Bernie Bright wrote:
Compiles okay on Mandrake 9.2/10.0 (glibc-2.3.3 and gcc-3.3.2). However this
should really be tested for by the configure script - AC_CHECK_FUNCS(truncf)
and panel.cxx should then contain:
I'll add a test for it.
Erik
___
Hi All
As one of only a few people who have built an
autopilot for FG.I would ask what the perseved
problems are with the current system.
While I admit there are improvements to be made
What is there is pretty good.
At the risk also of seeming rude I would ask what
experence the people who are
On Mon 26. January 2004 09:06, you wrote:
Hi,
I am in the process of i18n of the Live-CD. I need your assistance here. I
only speek German and my own version of English.
I need the sentence For starting in insert your language here please
type: in all the languages you speak. (Please
Roy wrote:
What's inside the black box? That's what I want to configure.
Innis replied:
Why???.Thats why they are called a black box.
And unless you work for Bendix/King or one of the other black box
manufactures you will never know.After all what is in the black box
is there bread and
I agree with Jon. JSBSim (and possibly others) seems to be a notable
flightdynamics model even in research. It will be better not to restrict
posibilities in the area of modelling planes with their flightcontrol systems
including the autopilots behavour.
Greetings
Mathias
Roy
I am installing Flight Gear and I would like to know if there is someone from Brasil that is currently working on the Flight Gear Project. Yes, there is.
Not exactly working, but using it a lot! I'm creating airport models for brazilian airports now, Congonhas and Cumbica, feel free to contact
Hi Jon
Jon Berndt writes
Most people probably won't care to what level of detail the autopilot
functionality is mechanized in FlightGear. However, once a general purpose
heading A/P is crafted, or a wing leveler, etc., then those items as
specified in a configuration file could be reused. They
On 1/27/04 at 10:30 PM Innis Cunningham wrote:
Also how much more computing power will be required for what ever extra
detail may be involved.A 3D modeller would not even think of modeling the
insides of the engine or every rivit in the aircraft for the obvious
Almost certainly neglible
Innis Cunningham wrote:
This is what I dont understand what is wrong with the current system
which can do heading,V/S,wing leveler,vor/loc(nav),approach,and
autothrottle
are these not accurate enough?.
Also how much more computing power will be required for what ever extra
detail may be
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:13:44 -, Richard Bytheway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be the responsibility of the autopilot designer. If he/she
designed a control structure that used two separate
controllers that acted
on the ailerons, that would be his/her problem.
Bernie Bright wrote:
this should really be tested for by the configure script -
AC_CHECK_FUNCS(truncf) and panel.cxx should then contain:
#ifndef HAVE_TRUNCF
inline float truncf (float d) { ...
#endif
Um, or you could just use floor() instead, which does the same thing
and works everywhere.
Um, or you could just use floor() instead, which does the same thing
and works everywhere.
Unless you fly into someplace below sea level, where the floor of -0.01 is -1.
Dave
--
David Culp
davidculp2[at]comcast.net
This is what I dont understand what is wrong with the current system
which can do heading,V/S,wing
leveler,vor/loc(nav),approach,and autothrottle
are these not accurate enough?.
Also how much more computing power will be required for what
ever extra
detail may be involved.A 3D modeller
[truncf]
* Andy Ross -- Tuesday 27 January 2004 17:09:
Um, or you could just use floor() instead, which does the same thing [...]
That's what I thought at first as well, but then I tried it ...
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unless you fly into someplace below sea level, where the floor of
-0.01 is -1.
And that's wrong? Why?
Mild flame time: truncate-toward-zero is one of those things like
acos/asin/atan that you want to avoid like the plague. It has almost
no mathematical meaning (its output space is
Just a thought :-)
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Jim Wilson wrote:
Just a thought :-)
I got lectured once in a job interview (that obviously did not go well for
me.) The interviewer didn't like my answer on the future of computer
security. He asserted that in 6 months (this was 10 years ago) that all
security problems would be solved
Cameron Moore wrote:
Yes, we can actually. Just filter out this in Mailman:
^X-Mailer:.*Outlook
Problem solved. ;-P
gritting teeth
Must fight ... the ... urge ... to ...
/gritting teeth
Disclaimer. We love our outlook users, just not the virus and security
problems that seem to plague
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Wilson) [2004.01.27 13:09]:
Just a thought :-)
Best,
Jim
Yes, we can actually. Just filter out this in Mailman:
^X-Mailer:.*Outlook
Problem solved. ;-P
--
Cameron Moore
[ Why are there 5 syllables in the word monosyllabic? ]
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Just a thought :-)
I guess what amazes me is the incredible tolerance of the computing public.
I wonder what would happen if we gave our politicians the same amount of
latitude that we give our computer software. Or for that
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:18:36 +0800, Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why???.Thats why they are called a black box.
And unless you work for Bendix/King or one of the other black box
manufactures you will never know.After all what is in the black box
is there bread and butter.
If nobody
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:30:17 +0800, Innis Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is what I dont understand what is wrong with the current system
which can do heading,V/S,wing leveler,vor/loc(nav),approach,and
autothrottle
are these not accurate enough?.
I'm sure the performance of the current
On Monday 26 January 2004 13:00, Ilja Moderau wrote:
Hi,
I painted the windows of 747 and a320 transparent, then I put a simple
rectangle behind the windows. This object got an emissive white color.
http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/747.jpg
http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/a320.jpg
Just imagine,
David Culp wrote:
For Innis' new 737 panel we could use a set action, that will set
a property to the value of another property.
Use a nasal script. :)
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:17:53 -0600, David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Panel actions presently come in three types:
1. toggle
2. adjust
3. swap
For Innis' new 737 panel we could use a set action, that will set a
property
to the value of another property. For instance, when the V/S switch
Just a bit more grist for the mill - as if it were needed:)
One of the type of up-coming generations of a/c are likely to be controlled by
thrust alone. No moving control surfaces and probably tailess.
What I haven't figured out yet is if the concept's relying upon a very simple
aerodynamic
Thanks Andy and Roy. The binding worked, but unfortunately the property I
need doesn't exist :(
Looks like I finally have to learn nasal.
Dave
--
David Culp
davidculp2[at]comcast.net
___
David Culp wrote:
Thanks Andy and Roy. The binding worked, but unfortunately the property I
need doesn't exist :(
Looks like I finally have to learn nasal.
Without having done any testing, testing, this would seem to do what
you want. Basically, it's just a property-assign with a units
binding
commandnasal/command
script
setprop(/autopilot/settings/vertical-speed-fpm,
60 * getprop(/velocities/vertical-speed-fps))
/script
/binding
Perfect. I came up with the same thing in a couple minutes. Not much of a
learning curve with nasal!
Dave
--
My understanding is that they will be doing a lot of thrust
vectoring ... lots of research is/has been done in that area.
Curt.
No. This paper describes tests on a B-747, C-17, and MD-11 using propulsion
only:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1999/PDF/H-2331.pdf
Differential thrust (per side)
No. This paper describes tests on a B-747, C-17, and MD-11 using
propulsion only:
I meant No thrust vectoring is necessary, nor used in the examples in the
referenced paper.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Berndt wrote:
My understanding is that they will be doing a lot of thrust
vectoring ... lots of research is/has been done in that area.
Curt.
No. This paper describes tests on a B-747, C-17, and MD-11 using propulsion
only:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1999/PDF/H-2331.pdf
Differential
I thought some were discussing this in the context of fighters of the
future. Just ignore me. :-)
Curt.
Oops. Yes, that has been done, most recently on an F-15 I believe. I must
have misinterpreted the context of the discussion.
Jon
___
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 02:26, Jon Berndt wrote:
My understanding is that they will be doing a lot of thrust
vectoring ... lots of research is/has been done in that area.
Curt.
No. This paper describes tests on a B-747, C-17, and MD-11 using propulsion
only:
Erik Hoffman wrote:
Bernie Bright wrote:
/ Compiles okay on Mandrake 9.2/10.0 (glibc-2.3.3 and gcc-3.3.2). However this
// should really be tested for by the configure script - AC_CHECK_FUNCS(truncf)
// and panel.cxx should then contain:
/
I'll add a test for it.
Erik
Erik,
Unfortunately,
Lee wrote:
I think I've heard of some of the stuff Curt's referring to - the next gen
US
fighters are planned to be thrust vectoring only. Taking the control
surface
stuff out of the wing removes channeling, making it more simple but also
stronger and more resiliant to damage - you don't
Eric L Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Unfortunately, FlightGear still doesn't compile on RedHat 7.3, even with
the above configure script check for truncf (I haven't checked it out on
RedHat 9 yet). I did figure out how to get it to work though (see below).
It does build on 7.3. Maybe
Is it possible to use nasal scripting in preferences.xml? I'm
specifically interested in using it in a view definition.
--
Cameron Moore
[ You're mind can only absorb what you seek out and endure. ]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Curt
Curtis L. Olson writes
Also, we have several people here knowledgable in the field of control
theory and people that understand how autopilots are supposed to work. Add
that in with someone who (thinks he) understands the internals of FG and I
think we have an opportunity to really
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:50:56 -0500
Eric L Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Hoffman wrote:
Bernie Bright wrote:
/ Compiles okay on Mandrake 9.2/10.0 (glibc-2.3.3 and gcc-3.3.2). However
this// should really be tested for by the configure script -
AC_CHECK_FUNCS(truncf)// and
40 matches
Mail list logo
