On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Contrapezist wrote:
[snip]
>
> "Austin, you might want to contact the FlightGear folks (the developers
> list specifically). There are text base services those machines could
> perform, like multi-player & map servers and maybe even a TerraGear
> generation farm."
>
>
Welcome
Hi Vivian,
Thanks for confirming those numbers. I have one more question for you. I
am playing around with the "nimitz_demo" ai scenario.
I see that the carrier is turning, rather than following a fixed course.
/ai/models/carrier/controls/in-to-wind = false
/ai/models/carrier/controls/base-cou
Hello all,
I hope you will excuse the intrusion it was suggested I make my way in here,
more on that in a bit. I'm a FlightGear user and a terrrible one at that. I
just enjoy playing with the interfacing (simpit if you will) so really a
hardware guy and have no claim to be a programmer just a bi
hi guys,
I had to evaluate this "stack-overflow" like system for a client..
So I installed one for flightgear for evaluation..
it here atmo
http://faq.freeflightsim.org/
Its easily customisable with the admin interface.. and its in "bootstrap"
mode at the moment which means that the votes can b
Hi Curt,
Found it:
http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/CV_environ/00-80T-104--LSO%20NATOPS.pdf
This might help, or you could just fly the ball
Vivian
-Original Message-
From: Vivian Meazza [mailto:vivian.mea...@lineone.net]
Sent: 03 December 2010 20:22
To: 'FlightGear dev
Hi Curt,
Yes the centerline offset for the Nimitz/FLOLS is 8 deg, and the optimum
glideslope is 3.5. The FLOLS visible glideslope arc is 1.7 deg.
If you fly the ball you should hit # 3 wire.
I got that from a reference I have here.
Vivian.
-Original Message-
From: Curtis Ols
Le 03/12/2010 20:28, Curtis Olson a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote:
1. 9 degrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier
2. 3-4 degrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your reply
Hi Curtis,
Have a look at
http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=37.070833,-76.48&ie=UTF8&ll=36.99374,-76.447989&spn=0.003051,0.006866&z=18
IMHO this is a nimitz class carrier, top down.
I measured with gimp: It is exaktly 9 degrees. ;-)
cheers
Olaf
Am 03.12.2010 20:28, schrieb Curtis Olson
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jan Mattsson wrote:
> 1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier
> 2. 3-4 degrees:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations
>
>
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your reply. What I'm wondering though is for the FlightGear
Nim
1. 9 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier
2. 3-4 degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_US_Navy_carrier_operations
/JanM
2010/12/3 Curtis Olson :
> I have a couple questions about the Nimitz for the carrier folks:
> 1. What is the exact angle offset of the lan
I have a couple questions about the Nimitz for the carrier folks:
1. What is the exact angle offset of the landing deck from the carrier
heading. It appears to be about 8 degrees, but maybe I'd like to be more
accurate than that if possible.
2. What is the ideal glide slope angle for flying the
Martin Spott wrote:
> Formerly there were _multiple_ different priority lists hardcoded into
> the source code. This has now been separated into two text files to be
> referenced via "--usgs-map=" and "--priorities=", [...]
http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl?p=terragear-cs;a=blob;f
Martin Spott wrote:
> Yup. The new machine is already alive (the web map should be available)
> but I'm still awaiting a chance to sync the latest changes from the old
> hardware before I'm going to declare the transition as being complete.
Ok, I _think_ the GIT mirror on the new machine is funct
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Thorsten R. wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
>
>> In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria:
>> - FDM
>> - Systems
>> - Cockpit
>> - External Model.
>
> It sounds very neat and if a large fraction of aircraft ends up rated that
> way, then I'll
> Nevertheless, I am not persuaded. Your rating is based on: "Four legs
> good, two legs bad!". While that may be generally true, it will throw up
> many anomalies, and the problem is you neither know which these are,
> nor how many, because you haven't and can't properly test your hypothesis.
Fir
Thorsten
> -Original Message-
> From:.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 02 December 2010 10:58
> To: vivian.mea...@lineone.net; FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
>
> > My point is your rating was based on
16 matches
Mail list logo
