Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 21:00 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> Jon Stockill wrote:
> > Gerard Robin wrote:
> >
> >> Sand MINE 2.O
> >> 0.1
> >>
> >> Sand FG 0.1
> >> 0.1
> >
> >
> > That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make
Jon Stockill wrote:
Gerard Robin wrote:
Sand MINE 2.O
0.1
Sand FG 0.1
0.1
That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make
sense for an aircraft with wheels landing on a beach strip.
I had my doubts about this also. This
Gerard Robin wrote:
Sand MINE 2.O
0.1
Sand FG 0.1
0.1
That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make
sense for an aircraft with wheels landing on a beach strip.
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 19:17 +0200, Gerard Robin a écrit :
> Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> > Gerard Robin wrote:
> >
> > >>If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me.
> > >>Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing.
> >
> >
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
>
> >>If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me.
> >>Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing.
>
> > OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion?
>
> It w
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
>
> >>If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me.
> >>Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing.
>
> > OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion?
>
> It w
Gerard Robin wrote:
If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me.
Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing.
OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion?
It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to
be the o
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 16:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
> > Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> >
> >>Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> >>
> >>>Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are
> >>>also
> >>>other materials such
Gerard Robin wrote:
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also
other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut
across the grass in any airport wi
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also
> other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut
> across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours
> should bring some consequences.
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit :
> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> > Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are
> > also
> > other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut
> > across the grass in any airport without
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also
other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut
across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours
should bring some consequences. =)
T
Gerard Robin wrote:
The new 3D clouds are a good exemple of programming ressource, which
could be used to simulate random waves ( i will get god lightnings or
rather devil fires, if i continu in that way ).
What I was referring to was moving masses of water. Simulating water
sparkles is not
Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also
other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut
across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours
should bring some consequences. =)
Ampere
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:11:42 +0200, Gerard wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It was said that we do not have to make the Hollywood quality movie
> and i agree.
..we have enough to get funding for the missing bits. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with
> > > > > If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are
> > > > > welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but
> > > > > I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics.
> > > >
> > > > ...then we have the waves made by the aircraft floats. ;o)
> > >
> > > Y
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:50:21 +0200, Gerard wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 01:13 +0200, Gerard Robin a écrit :
> > Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 à 22:07 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a écrit :
> > > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Le samedi 11 juin 2005 à 09:24 -0700, Andy Ross a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
> > with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About
> > retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big
> > problems .
>
> I'm not understanding this at all; JSBSim and YASim
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 à 01:13 +0200, Gerard Robin a écrit :
> Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 à 22:07 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a écrit :
> > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > > > Ampere K. Hardraa
Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 à 22:07 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a écrit :
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> > > > I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the c
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> > > I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a
> > > tropical island, look down and be able to see the white san
On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> > I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical
> > island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or
> > flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical
island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or
flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =)
Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effect
"Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote:
> I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical
> island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water...
I think we could already get this by exploring the "shallow water"
attribute in the VMAP data well, I could be wr
On June 11, 2005 06:07 pm, Oliver C. wrote:
> I agree with the terrain.
> But i think that airplanes need to be able to sink after they crash. :)
> So the best way would be to make the terrain and watersurfaces independent
> from each other.
> This would also have some positive side effects because
On Saturday 11 Jun 2005 16:35, Andy Ross wrote:
> Lee Elliott wrote:
> > One problem with using YASim for sea planes is that the
> > fuselage mustn't contact the surface as this equates to a
> > crash. While I was experimenting with the SR45 I found that
> > I had to omit the lower fuselage deck t
On Friday 10 June 2005 20:27, Dave Culp wrote:
> This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
>
> If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
I agree with the terrain.
But i think that airplanes need to b
Le samedi 11 juin 2005 à 09:24 -0700, Andy Ross a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
> > with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About
> > retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big
> > problems .
>
> I'm not understanding this at all; JSBSim and YASim
> Andy wrote:
>
> whereas YASim allows different gear object
> to retract independently.
!!!
... now there's a thought. Hmmm. I feel a feature request coming for JSBSim. :-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
ht
Gerard Robin wrote:
> with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About
> retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big
> problems .
I'm not understanding this at all; JSBSim and YASim have all but
identical* gear systems. Can you please post the YASim c
Le samedi 11 juin 2005 à 08:39 -0700, Andy Ross a écrit :
> Gerard Robin wrote:
> > I could not use JSB (no rotor FDM) and with the use of Yasim it has
> > been very difficult to find the right way which make that model to
> > stand correctly on water with gear-up.
> >
> > To answer that, JSBSim gi
Gerard Robin wrote:
> I could not use JSB (no rotor FDM) and with the use of Yasim it has
> been very difficult to find the right way which make that model to
> stand correctly on water with gear-up.
>
> To answer that, JSBSim gives a better flexibility.
Both JSBSim and YASim use manually placed g
Lee Elliott wrote:
> One problem with using YASim for sea planes is that the fuselage
> mustn't contact the surface as this equates to a crash. While I
> was experimenting with the SR45 I found that I had to omit the
> lower fuselage deck to achieve this, which must then affect the
> flying accura
Dave Culp wrote:
> This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
No, this is not a misunderstanding. Probably your conclusion of "we
need to avoid such a situation" is different from mine. I would not
want to let aircra
Le samedi 11 juin 2005 à 10:20 +0100, Lee Elliott a écrit :
> On Friday 10 Jun 2005 22:41, Andy Ross wrote:
> > theoreticle wrote:
> > > Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am
> > > Clipper, that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and
> > > half loaded with fuel. The ac
On Friday 10 Jun 2005 22:41, Andy Ross wrote:
> theoreticle wrote:
> > Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am
> > Clipper, that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and
> > half loaded with fuel. The actual aircraft will sink it's
> > fuselage as far as 5 feet into the wa
> I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems
> pretty non-sensical to me. I don't think any other FDM allows flight
> through material that is denser than air. I've had to put my earth-worm
> simulator on the backburner for now anyway so I don't see this as a very
> u
>I don't think any other FDM allows flight
Well most of them fly through buildings, but that's a different issue. ;)
As far as models go, ground interactions should be aircraft specific,
IMHO, and each aircraft model should create its own instance of
landing gear models and collision points (win
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:44:39 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
>
> >
> > hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
> >
>
> Nope ... they just float a bit lower down than surface ships.
> Hydrofoils fly.
..let's qualify "fly"; both s
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
>
> hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
>
Nope ... they just float a bit lower down than surface ships. Hydrofoils
fly.
Regards,
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.or
By flying under the terrain you means like flying in a tunnel under a
montain ? I think it's improbable.
And how would you manage landing on ground or water if one can fly under
them ?
What happens when the FDM system is used for ground based vehicles that
_could_ enter a tunnel?
g.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:53:23 +0200, Frederic wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dave Culp a écrit :
>
> >This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying
> >under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
> >
> >If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallow
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:36:35 -0400, Josh wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dave Culp wrote:
> > This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying
> > under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
> >
> > If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 17:27 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper, that
> wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with fuel. The
> actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet into the water,
>
theoreticle wrote:
> Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper,
> that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with
> fuel. The actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet
> into the water, perhaps more if landing in 'seas'. There absolutel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I'm new to this, but:
if (PlaneHitsWater()){
if (planesLandingGear == Floats){
checkIfLandingOrAugeringIn();
}
elseif (planesLandingGear == Wheels){
crash == true;
}
}
seems like a reasonable way to do things.
I just found a way to sim
issue and come up with some reasonable rules,
so that it doesn't end up with patch-on-patch-on-patch to deal with the
issue of aircraft intersecting water.
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussion
On Friday 10 Jun 2005 21:20, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
>
>
>
> Ampere
That's an interesting idea:)
Relative viscosity of water must be a bit like super/hyper-sonic
in air but the relative speed-of-sound for the mediums won't
match at al
;Dave Culp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 2:27 PM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] poll
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wan
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 14:19 -0500, Curtis L. Olson a écrit :
> Dave Culp wrote:
>
> >This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> >terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
> >
> >If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
> >
> >
>
> I a
hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Dave Culp a écrit :
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Fly under terrain : no
Fly under bridges : yes
Taxi under hangars : yes
-Fred
_
Dave Culp wrote:
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems
pretty non-sensical
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 13:27 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
>
> If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
>
> Dave
>
That is a good question:-)
OK Air
Dave Culp wrote:
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-d
Dave Culp wrote:
> This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
>
> If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
>
> Dave
>
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
57 matches
Mail list logo
