> ... Is there a summary of its status and maybe recent
> screenshots somewhere ?
AFAIK we have two kinds of carrier available, a static, solid one that you can
land on, and a moving one that isn't solid. Here's a screenshot of the
latter type:
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/saratoga_SFO_
> ... but it didn't move or have effects
> for relative wind, deck motion or the burble around tail and
> superstructure.
Some more info on the AI carrier. I'm not too familiar with the hitlist, but
I believe this is where objects get their solidity. A moving object would
have to interact with
On Montag, 5. Juli 2004 22:47, David Culp wrote:
> > ... but it didn't move or have effects
> > for relative wind, deck motion or the burble around tail and
> > superstructure.
>
> Some more info on the AI carrier. I'm not too familiar with the hitlist,
> but I believe this is where objects get th
Mathias Fröhlich writes:
>
> To implement that efficient, I think that a FGInterface or some class in that
> area should cache this information and should provide an interface that could
> easily used to query some properties of the ground in the area of the
> aircraft.
>
> I wanted to start with
Norman Vine write:
>
> This should be doable using the current hitlist mechanism
> and the current PLib code --untested but something like--
oops typo
> if (entity_hit && entity_hit -> isAKindOf ( ssgLeaf () ) )
this pseudo code should be
ssgEntity *entity_hit = hitlist -> get_e
Mathias Fröhlich wrote
> Sent: 06 July 2004 09:59
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> On Montag, 5. Juli 2004 22:47, David Culp wrote:
> > > ... but it didn't move or have effects
> &g
On Dienstag, 6. Juli 2004 13:48, Norman Vine wrote:
> Norman Vine write:
[pseudocode]
Thanks, that helped very much!
I have hacked together a little proof of concept code of what I described
earlier.
It implements a little triangle cache which consists of a ssgBranch with at
most 10 ssgLeafs e
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Which ssgBranch contains objects like an aircraft carrier?
Special-casing "aircraft carrier" is almost certainly the wrong way to
do this. There is no reason we can't do correct 3D intersection
against the whole scene graph, and the code will be cleaner and
simpler.
The
On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 18:59, Andy Ross wrote:
> The only "special" hardware on the carrier are the arresting wires and
> catapults. It would be easier to just model these and let generic
> intersection code handle the deck intersection stuff.
Yes, this is what I meant.
What I thought of is a
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:12:11 +0200
Mathias Fröhlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 18:59, Andy Ross wrote:
The only "special" hardware on the carrier are the arresting wires
and
catapults. It would be easier to just model these and let generic
intersection code handle the de
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Off the top of my head (and I'm in a real hurry at this second), I think
it would be nice to make it possible to supply the FDMs with a force
vector and point of application - perhaps even a moment vector. Is that
what you are proposing?
Once we support ground reactions with
on 07 July 2004 18:12 Mathias Fröhlich wrote
>
> On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 18:59, Andy Ross wrote:
> > The only "special" hardware on the carrier are the
> arresting wires and
> > catapults. It would be easier to just model these and let generic
> > intersection code handle the
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:12:05 -0400
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Once we support ground reactions with a moving surface (like the deck
of a ship), why not just model the catapult as a faster moving
surface?
That would supply only a sliding friction force to the tires, which
would b
David Megginson wrote:
> Once we support ground reactions with a moving surface (like the
> deck of a ship), why not just model the catapult as a faster moving
> surface?
Because the gear don't simply rest on the catapult to be pulled along
via friction, they're actually bolted to it during the la
Andy Ross wrote
> David Megginson wrote:
> > Once we support ground reactions with a moving surface
> (like the deck
> > of a ship), why not just model the catapult as a faster moving
> > surface?
>
> Because the gear don't simply rest on the catapult to be
> pulled along via friction, th
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> I thought initially that a spring was not the way to go, but I think
> you are picturing a spring that (figuratively) goes from the bow of
> the ship to the nose gear, no?
Actually, I was thinking about a spring centered on the point where
the cat harness "would be" based on
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:50:40 +0100
"Vivian Meazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, bolted? Don't forget that the cat force is adjusted for the
aircraft type and launch weight.
It would have to be modelled as a spring
force acting on the nose gear to be correct. Even that's not
quite good enoug
> Off the top of my head (and I'm in a real hurry at this second), I
> think it would be nice to make it possible to supply the FDMs with a
> force vector and point of application - perhaps even a moment vector.
> Is that what you are proposing?
The last time this topic came up it started out abo
Jon S Berndt wrote
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:50:40 +0100
> "Vivian Meazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hmm, bolted? Don't forget that the cat force is adjusted for the
> >aircraft type and launch weight.
> >
> >It would have to be modelled as a spring
> >> force acting on the nose gear to
On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 21:12, David Megginson wrote:
> Jon S Berndt wrote:
> > Off the top of my head (and I'm in a real hurry at this second), I think
> > it would be nice to make it possible to supply the FDMs with a force
> > vector and point of application - perhaps even a moment vector. Is
On Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2004 00:23, Andy Ross wrote:
> Unfortunately, the same trick won't work for the arrestor wires
> because their "track" isn't fixed, but based on the landing velocity
> of the aircraft.
How do they work on a real carrier?
Is this a velocity dependent friction force applied t
On Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2004 09:50, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> The volume of the steam reservoirs are large in comparison with the volume
> of the cat cylinder, so there is only a slight drop in steam pressure over
> the stroke. As far as simulation is concerned, the cat force could be
> considered to r
On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 21:32, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> It would be a shame if we can't model individual wires, then we could
> experience hook-skip whereby the hook can miss all the wires. A chum of
> mine went around 14 times trying to catch a wire in a Gannet aboard HMS
> Hermes. But I think the
Mathias Fröhlich wrote
>
> On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 21:12, David Megginson wrote:
> > Jon S Berndt wrote:
> > > Off the top of my head (and I'm in a real hurry at this
> second), I
> > > think it would be nice to make it possible to supply the
> FDMs with a
> > > force vector and point o
> It's important to remember that the FDM doesn't know a ship from Shinola.
Very good.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Mathias Fröhlich wrote
> Sent: 08 July 2004 09:58
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> On Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2004 00:23, Andy Ross wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the same trick won't work for th
> In my day they consisted of a pulley system forcing hydraulic fluid through
> orifices. These orifices were adjusted to provide the right decelerating
> force for each aircraft type.
>
> I seem to recall that a disk brake system was proposed. I don't think that
> this was implemented in Royal Nav
> -Original Message-
Mathias Fröhlich asked
> Sent: 08 July 2004 10:12
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> On Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2004 09:50, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > The volume of the st
Mathias Fröhlich wrote
> Sent: 08 July 2004 10:38
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 21:32, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > It would be a shame if we can't model indiv
Jon Berndt wrote
> Sent: 08 July 2004 13:29
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> > In my day they consisted of a pulley system forcing hydraulic fluid
> > through orifices. These orifices were ad
There is a fairly simple, but possibly useful discussion of aircraft carrier take-offs
and landings at How Stuff Works: http://people.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier4.htm
There are even some numbers which might be good for getting a semi-working system.
It looks like each arrestor wire is att
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:03:14 +0100
"Vivian Meazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote
Sent: 08 July 2004 13:29
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
> In my day they consisted of a pulley system forci
Jon S Berndt wrote
> Sent: 08 July 2004 15:09
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:03:14 +0100
> "Vivian Meazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
>
Mathias Fröhlich wrote a long time ago:
> Sent: 08 July 2004 10:38
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> On Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2004 21:32, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > It would be a shame if we can't model
Hi,
On Donnerstag 14 Oktober 2004 17:59, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Mathias Fröhlich wrote a long time ago:
... sadly yes.
> In the next couple of days or so I will have completed a model of a Seafire
> IIIc. It has a functioning hook, so I was set to wondering if there was any
> progress on the arr
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Sent: 18 October 2004 19:38
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Donnerstag 14 Oktober 2004 17:59, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > Mathias Fröhlich wrote a
On Dienstag 19 Oktober 2004 21:23, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > Hmm,
> > I am not satisfied with anything which is only working on a per frame
> > basis.
> > Just because, if so, we will have different bevour of our physical models
> > dependent of the frammerate.
>
> I think I put this bit badly. The
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Sent: 20 October 2004 07:41
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> On Dienstag 19 Oktober 2004 21:23, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > > Hmm,
> > > I am not satisfied with an
>
> I would like to have those positions of the arrester wires not in lat/lon/alt
> but rather than in earth centered coordinates (cartesian coordinates: x
> towards lat/lon=0, z towards northpole). Just because we already have all
> scenery values stored in this format. We have a scenery refere
Norman Vine wrote:
> Sent: 20 October 2004 09:32
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> >
> > I would like to have those positions of the arrester wires not in
> lat/lon/alt
> > but rather t
Vivian Meazza writes:
>
> Norman Vine wrote:
>
> >
> > < soapbox >
> >
> > FWIW using LLZ for anything except using user input / output is a step
> > back to the 'dark ages' of the pre satelite era and the advances in
> > Geodysey of the post Sputnik world.
> >
> > < /soapbox >
>
> Unless that
Norman Vine wrote:
> Sent: 20 October 2004 16:41
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> Vivian Meazza writes:
> >
> > Norman Vine wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > < soapbox >
> &
Vivian Meazza writes:
>
> It would be easy to convert to X,Y,Z coordinates, if I knew the equations
see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
/**
* Convert a geodetic lat/lon/altitude to a cartesian point.
*
* @param lat (in) Latitude, in radians
* @param lon (in) Longitude, in radians
* @
Norman Vine
> Sent: 20 October 2004 18:08
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> Vivian Meazza writes:
> >
> > It would be easy to convert to X,Y,Z coordinates, if I knew the
> equations
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flightgear-devel-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Norman Vine
> Sent: 20 October 2004 09:32
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> >
>
Vivian Meazza writes:
>
> Norman Vine
> >
> > see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
> > void sgGeodToCart(double lat, double lon, double alt, double* xyz);
> >
>
> Not brilliant though. In the
> property tree Lat/Lon is in degrees, and altitude in ft, so that's a 2 step
> conversion.
Well
Norman Vine wrote:
> Sent: 20 October 2004 21:36
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> Vivian Meazza writes:
> >
> > Norman Vine
> > >
> > > see SimGear / simgear / math / sg_geodesy
&
On Mittwoch 20 Oktober 2004 09:49, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> We calculated the output in geodetic terms (lat/long/alt) for submodels so
> that they could be displayed, and it's no problem to output in x,y,z
> aircraft terms. It didn't seem to be expensive computationally. Further,
> lat/long/alt was t
On Mittwoch 20 Oktober 2004 18:11, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> It would be easy to convert to X,Y,Z coordinates, if I knew the equations
> (I have suitable equations for ft to degrees lat/long) or, better, I could
> start in X,Y,Z.
Start with X/Y/Z ...
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias Fröhl
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Sent: 21 October 2004 07:36
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> On Mittwoch 20 Oktober 2004 18:11, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > It would be easy to convert to X,Y,Z coordinates, if I
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Sent: 21 October 2004 07:31
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> On Mittwoch 20 Oktober 2004 09:49, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > We calculated the output in geodetic terms (lat/lo
Mathias Fröhlich writes:
>
> I cannot see a way to model the earths surface with different properties like
> runnway/grass/water with load factor. Moving and rotating triangles for the
> ac carriers deck, and special elements like the wires/catapults.
Easiest way is to add surface property is to u
On Donnerstag 21 Oktober 2004 09:11, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Yesterday I put together some code which outputs the Lat/Lon/Alt of the
> hook tip when extended. Norman Vine kindly pointed me at the SG conversion
> function, so I now have output in X,Y,Z. I'm using great chunks of submodel
> code, much
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flightgear-devel-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mathias Fröhlich
> Sent: 22 October 2004 06:37
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> On Do
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Sent: 22 October 2004 06:37
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of aircraft carrier
>
> On Donnerstag 21 Oktober 2004 09:11, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > Yesterday I put together some code which outputs t
I wrote:
> > > Yesterday I put together some code which outputs the Lat/Lon/Alt of
> the
> > > hook tip when extended. Norman Vine kindly pointed me at the SG
> > conversion
> > > function, so I now have output in X,Y,Z. I'm using great chunks of
> > submodel
> > > code, much of which is redunda
56 matches
Mail list logo
