It has been a while since this feature was added, but I thought Jon might
like to know that using his VRP feature I've succeeded in positioning the
Cessna 310 (U-3A) visual model identically under both JSBSim and YASim flight
dynamics models. The YASim config for the c310 has the origin placed
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:07:17 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been a while since this feature was added, but I thought Jon
might
like to know that using his VRP feature I've succeeded in positioning
the
Cessna 310 (U-3A) visual model identically under both JSBSim and
YASim
Jim:
I don't know if you noticed, but Mathias Frohlich pointed out some
adjustments that were needed in our new Visual Reference Point calculation,
which I have now taken care of. The position as reported in JSBSim.cxx must
be changed to the method that is currently commented out (from JSBSim
Jim:
Also, the pilot eyepoint as provided by JSBSim needs to be used
correctly to
properly place the actual pilot viewpoint correctly. For
something like the
B-747 this is important to get right: as the gear touches down for a B-747
landing the pilot is still considerably higher off the
Do we need a standard Interface Control Document that formalizes the
FlightGear/FDM interface?
I think we do.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Hi,
I think this will also involve changes to the aircraft 3D model
specification. The VRP is the agreed-upon common Visual Reference Point
between the FDM and 3D model representations of an aircraft. The FDM (at
least JSBSim) specifies points in the aircraft structural frame in units of
Jon Berndt schrieb:
I just discovered that our property metrics/eyepoint-x-ft shows that it is
expected to be in units of feet. However, it is specified in inches in our
config file (in structural frame), and the property is bound to the
GetXYZep() function, which reports the eyepoint in the same
On Samstag, 31. Januar 2004 12:46, Christian Mayer wrote:
Jon Berndt schrieb:
I just discovered that our property metrics/eyepoint-x-ft shows that it
is expected to be in units of feet. However, it is specified in inches in
our config file (in structural frame), and the property is bound
Jon Berndt wrote:
I just discovered that our property metrics/eyepoint-x-ft shows that it is
expected to be in units of feet. However, it is specified in inches in our
config file (in structural frame), and the property is bound to the
GetXYZep() function, which reports the eyepoint in the same
Christian wrote:
If we'd use SI units everywhere we wouldn't have that prolem...
Well, yes we would have. It's not a matter of whether we should use feet or
meters, but inches or feet (in the case I mentioned). In metric, that would
be: should we use centimeters (or decimeters, or
I'm not sure that this matters much for FlightGear -- our system allows
the
viewpoint to be placed in any arbitrary location relative to the 3D model,
so it wouldn't be useful to take the information from the aero config
file.
In fact, I'd like to generalize the system a bit, so that each
Jon Berndt schrieb:
Christian wrote:
If we'd use SI units everywhere we wouldn't have that prolem...
Well, yes we would have. It's not a matter of whether we should use feet or
meters, but inches or feet (in the case I mentioned). In metric, that would
be: should we use centimeters (or
Jon Berndt wrote:
OK. So, where is the pilot viewpoint placed, now? Is it no longer placed at
the CG. Is FlightGear reading and using that value from a file (this would
be good)?
The viewpoint is set in the property tree, and can be moved around at
runtime. Every aircraft's *-config.xml file
On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 04:46, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
On Samstag, 31. Januar 2004 12:46, Christian Mayer wrote:
Jon Berndt schrieb:
I just discovered that our property metrics/eyepoint-x-ft shows that it
is expected to be in units of feet. However, it is specified in inches in
our
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This also raises a potential conflict (one of perhaps a few): If an aircraft
3D model is used by more than a single FDM, does this have implications for
proper placement of an aircraft model? I am unfamiliar with how YASim
provides positioning information to
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In fact, I'd like to generalize the system a bit, so that each model
could advertise a number of preconfigured viewpoints (pilot, copilot, back
seat, front seat, tail gunner, seat 17d, etc.).
Do you mean generalize or formalize? You can already
That's right it isn't necessary. We are able to configure that
dynamically in
the viewer through properties, which is a good thing. If you look in the
/sim/view property paths you'll see x,y,z offsets that express the camera
position. These are offsets in meters from the lat,lon,alt
On Samstag, 31. Januar 2004 16:41, Tony Peden wrote:
I certainly do agree that selectable units would be nice to have, but it
would double the property tree memory requirements (since each property
would then have to have a units property associated with it. In
addition, such a system would
On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 08:48, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
On Samstag, 31. Januar 2004 16:41, Tony Peden wrote:
I certainly do agree that selectable units would be nice to have, but it
would double the property tree memory requirements (since each property
would then have to have a units property
On Samstag, 31. Januar 2004 17:42, Jon Berndt wrote:
That's right it isn't necessary. We are able to configure that
dynamically in
the viewer through properties, which is a good thing. If you look in the
/sim/view property paths you'll see x,y,z offsets that express the camera
On Samstag, 31. Januar 2004 18:01, Tony Peden wrote:
So, for best performance, we are right back to the situation we have
now. The only advantage (and being American I'm not sure it is one) is
that we've switched to SI as the default.
I agree more and more that arbitrary units will not make
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian wrote:
If we'd use SI units everywhere we wouldn't have that prolem...
Well, yes we would have. It's not a matter of whether we should use feet or
meters, but inches or feet (in the case I mentioned). In metric, that would
be: should we use
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Do we need a standard Interface Control Document that formalizes the
FlightGear/FDM interface?
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd propose the following two
requirements:
1.) It should be specified via property names, rather than as a C++
interface. This is much
Jon wrote:
Christian wrote:
If we'd use SI units everywhere we wouldn't have that prolem...
Well, yes we would have.
Jon's right, you can't win. Using SI pervasively sounds like a great
idea, but it doesn't win you much. Even outside the USA, you don't
see engines rated in watts or newtons
1.) It should be specified via property names, rather than as a C++
interface. This is much easier to support across multiple
codebases, and and stuff in flight.cxx is complicated enough
already.
2.) It should be minimal. One of the nice things about having
multiple FDMs
Andy Ross schrieb:
Jon wrote:
Christian wrote:
If we'd use SI units everywhere we wouldn't have that prolem...
Well, yes we would have.
Jon's right, you can't win. Using SI pervasively sounds like a great
idea, but it doesn't win you much. Even outside the USA, you don't
see engines rated in
On Sonntag, 01. Februar 2004 01:18, Christian Mayer wrote:
So when JSBsim wants to use non-SI internally (because it's developers
are only familiar with those units) that can be fine.
But the interfaces that everybody sees should be consistent - and
there are definitely the strengths of SI
27 matches
Mail list logo
