Jon Berndt wrote:
We're not tricking ourselves into anything. Like we have mentioned numerous
times before: We are providing the 3D model with a location in space where a
known point should be co-located with. We still do (and always have) provide
phi, theta, and psi, which are the same regardle
Jon Berndt wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
Model Reference Point (MRP): This is the reference point that is agreed
upon by both the aircraft modeler and the 3D model builder.
I'd vote for calling it the "Visual Model Reference Point" because the
term model can still be used for the 3d model and he flig
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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 o
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
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
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
This is high on my todo list, but it will involve a substantial amount
of effort to do correctly. There is no trivial fix to be had here.
Actually there's little need for a real, perfect system. I thought
about making my own crude VASI, a row of red then a row of white.
Martin Spott wrote:
I'm not shure if the current configurable serial interface is capable
to do bit-mangling and I'm quite confident that it lacks support for
checksumming. But this may come in the future,
Thanks actually that looks pretty good, and is really close to the
register then data for
Manuel Bessler wrote:
you mean for the microcontroller side ?
Hmm that could have been read the other way from what I meant. Nope
I do PICs that side is trivial for me. Just figured someone already
working inside FG could add a serial driver and serial.XML far faster
than I could.
I have w
Andy Ross wrote:
RS232 is an async protocol, there's no need for any synchronization in
the application (that's what the "start bit" is for). Just send the
data you want and it will come out the other side. If you saw an
It's for byte sync not bit sync.
application doing this in the past, it's
Anyone up for making a serial device? I only do a little programming
on the PC side of things, so am not currently up to the task I think.
Needs sync bytes, something like this is common:
FF FF 0 axis1 0 axis2 0 axis3 etc.
Really just check the high bit, 2 set in a row is the sync, then a
http://home.nc.rr.com/alan69/FlightGear/Rudder3/
Nearing completion on the basic prototype, last pic shows the
construction best. Angle was a bit steep for a desk chair, so added
screws to set the angle. Will change the cuts instead later. There are
eight 1' sections, may just use a single
Manuel Bessler wrote:
Hi Alan,
http://home.nc.rr.com/alan69/FlightGear/
Uploaded a few more pics. Rudder01 to 04 are current pics. The
bellcrank board is a section from one of my old heli rotor blades, and
just fishing line to screws at the rear of the guide plates. No real
need for rods,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Alan King writes:
The FAA defines tolerances that a sim builder needs to meet in order
to be certified. Control forces are something they definitely pay
attention to. Rudder force for some manuever might need to be within
5 lbs of the real thing for instance. But if it
Matthew Law wrote:
On 14:52 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote:
Also I'm assuming the yoke on most planes has a bit more throw than
+-2", but that's about the limit of what's practical with my current
hardware so it'll probably do ok. I could get 6" travel or
David Megginson wrote:
Alan King wrote:
It depends on what you're doing. Control feedback is pretty critical
for basic stick-and-rudder flying (that's one of the reasons that flying
a plane in FlightGear is so much harder than in real life). For pure
recreation, or for instrumen
David Megginson wrote:
Matthew Law wrote:
That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much
throw is
> available on his aircraft?
This is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure. I think of the rudder
pedals in terms of pressure rather than movement -- to get that in a
s
Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna
etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation
between the pedals 4" seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have
2" in and 2" out for the 4" total, but can easily shorten it up, feels
like I'd have
Andy Ross wrote:
I've never looked at the kernel source. Presumably this would be a
trivial fix, no?
As always, write it and see.. :)
A keyboard can be interrogated. A mouse outputs constant data and/or
can be interrogated. A standard joystick does.. nothing. It can look
like it's the
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Take a look at www.opengc.org. All the stuff to build the displays is there.
You'll have to write your own routines for specific F-16 displays. And there
is an interface to FG you can tweak to meet your requirements.
I think I've convinced myself to not even work on it fo
Manuel Bessler wrote:
Hi Alan,
Do you have more pictures of your CNC ?
Is the part that the steppers are mounted on some kind of plastic ?
I'd like to see more pics of the details how you built your CNC :)
Not yet, and yes they're 50 cent plastic electrical boxes for mounts.
You can set the
Jon Berndt wrote:
I can't find it.
You might need to register with O'Reilly to see the article.
Jon
Nah it works for me, but I also looked past it at first. Just say
'It's in the three ad's at the top of the text, right one." Looks so
much like an ad instead of a link many won't see it..
Manuel Bessler wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:40:54AM -0500, Alan King wrote:
>time. Just show those (mostly ignorant) MSFS crowds what flightgear can
>do :-)
Just joined the list myself and this was one of only a few main
reasons. I was drawing up homemade control system hardwar
> Maybe
>we're just a few doing flightgear, but that'll certainly change over
>time. Just show those (mostly ignorant) MSFS crowds what flightgear can
>do :-)
Just joined the list myself and this was one of only a few main
reasons. I was drawing up homemade control system hardware this afternoo
31 matches
Mail list logo
