On Fri 6 July 2007 01:41, John Denker wrote:
> On 07/05/2007 06:57 PM, gh.robin wrote:
> > When i opened that topic , it was to know if we could hope any FG update
> > to get an altitude instrument which can be able to indicate more than
> > 61000 ft.
> >
> > We have had a lot of discussion on it
On Fri 6 July 2007 01:41, John Denker wrote:
> On 07/05/2007 06:57 PM, gh.robin wrote:
> > When i opened that topic , it was to know if we could hope any FG update
> > to get an altitude instrument which can be able to indicate more than
> > 61000 ft.
> >
> > We have had a lot of discussion on it
On 07/05/2007 06:57 PM, gh.robin wrote:
When i opened that topic , it was to know if we could hope any FG update to
get an altitude instrument which can be able to indicate more than 61000 ft.
We have had a lot of discussion on it , but nothing which could give the right
answer.
Do we have
On Mon 18 June 2007 10:06, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> John Denker wrote:
> > If you want to know exactly why FGFS poops out at approximately
> > 62,000 feet, look at line 88 of Environment/environment.cxx
> >
> >You can contrast that with the ISA table that goes up to 278,000
> >feet as found
John Denker wrote:
> That's an interesting question.
>
> So there's not a clean division between "instrumentation" and
> "other".
>
> 2) But wait, there's more. The FDM's model of the atmosphere
> model is blissfully ignorant of the properties of the actual
> air mass. If you change the local ba
John
> Sent: 18 June 2007 10:41
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument-altimeter unable
> to indicate altitude above 61831 feet
>
>
> On 06/18/2007 04:06 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
>
snip
>
> 4) By the way, did you ev
John Denker a écrit :
> 4) By the way, did you ever wonder what "osi" means, in the context
> of the mp-osi property? The only documentation I can find on the
> subject is here:
>
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-May/017373.html
> The only problem is that it is 100%
On Mon 18 June 2007 10:06, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> John Denker wrote:
> > If you want to know exactly why FGFS poops out at approximately
> > 62,000 feet, look at line 88 of Environment/environment.cxx
> >
> >You can contrast that with the ISA table that goes up to 278,000
> >feet as found
On 06/18/2007 04:06 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
>> If you want to know exactly why FGFS poops out at approximately
>> 62,000 feet, look at line 88 of Environment/environment.cxx
> Just for my understanding: this table is only used for instrumentation,
> isn't it?
> Both JSBSim and YASim have their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
John Denker wrote:
> If you want to know exactly why FGFS poops out at approximately
> 62,000 feet, look at line 88 of Environment/environment.cxx
>
>You can contrast that with the ISA table that goes up to 278,000
>feet as found e.g. at th
On 06/16/2007 09:12 PM, gh.robin wrote:
> I notice a some strange behaviours with the Instrument Altimeter
> The Instrument Altimeter is unable to indicate more than 61831 feet
>
> Here the snapshot of property:
>instrument/altimeter/indicated-altitude-ft==> 61831
>position/altitude
Hello,
I notice a some strange behaviours with the Instrument Altimeter
The Instrument Altimeter is unable to indicate more than 61831 feet
Here the snapshot of property:
instrument/altimeter/indicated-altitude-ft==> 61831
position/altitude-ft ==> 75793
http://perso.orange.fr/GR
12 matches
Mail list logo
