> 2) The high altitude FDM problem: > > Our only spacecraft (Vostok) makes just 150 km altitude, apparently to > prevent it from running into a region where the FDM breaks down. This > isn't nearly high enough to see nice orbit scenes without pushing > gigabytes of textures at the problem. I have not really understood the > reason in detail, but can the JSBSim people comment on that? Is it > possible to get JSBSim to fly up to 3000 km, or to otherwise address > this problem?
Hi, Thorsten, Nice work. You ought to be able to initialize any vehicle at any altitude (up to and even beyond 3000 km). At this time, only the Vostok has control jets, as far as I know. Getting the initial conditions correct might take some thought and trials. If I have time over the next few days maybe I can come up with some initial conditions. I know how to specify these conditions in JSBSim, where we can select any of a number of reference frames, but I'm not sure how to have control over initial conditions in FlightGear. Specifying true airspeed certainly won't work. ;-) > 3) Other Spacecraft: > > We currently have the X-15 (reaches barely 100 km and is in fact better > with the default rendering engine), SpaceShip-1 (doesn't really fly, > the rocket engine lacks the power to get anywhere, is also just a > modern X-15), the Vostok (see above) and a Space Shuttle FDM. > > Given the Space Shuttle FDM and the discussion of Space Shuttle SRBs in > the JSBSim model, it may just a wild stab in the dark, but does Jon > have a complete flight-worthy Space Shuttle FDM somewhere? Our space shuttle orbiter model (from many years ago) is incomplete, and based on limited data from publicly available tech reports. I do have a "J246" model that is a launch vehicle designed to place heavy payloads into orbit. That is incomplete, and awaiting some simple guidance for the upper stage to try and get it into orbit from the launch pad. A couple of years ago Robin Gerard made a 3D model of that, as well as the pad. It will be nice to see that fly someday. > It's one of the things I would like to fly at some point. Now there is > something to see in orbit, so maybe that makes it more interesting for > 3d modellers and FDM developers to work on some more spacecraft? It's a > bit of a chicken and egg problem, modelling orbital rendering isn't > really so exciting without a way to fly there, modelling spacecraft > isn't interesting without rendering - but I think there is progress. > Right now, with Earthview FG looks better than Orbiter out of the box, > although Orbiter has the support for hires texturing. But when you > descend, Flightgear has a whole planet modelled in really high detail > to offer :-) I'm glad to see more effort being put towards this. I think it could be a lot of fun, and educational, too. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
