re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-19 Thread David Megginson
Tony Peden writes: The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with that) You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea. Right now, we're more-or-less targetting a 172R, but the 48

re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-19 Thread Tony Peden
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 04:26, David Megginson wrote: Tony Peden writes: The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with that) You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea.

re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread David Megginson
Tony Peden writes: It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn very slowly in 20 knots. Let us know what you think. I'll

re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread Tony Peden
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:52, David Megginson wrote: Tony Peden writes: It looks like this may have helped crosswind handling on the ground considerably. The relatively small amount of testing I've done shows that the c172 will sit still in up to a 15 knot crosswind and turn very

re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread David Megginson
Tony Peden writes: I didn't look at everything, but the nose wheel was in NONE and the mains CASTERED as far back as I looked (which went back to the beginning of time for the configurable gear). I can't explain the CASTERED mains, but I understood what you call steer groups to be brake

re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread David Megginson
David Megginson writes: Note a second problem with this code: it uses getDrPos (the actual rudder position) and ignores maxSteerAngle from the config file. A better option would probably be SteerAngle = SteerGain*FCS-GetDrCmd()*maxSteerAngle*RADTODEG; For RADTODEG, read DEGTORAD.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread Jon S Berndt
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:29:40 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's an excerpt from FGLGear.cpp: case bgNose: SteerGain = -0.50; BrakeFCoeff = rollingFCoeff; break; In other words, if gear belongs to bgNone, it gets SteerGain=0.0, so

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread Jon S Berndt
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:15:54 -0400 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For RADTODEG, read DEGTORAD. Use degtorad and radtodeg These are consts from the FGJSBBase class. This is where commonly used constants are being migrated to, instead of #defines, which we are moving away from.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Jon S Berndt writes: I may be guilty, here. Note that this file needs to be gone through again with a fine tooth comb and validated. Just when I think I can't become more overwhelmed than I already am ... Wife pregnant with triplets again? (Don't laugh, my wife has a friend who had two

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] Base CVSupdate:'FlightGear/FlightGear/Aircraft/c172'

2002-09-18 Thread Jon Berndt
Is there some reasoning behind setting the steering gains according to the brake selection? This makes no sense to me. It looks to me like their needs to be a separate steering selection (or just specify the gain in the config file). Agreed. I beg your indulgence - let me have a look at