Tony Peden writes:
> On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 19:53, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > I agree with Michael though that whatever we do with respect to
> > providing motion queues through the visual system should be user
> > selectable. Any time your eyes (visuals) disagree with your butt
>
> eh, hem
Michael Selig writes:
> Sounds useful. Can I suggest that this feature be enabled/disabled at the
> option of the user?
Yes -- that's why I mentioned it should be optional. It would make no
sense if FlightGear were hooked up to a full-motion sim (or even just
a moving chair).
All the best,
On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 19:53, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> I agree with Michael though that whatever we do with respect to
> providing motion queues through the visual system should be user
> selectable. Any time your eyes (visuals) disagree with your butt
eh, hemm. Inner ear.
> (motion) you risk ge
I agree with Michael though that whatever we do with respect to
providing motion queues through the visual system should be user
selectable. Any time your eyes (visuals) disagree with your butt
(motion) you risk getting the user sick. Some people are a lot more
sensitive to this than others. Peo
Just to add my two cents, the eyepoint motion sounds like an interesting way
to add some cues to make up for the cues missing in a motionless sim. Only
small movement in the x and y planes would suffice to provide the cues.
There is some movement in the z axis, mainly from the springiness of t
At 2/7/03, David Megginson wrote:
For the cockpit view, it might be interested to add optional
acceleration effects to make up for the lack of full motion -- I think
I first noticed this trick in Battle of Britain. The FDMs already
publish the required information in the property tree:
/accele
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:21:20 -0500,
"James A. Treacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I forgot another possible effect: spinal compression. This one, if
> necessary, can almost certainly be considered as being uncoupled from
> any head rotations.
>
> delta z = z-accel
Norman Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Wilson writes:
> >
> > My recommendation would be to model this head thing, probably in its own
> > class, and then publish data in the position or orientation path that the
> > viewer would read in.
> >
> > We could have a class FGPilot with properti
I forgot another possible effect: spinal compression. This one, if
necessary, can almost certainly be considered as being uncoupled from
any head rotations.
delta z = z-accel / Kspine
Also, it may be that the equation for pitch of the head is too simple
as the two terms can cancel each other out(
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:00:41 -0500
"James A. Treacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:43:59AM -0800, Andy Ross
wrote:
Since I imagine that a jet fighter can generate head motion due to
both linear acceleration and pitch I've included both terms for head
pitch.
The accelerati
Jim Wilson writes:
>
> My recommendation would be to model this head thing, probably in its own
> class, and then publish data in the position or orientation path that the
> viewer would read in.
>
> We could have a class FGPilot with properties:
Which is just a 'classic' rigid body'
>
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:43:59AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
>
> Why not just model the "head" as a highly damped spring? You'd need
> to fiddle with the constants a little to make it look right, but once
> it's fixed up it should work right for all heads. :)
Since this is simply a visual effect,
Hmmm...not sure how that happened but this message got away from me half finished.
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Andy Ross writes:
>
> > I'd give this more general idea a shot first, before trying
> > axis-specific code.
>
> The axis-specific stuff is easier for me to understan
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Andy Ross writes:
>
> > I'd give this more general idea a shot first, before trying
> > axis-specific code.
>
> The axis-specific stuff is easier for me to understand -- perhaps
> someone with a stronger physics background could work with Jim to do a
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:29:34 -0500
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andy Ross writes:
> I'd give this more general idea a shot first, before
trying
> axis-specific code.
The axis-specific stuff is easier for me to understand --
perhaps
someone with a stronger physics background cou
Andy Ross writes:
> I'd give this more general idea a shot first, before trying
> axis-specific code.
The axis-specific stuff is easier for me to understand -- perhaps
someone with a stronger physics background could work with Jim to do a
generalized, spring implementation.
All the best,
Da
Andy Ross writes:
> [Chiming in because the subject is cool, and because I'm currently
> stuck debugging a parser that is giving me fits and need a break.]
>
> David Megginson wrote:
> > For the cockpit view, it might be interested to add optional
> > acceleration effects to make up for the
[Chiming in because the subject is cool, and because I'm currently
stuck debugging a parser that is giving me fits and need a break.]
David Megginson wrote:
> For the cockpit view, it might be interested to add optional
> acceleration effects to make up for the lack of full motion -- I think
> I
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:51:29 -0500
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the cockpit view, it might be interested to add
optional
acceleration effects to make up for the lack of full
motion -- I think
I first noticed this trick in Battle of Britain. The
FDMs already
publish the requir
For the cockpit view, it might be interested to add optional
acceleration effects to make up for the lack of full motion -- I think
I first noticed this trick in Battle of Britain. The FDMs already
publish the required information in the property tree:
/accelerations/pilot/x-accel-fps_sec
/ac
20 matches
Mail list logo
