Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 10:19 schrieb Jon Stockill:
Heads down guys - we just got another mention on slashdot :-)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/23/1837201
In the article i read the following:
In fact, flight characteristics are calculated in real time from aircraft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 10:19 schrieb Jon Stockill:
Heads down guys - we just got another mention on slashdot :-)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/23/1837201
In the article i read the following:
In fact, flight characteristics are calculated in real
Erik Hofman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 10:19 schrieb Jon Stockill:
Heads down guys - we just got another mention on slashdot :-)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/23/1837201
In the article i read the following:
In fact, flight characteristics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the article i read the following:
In fact, flight characteristics are calculated in real time from aircraft
design data, not static tables like MS Flight Simulator.
What way does Flightgear use?
Static tables or real time calculations or something other?
Matevz Jekovec wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
YASim: runtime aircraft characteristics
JSBSim/UIUC: static tables
Erik
I know Falcon 4.0 is pretty poor when talking about phisics. It uses
only primitive static tables, but these are very worked on though.
FlightGear is way much better on this one!
At 7/24/03, Oliver C. wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 10:19 schrieb Jon Stockill:
Heads down guys - we just got another mention on slashdot :-)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/23/1837201
In the article i read the following:
In fact, flight characteristics are calculated in
David Megginson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What way does Flightgear use?
Static tables or real time calculations or something other?
Both, sort-of. Unlike X-Plane, FlightGear does not limit you to a
single type of physics engine. JSBSim works with static coefficients,
and
Matt Fienberg writes:
David Megginson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What way does Flightgear use?
Static tables or real time calculations or something other?
Both, sort-of. Unlike X-Plane, FlightGear does not limit you to a
single type of physics engine. JSBSim works
Curtis L. Olson writes:
YASim airplanes start flying really crappy if you try to go inverted.
If you don't believe me, just try taking the 747 on 100' AGL inverted
pass over SFO. :-)
Curt's joking, of course, but it's worth noting that any aircraft with
positive dihedral is going to be
Michael Selig [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At 7/24/03, Oliver C. wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 10:19 schrieb Jon Stockill:
Heads down guys - we just got another mention on slashdot :-)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/23/1837201
In the article i read the following:
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:14, Michael Selig wrote:
At 7/24/03, Oliver C. wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 10:19 schrieb Jon Stockill:
Heads down guys - we just got another mention on slashdot :-)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/23/1837201
In the article i read the
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
YASim airplanes start flying really crappy if you try to go inverted.
If you don't believe me, just try taking the 747 on 100' AGL inverted
pass over SFO. :-)
You can lose your ticket for that! Actually that isn't really true. The A4
will fly all
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
YASim airplanes start flying really crappy if you try to go inverted.
If you don't believe me, just try taking the 747 on 100' AGL inverted
pass over SFO. :-)
Curt's joking, of course, but it's worth noting that any
On Friday 25 July 2003 01:19, Jim Wilson wrote:
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
YASim airplanes start flying really crappy if you try to go
inverted.
If you don't believe me, just try taking the 747 on 100' AGL
inverted
pass over SFO. :-)
Lee Elliott writes:
So the b-52, with anhedral, should fly better upside down?
So it would seem. I'd hate to see an engine flame out, though, and
the flight crew end up having to make an approach and landing with
only seven engines.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 18:31, David Megginson wrote:
Lee Elliott writes:
So the b-52, with anhedral, should fly better upside down?
So it would seem. I'd hate to see an engine flame out, though, and
the flight crew end up having to make an approach and landing with
only seven engines.
16 matches
Mail list logo
