. This code (with the comment) causes both of the right hand objects to
move
when the right brake is applied. This does not happen to the left pedal arm
since I commented out the left pedal
Melchior FRANZ wrote
* Jim Wilson -- Thursday 20 May 2004 15:18:
The rotor can exceed the drive shaft speed (e.g. autorotation). Is
that what you are asking?
No, I couldn't see where 442 would fit into that scale, and
what 140 should stand for (140 RPM? ... too low; or 14000
Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson said:
David Megginson wrote:
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone
on the list. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
Many of the spams are arriving with Curt's e-mail
On Thursday 20 May 2004 14:02, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Al West -- Thursday 20 May 2004 14:43:
On Thursday 20 May 2004 08:13, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Looks like Maik's rotor RPM numbers are off
(442 RPM). I can't make sense of the dual tacho.
What doesn't make sense?
The ticks are
I hope not to be late with my suggestions for the upcoming FG newsletter.
Title:
Higher, Faster, Farther. But Simulated.
I think this reflects what FG is all about: aviation and simulation
Size Format Frequency:
Looking at JSBSim newsletter, I think that's pretty cool: 4 pages (no
Jim Wilson wrote:
Josh Babcock said:
I think I found another bug in the animation code. Here is a snippet of the
xml. This code (with the comment) causes both of the right hand objects to
move
when the right brake is applied. This does not happen to the left pedal arm
since I commented out
* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 20 May 2004 16:07:
Melchior FRANZ wrote
only the rotor hand, though, because there's no turbine RPM
in YASim (?). Maybe I'll make the turbine RPM up with Nasal ...
[...]
N1 N2 ?
Yes, but there's no way to start/stop the turbines in YASim, so the
values don't
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
hh ... now that makes sense. I couldn't read the word PERCENT. I guess
one needs to be native English speaker to be able to decipher that. OK, I'll
do this instrument now -- only the rotor hand, though, because there's no
turbine RPM in YASim (?). Maybe I'll make the
Melchior FRANZ wrote
* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 20 May 2004 16:07:
Melchior FRANZ wrote
only the rotor hand, though, because there's no turbine RPM
in YASim (?). Maybe I'll make the turbine RPM up with Nasal ...
[...]
N1 N2 ?
Yes, but there's no way to start/stop the turbines
* Vivian Meazza -- Thursday 20 May 2004 17:00:
[turbine RPM]
They go from idle to max, isn't that enough?
no
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 05:17, David Megginson wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
Thanks, David. There are a couple of things I can think of to do, here. One is
that I sure
wish I had time to make a DATCOM model of the C-172 that could give me some aero
data for
comparison. But with my schedule
OK, here's a new version, just so you can see how easy instrument face
creation with MetaPost is. Note that there's a function @() defined, that
maps the real instrument angles to MetaPost angles. So I could directly
input all the values as I saw them on the cockpit photo. Also, the
program
David Luff wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where the acceptable number of segments / amount of
detail trade-off will end up. Jon Stockill has done some very detailed UK
military layouts with hundreds of segments to show all the dispersal areas,
but I don't think he's submitted them yet. So far the
Vivian Meazza said:
Josh Babcock wrote:
I think I found another bug in the animation code. Here is a
snippet of the
xml. This code (with the comment) causes both of the right
hand objects to move
when the right brake is applied. This does not happen to the
left pedal
On Thursday 20 May 2004 08:43, Chris Metzler wrote:
Hi. I should probably be asking this in atlas-devel, but at first
glance it looks pretty dead there; and I'm guessing someone here
has encountered this, or can easily.
I recently built Atlas from CVS (that took some work, but that's a
On Thursday 20 May 2004 13:51, David Megginson wrote:
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone on the
list. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
Many of the spams are arriving with Curt's e-mail address spoofed on them,
and
Lee Elliott wrote:
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone on the
list. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
These e-mails almost certainly have spoofed 'From' addresses and just about
the only thing you can be sure of is that they
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:34:02 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
I'm under a serious spam attack from an infected computer of someone
on thelist. Here is where the spam is originating:
user-24-214-247-18.knology.net
These e-mails almost certainly have
David Megginson wrote:
The worst b*ds in this whole mess are [...] the enterprise
anti-virus software vendors, who sell systems that automatically
send useless virus warnings every time a message like this comes.
Either
(a) they're complete idiots who couldn't be trusted with the
On Thursday 20 May 2004 8:48 pm, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:34:02 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip If
anyone one the list has the IP address 24.214.247.18 right now and is
unfortunate enough to use Windows and Outlook, please disconnect your
ethernet
On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:26:39 +0100
Jonathan Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 May 2004 8:48 pm, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:34:02 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip If
anyone one the list has the IP address 24.214.247.18 right now and
Andy Ross wrote:
(a) they're complete idiots who couldn't be trusted with the
washroom key at a gas station, much less corporate network security;
Would this be a good time to point out that my day job is at McAfee
Security (the artist formerly known as Network Associates)? :)
OK, I'll revise that
Well, I got a note back from Cessna and (as I pretty much expected)
they were tight-lipped about supplying any aero/mass props data,
saying instead that the owner's manual was about all I could get.
After thinking about this some more, there are three possibilities I
can see for any perceived
Hi Jim,
I was the one who asked this question but when i tried to implement the
solution it resulted in the same flight behaviour. I will detail the
changes i implemented so you can see if i did anything incorrectly.
1) I changed, in file Aircraft/c172/c172-610x-null-set.xml,
Hi
I posted a message that adjusting the offset for the side windows is not working with
the new version. Curt suggested a method. (See the attachment). What he suggested
works for the pitch axis, but not for the heading. I tried both the Linux and Windows
version, but nothing works. Would
On Thursday 20 May 2004 23:50, Seamus Thomas Carroll wrote:
Hi Jim,
I was the one who asked this question but when i tried to implement the
solution it resulted in the same flight behaviour. I will detail the
changes i implemented so you can see if i did anything incorrectly.
1) I changed,
Jon S Berndt wrote:
3) This one just occurred to me: I wonder if the control inputs from
stick and rudder are linear? Or, are they perhaps graduated?
The controller devices can be all over the place, but as I mentioned, I'm
trying to factor that out -- for example, I'm looking at how the
On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:48:13 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you might have been onto something with the moments of inertia: our
current IXX, IYY, and IZZ apply to a Cessna 182, which is a heavier plane
than a 172, though with the same wing area and wingspan. Here are
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Well, I got a note back from Cessna and (as I pretty much expected)
they were tight-lipped about supplying any aero/mass props data,
saying instead that the owner's manual was about all I could get.
You could always send up a volunteer to do some flight testing. :-)
Don't
Jon S Berndt wrote:
I'm not sure I see how the 182 figures into this. Higher values for MoI
will make the aircraft slower to react to control inputs, and slower to
react to damping. From your discussion yesterday I got the feeling that
you were stating that the 172 was too wild - i.e. it was
2) The MoIs are too low. This is possible - I have not yet checked
these out, but again I believe we will find these numbers to be pretty
good.
I have access to a commercial C172 model that has been FAA certified for
a level 3 FTD. I wish I could share more of it, but I will say that
Relevant technical reports (I think the C-172 is included in this report):
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1966/Bib/H-451.html
Abstract: A review of existing criteria indicated that the criteria have not kept pace
with aircraft development in the areas of dutch roll, adverse yaw, effective
Thanks Roy,
I looked at the post and it is dated the day i left so i must have missed
it. I would like the autopilot to adjust to new waypoints faster but I do
not know how to make the plane turn quicker using the generic autopilot.
Looking at the documentation i am guessing i need to modify
On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:54:51 +0100
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 May 2004 08:43, Chris Metzler wrote:
So it seems that 1024x1024 files are the problem. Does anyone else
see this with a current Atlas from CVS? Any suggestions on what I
can do to fix this? Obviously
Are we using spline for the taxi way at the moment?
Regards,
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
54 matches
Mail list logo
