On Thursday 29 April 2004 23:19, Andy Ross wrote:
This is a perfectly legal script, for example:
nasal
B52F
script![CDATA[
myFunction = func { print(Executing myFunction()!); }
print(Hello World!\n);
]]/script
/B52F
/nasal
When you start up, it
Giles Robertson wrote:
So we put in a parameter that affects how directional the sound is,
with different values for different viewpoints (tower, chase, cockpit).
O.k., I managed to understand :-)
I think in this case it would be lerr error-prone to simply add a 3D
location relative to the
There's nothing here... because it's in the previous post but I've forget the
subject...
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
There's someone that could help me or to find an aircraft which
is more or less same at MB339PAN (it's the aircraft used by
Frecce Tricolori, the Italian acrobatic team). I've tried to
adjust the config file myself but every change I made meets some
targets and estrange some others. An
Funny you guys should be talking about turboprop models.
I have been playing around today trying to get a allison t56
working using jsbsim's aeromatic.But for what ever reason
the RPM just seems to keep climbing from the time you start
even though I had the max prop rpm set at 1450.The prop
did
Funny you guys should be talking about turboprop models.
I have been playing around today trying to get a allison t56
working using jsbsim's aeromatic.But for what ever reason
the RPM just seems to keep climbing from the time you start
even though I had the max prop rpm set at 1450.The
If you're connecting a prop to a turbine, that won't work. The present
turbine model can't be used as a turboprop. As a result, the best way to
model a turboprop is to use a turbine with a direct thruster, and
adjust the
thrust table to simulate a propeller (see the OV-10).
The issue is
If you're connecting a prop to a turbine, that won't work. The present
turbine model can't be used as a turboprop. As a result, the best way to
model a turboprop is to use a turbine with a direct thruster, and
adjust the
thrust table to simulate a propeller (see the OV-10).
The issue
Dave C. wrote:
Right. The relevant code from FGPropulsion is:
PowerAvailable =
Engines[i]-Calculate(Thrusters[i]-GetPowerRequired());
Thrusters[i]-Calculate(PowerAvailable);
vForces += Thrusters[i]-GetBodyForces(); // sum body frame forces
vMoments +=
On 4/30/04 at 7:02 AM Jon Berndt wrote:
Funny you guys should be talking about turboprop models.
I have been playing around today trying to get a allison t56
working using jsbsim's aeromatic.But for what ever reason
the RPM just seems to keep climbing from the time you start
even though I
Presently, the turbine model ignores PowerRequired and returns
pounds-force.
The Piston and Electric models use PowerRequired and return horsepower.
I think this is fixable - are you working on it? If not, I might take a
quick try at it.
Sure. I was going to first implement the
David Luff wrote:
The turbocharged piston engine is a completely different beast from a
turboprop though, I would imagine the latter has more in common with the
turbine model. OTOH, the Piper Navajo is a GA twin that uses turbocharged
piston engines, that might be a nice one to model.
Lots of GA
Hi, it happens to me that I cannot get help (to know all the
switches/parameters to start FG if the fg-root is not set. I include this
examples from Windows platform, but it behavies the same under Linux.
===
C:\Tempfgfs
On Friday 30 April 2004 13:59, Jon Berndt wrote:
I've made some more progress in building an example autopilot using the
JSBSim flight control components. I already have a wing leveler for the
C-172, but I added an altitude hold module last night. The idea - in words
- behind the altitude hold
On 4/30/04 at 10:28 AM Pablo J. Rogina wrote:
Hi, it happens to me that I cannot get help (to know all the
switches/parameters to start FG if the fg-root is not set. I include this
examples from Windows platform, but it behavies the same under Linux.
David Luff wrote:
On 4/30/04 at 10:28 AM Pablo J. Rogina wrote:
The current situation is that if I don´t know nothing about FG, I cannot
help
to know something about the switches/parameters (a deadlock).
I propose that we move the help text to the core program to prevent this
situation. If not
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:57:03 +0100
David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The turbocharged piston engine is a completely different beast from a
turboprop though, I would imagine the latter has more in common with
the
turbine model. OTOH, the Piper Navajo is a GA twin that uses
turbocharged
piston
Roy Vegard Ovesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 30 April 2004 13:59, Jon Berndt wrote:
between where you are and where you want to be. This error term is
limited
to 100, filtered with a slight lag, and then multiplied by 0.1 in
order to
get a commanded HDOT (time derivative of altitude,
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
I tried this inside an instrument config file, but it didn't work.
It doesn't. The nasal code is read only from under the /nasal/*
subtree of the global properties. Instruments live farther down.
Would it be possible to implement the ability to include nasal
code in
David Megginson wrote:
Lots of GA planes have an option turbocharged (or turbonormalized --
I'm not technie enough to remember the distinction)
I think it's certification. A turbonormalized engine has a wastegate
setting of normal atmospheric pressure. It never develops more power
than the
I wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
I could do a script that monitors the tank levels and de-selects
them when they're empty but I don't know how to best invoke it.
Actually, it wouldn't be hard to make this the default. We could set
a kill engines if empty flag on the tank for aircraft where we
Gunnstein Lye wrote:
Thanks for the info. Do you really have to build separate binaries
of gcc for each target? I thought I could use the same binary for
linux (native) and windows (crosscompiling).
Not to my knowledge. The code generation is more or less identical,
but some of the symbol
Andy Ross writes:
Gunnstein Lye wrote:
Thanks for the info. Do you really have to build separate binaries
of gcc for each target? I thought I could use the same binary for
linux (native) and windows (crosscompiling).
Not to my knowledge. The code generation is more or less identical,
The airplane will fly at a lower angle of attack, which should result in a
decrease in drag (all other things unchanged, you're getting lift for free).
There's no way to tell what's happening in your case without seeing both the
previous and present versions of your config files.
Your
... but I think that this time
the problem is the position of the CG. However I've got a another problem.
Immediately after the take-off the airplane starts to roll to the right and
I don't know how reduce or remove this effect. I've changed some of the
values relative to the roll but this
I've been messing around in my spare moments recently... I've a few more
things to do before finishing.
attachment: concorde.png___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
David Megginson schrieb:
I think that the directional sound will be very interesting for external
views, and might also be useful for near midair collisions, but in
general, I don't think it's much use inside the cockpit.
The only cases I can think of where we need directional sound in the
Norman Vine wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
You *can* do this with cygwin [...] The compiler supports a
-mno-cygwin flag
Unfortunately it turns out that cygwin doesn't install these tools
under the conventional platform-program names (e.g. mingw32-gcc)
To invoke the the MingW version of the
Hi,
as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation
in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not
implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now
no idea if the collision detection is reasonably implementable or not
Melchior FRANZ said:
* Chris Horler -- Friday 30 April 2004 17:41:
I've been messing around in my spare moments recently... I've a few more
things to do before finishing.
Don't want to rain on your parade, but someone donated a Concorde
already. There was just nobody who wanted to
Don't want to rain on your parade, but someone donated a Concorde
already. There was just nobody who wanted to reduce the *many* vertices
and re-apply the textures afterwards. Blender is quite good at reducing,
but it would still mean a lot of work. If you want to continue to work
on your
Marco Gugel wrote:
as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving
simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection,
which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear
code and I have now no idea if the collision detection is reasonably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation
in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not
implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now
no idea if the collision detection is
You could've saved yourself the effort and joined the simpits-tech mailing
list at http://www.simpits.org. There's over 300 people on the list.
g.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Manuel Bessler wrote:
Hi all,
I've created a mailinglist for those of us who build hardware,
homecockpits and such.
Andy Ross writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
You *can* do this with cygwin [...] The compiler supports a
-mno-cygwin flag
Unfortunately it turns out that cygwin doesn't install these tools
under the conventional platform-program names (e.g. mingw32-gcc)
To invoke
Erik Hofman wrote:
Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You
can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other
aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this.
Ground handling right now only uses a flat, horizontal ground plane at
the MSL altitude of
marco.gugel said:
Hi,
as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving simulation
in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection, which is not
implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code and I have now
no idea if the collision detection is
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Gene Buckle wrote:
You could've saved yourself the effort and joined the simpits-tech
mailing list at http://www.simpits.org. There's over 300 people on
the list.
I AM on that list :)
I've even posted a few times.
Since I now have my own server with
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Gene Buckle wrote:
You could've saved yourself the effort and joined the simpits-tech
mailing list at http://www.simpits.org. There's over 300 people on
the list.
I AM on that list :)
I've even posted a few times.
Since I now have my own
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You
can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other
aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this.
AFAIK all the FDMs share the same bug here.
it's a
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 30 April 2004 18:13:
[http://members.aon.at/mfranz/concorde.tar.gz (1 MB)]
It's actually a very nice model and I don't think it has too many vertices for
modern computers. IIRC it is comparable to the 1903 Wright flyer model's
size.
Umm ...
On Friday 30 April 2004 17:50, Erik Hofman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving
simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection,
which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study FlightGear code
On Friday 30 April 2004 18:45, Gene Buckle wrote:
Gene Buckle wrote:
You could've saved yourself the effort and joined the simpits-tech
mailing list at http://www.simpits.org. There's over 300 people on
the list.
I AM on that list :)
I've even posted a few times.
AOLMe too/AOL
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:03:53 +0100
Al West wrote:
There's not a whole lot of FGFS discussion because it's not a drop
and go solution like MSFS or Falcon (and soon to be Lock On: Modern
Air Combat) is. If it was easier for non-programmer types to
interface to, I'm sure more people would
Andy Ross said:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Why do you think that collision detection is not implemented? You
can crash to the ground and to the buildings (maybe even other
aircraft?), so there must be some logic behind this.
Ground handling right now only uses a flat, horizontal ground plane
Andy Ross writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
You *can* do this with cygwin [...] The compiler supports a
-mno-cygwin flag
Unfortunately it turns out that cygwin doesn't install these tools
under the conventional platform-program names (e.g. mingw32-gcc)
To invoke
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Contact points are per model, but the behavior is AFAIK the same for
all models: you can fly through walls, but not through roofs
(neither up nor down). I've no idea if this was intended.
It was. This is the same rule that allows you to fly under bridges;
before that
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Al West -- Friday 30 April 2004 20:05:
Is collision detection part of the model/dynamics set per aircraft? Just I've
been flying through the buildings in San Fran all afternoon in the bo105.
Contact points are per model, but the behavior is AFAIK the same for
* Curtis L. Olson -- Friday 30 April 2004 22:52:
Because it samples only once per frame, it will almost never see the
wall. [...] Besides, flying into buildings isn't exactly top form
these days.
That's OK. Also being able to fly through buildings isn't really such
a problem, although I
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Curtis L. Olson -- Friday 30 April 2004 22:52:
Because it samples only once per frame, it will almost never see the
wall. [...] Besides, flying into buildings isn't exactly top form
these days.
That's OK. Also being able to fly through buildings isn't really such
a
* Erik Hofman -- Friday 30 April 2004 23:16:
I was thinking more small Nasal script, in the line of:
+-+
| Collision detected. Simulation halted. |
| |
| Press OK to restart. |
|
Hi,
It just occurred to me I had this link in my bookmarks, just when you
think you've seen all information about the spitfire:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Melchior FRANZ said:
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 30 April 2004 18:13:
[http://members.aon.at/mfranz/concorde.tar.gz (1 MB)]
It's actually a very nice model and I don't think it has too many vertices for
modern computers. IIRC it is comparable to the 1903 Wright flyer model's
size.
Umm
Erik Hofman wrote
Sent: 30 April 2004 22:37
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Spitfire Performance Testing
Hi,
It just occurred to me I had this link in my bookmarks, just when you
think you've seen all information about the spitfire:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT), Gene wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At a minimum, the simulator should freeze with a message denoting a
destructive contact or out of bounds attitude. For instance, the
MD-83 sim at Alaska Airlines is configured to freeze if the bank angle
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..dude. This is another common wisdom? I can understand 'not
allowing it with paying passengers'. But I won't ever put my ass in
a spam can driven by some clueless burger flippers who has never
been _allowed_to_learn_ how to get out of trouble.
..the IMHO appropriate
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:49:01 -0700
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco Gugel wrote:
as I told to Andy Ross I would like to implement a truck driving
simulation in FlightGear but my doubt regards the collision detection,
which is not implemented! It's only a week that I study
Curtis L. Olson said:
Crashes generate obscene forces.
According to m-w.com:
One entry found for obscene.
Main Entry: ob·scene
Pronunciation: äb-'sEn, b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin obscenus, obscaenus
1 : disgusting to the senses : REPULSIVE
2 a : abhorrent to
On Friday 30 April 2004 21:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Norman Vine wrote:
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Al West -- Friday 30 April 2004 20:05:
Is collision detection part of the model/dynamics set per aircraft? Just
I've been flying through the buildings in San Fran all afternoon in the
bo105.
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply. I've just finished my exams earlier this week.
Here is what I have so far:
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050100.jpg
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050101.jpg
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050102.jpg
Does FlightGear support 3DS format?
Yes, that is nice. However, I would like to see the plane get torn into
pieces, explosions, fire and blacksmoke. So we should have something like
this:
+-+
| Collision detected. Crash scene is
| being played.
| Press OK when you finish
From the look of it, lowering that many vertices will be a waste of time and
effort; not to mention a waste of a good model. I say, whoever is doing the
new Concorde should continue with his work.
Regards,
Ampere
On April 30, 2004 01:37 pm, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 30
Ampere K. Hardraade said:
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply. I've just finished my exams earlier this week.
Here is what I have so far:
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050100.jpg
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050101.jpg
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs233144/2004050102.jpg
Does
In my opinion, having vertex count exceeding 10,000 isn't that bad. What I
think really killing framerate are textures.
Speaking of vertex count and texture resolution, does FlightGear support
multiple level-of-details? (As in loading a model with more and more details
as the object is
64 matches
Mail list logo
