Mally wrote:
You may not be a patent lawyer, but that's a convincing sounding explanation
of
the legal position.
PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e.
whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious?
I didn't notice anything not obvious.
They
Lee Elliott wrote
On Friday 13 February 2004 06:16, Jon Berndt wrote:
True, but... This is a chunk of calculations running
every frame.
In the olden days, the cost would be too high.
These days, it's not even a spec on a flea on the butt of
an elephant
in terms of the
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above
some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
:-)
Jon
I've thought about trying this but I think it could only be really effective
in level flight. As soon as you
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:07, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote
On Friday 13 February 2004 06:16, Jon Berndt wrote:
True, but... This is a chunk of calculations running
every frame.
In the olden days, the cost would be too high.
These days, it's not even a spec
Lee Elliott wrote
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high
enough above
some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
:-)
Jon
I've thought about trying this but I think it could only be
really effective
Lee Elliott
Sent: 14 February 2004 13:35
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:07, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote
On Friday 13 February 2004 06:16, Jon Berndt wrote:
True,
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:43, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high
enough above
some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
:-)
Jon
I've thought
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:52, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Lee Elliott
Sent: 14 February 2004 13:35
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:07, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote
Lee Elliott writes:
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above
some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
Another possiblity would be some sort of particle object handling where
temporary objects could
On Saturday 14 February 2004 14:08, Norman Vine wrote:
Lee Elliott writes:
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above
some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
Another possiblity would be some sort of
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Russell Suter writes:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
I don't see any advantage to your approach.
By your responses, you give me no indication that you even understand
what I'm saying.
I seem to be alone in my dissent anyway... What you are
Tony Peden wrote:
PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e.
whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious?
Amazon: One-click ordering.
I think the answer is no.
Even if it's something that has to be non-obvious, that only means you have
to
Jim Wilson writes:
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Please try to configure your mailer to not quote raw e-mail addresses in
your replies. Let's not make the spam harvesters' life any easier...
Russell Suter writes:
By your responses, you give me no indication that you even
Norman Vine says
Lee Elliott writes:
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough
above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
Another possiblity would be some sort of particle object handling
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Tony Peden wrote:
PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e.
whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious?
Amazon: One-click ordering.
I think the answer is no.
Even if it's something that has to be
Norman Vine wrote:
I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported
by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation
such as a radar display with out some kind of 'adjustment'
No-digging-necessary'ly-yr's
Collision detection could be an
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
IIRC, YASim provides for the origin at the nose tip too (or something
close to that).
YASim doesn't care, actually. It reports the output lat/lon/alt value
as the location of the coordinate origin of the airframe (that is, the
0,0,0 referenced by all the coordinates it
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported
by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation
such as a radar display with out some kind of 'adjustment'
No-digging-necessary'ly-yr's
Norman Vine said:
Jim Wilson writes:
I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported
by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation
such as a radar display with out some kind of 'adjustment'
The _only_ difference between now and
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking
about:)
The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank
has dropped so it falls straight even though the a/c may be climbing
and banking.
This is more of a code architecture issue.
Jim Wilson writes:
Norman Vine said:
Thanks for making the mailer fix :-)
I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported
by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation
such as a radar display with out some kind of
Andy Ross
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking
about:)
The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank
has dropped so it falls straight even though the a/c may be
climbing
and banking.
This is more of a
Jim Wilson wrote:
Vivian Meazza snip said:
I'm about halfway through generating a 3d cockpit for the Seahawk model -
are you going to move the origin of the model? I'd like a heads up, it will
probably affect how I go about the rest of the work.
If the model is already animated (and/or
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 10:23, Russell Suter wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
So,
instead of defining some arbitrary frame, _we_use_an_industry_standard_,
which is the structural frame that the manufacturer defines, when available.
It is always (in my experience) X positive aft, Y positive right,
FWIW _all_ this patch does is allow the specification of a static
location for
the FDM to report aircraft position at in JSBsim. Previously it
was reported
from the current center of gravity.
That's exactly right. Furthermore, if the VRP is set to the empty weight CG
for an aircraft flight
There really are no industry standards here. Body axis, earth local,
and earth fixed are commonly used in simulation. A system like our
structural system is commonly used by manufacturing, ground ops, and
flight ops folks. But even then, the origins vary from airplane to
airplane.
Yes,
This is more of a code architecture issue. Once something has left
the aircraft, it ought be be handed to a simple ballistics FDM or
somesuch. Making it disappear from the aircraft model is as simple
as adding a select animation and can be done right now. And you can
set the weight tag to
Russell Suter said:
I suspect these properties are applied anyway -- even if they are zero. I
don't know if these are applied per frame or if they are applied once to
the model. In the latter case, you can ride the toll road all day and only
have to pay the toll once!
Exactly.
From
On Saturday 14 February 2004 17:48, Andy Ross wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking
about:)
The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank
has dropped so it falls straight even though the a/c may be climbing
On Saturday 14 February 2004 14:48, Jim Wilson wrote:
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote:
Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above
some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust?
:-)
Jon
If we
On Saturday 14 February 2004 18:35, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Andy Ross
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking
about:)
The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank
has dropped so it falls straight even though
One feature in JSBSim that I began and have not yet finished (pending other
things) is a parent/child capability. You can (for instance) load a Mk82 on
an F-16 and the physical effects of the Mk82 will affect the F-16. The
position is based on the position of the parent, and so is the orientation.
Jon Berndt wrote
One feature in JSBSim that I began and have not yet finished
(pending other
things) is a parent/child capability. You can (for instance)
load a Mk82 on an F-16 and the physical effects of the Mk82
will affect the F-16. The position is based on the position
of the
Lee Elliott wrote
On Saturday 14 February 2004 18:35, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Andy Ross
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some
thinking
about:)
The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the
tank has
Actually, I was thinking of playing with wing flexing with the model
that I am working on now, but I figured that I already had too many
bells and whistles. I was going to divide each wing into about four
sections and put them into a tree-like structure with all the engines,
etc hanging off
Sounds VERY good. I'm sure you'll get round to it in due course.
Vivian
Did I say that? ;-)
I think I may have a few weeks this summer *alone*. That's got opportunity
written all over it.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Berndt
Sounds VERY good. I'm sure you'll get round to it in due course.
Vivian
Did I say that? ;-)
I think I may have a few weeks this summer *alone*. That's
got opportunity written all over it.
Excellent. But summer is for real flying.
Vivian
Jim Wilson writes:
Russell Suter said:
I suspect these properties are applied anyway -- even if they are zero. I
don't know if these are applied per frame or if they are applied once to
the model. In the latter case, you can ride the toll road all day and only
have to pay the
Andy Ross wrote:
Running it under a separate FDM handler is something that the C++
code just doesn't support yet, though. It's probably not hugely
difficult to make work, though.
Thinking about:
1. inherit the main FDM's moments and forces
2. transpose them to the appropriate location.
3. Use
Or just have a command that creates an object at a certain point with a
certain velocity vector and orientation.
Josh
Erik Hofman wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
Running it under a separate FDM handler is something that the C++
code just doesn't support yet, though. It's probably not hugely
difficult
Norman Vine wrote:
Hmm.. conventional radar usage is perhaps a bit of a stretch but things such
as automated landings use radar verification where being off by half the length
of a 747 could lead to 'interesting' things .. there are other interesting uses for
radar like things too that are
Lee Elliott wrote:
Agreed, a simple 'ballastics' FDM would be a far better solution, but then
someone's got to design code it.
Which reminds me, an FDM (Yasim, UIUC/LaRCsim or JSBSim) could spawn an
AIModel object which has (simple) ballistic trajectory support.
Erik
Jim Wilson wrote:
The _only_ difference between now and what we had before is now the position
may be reported at a fixed location on the aircraft by JSBsim. Before it was
reported at the _current_ center of gravity which varies according to load,
fuel consumption, etc. I'm sorry to be so
The _only_ difference between now and what we had before is now the
position
may be reported at a fixed location on the aircraft by JSBsim.
Before it was reported at the _current_ center of gravity which varies
according to load, fuel consumption, etc. I'm sorry to be so dense, but
could
Josh Babcock wrote:
Or just have a command that creates an object at a certain point with a
certain velocity vector and orientation.
I think you still need the moments to get a decent traject match.
Erik
Josh
Erik Hofman wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
Running it under a separate FDM handler is
On Saturday 14 Feb 2004 6:27 pm, Norman Vine wrote:
snip
AFAIK
In most systems if an object is represented by a point location it is
expected that said location will be 'near' the center of the object in
question.
In the case of radar the center point of the 'target's on-screen echo' when
I give up. Sort of.
I just want things to work out properly between the FDM and the 3D model.
JSBSim now can provide the lat/lon/alt of a fixed point on the aircraft.
This includes the possibility of providing an offset from the initial CG to
the current CG. We can provide whatever is desired.
Personally, I think the nose VRP makes a lot of sense. I think people
are trying to make this a lot more complicated than it is. It's just a
simple solution to a small problem. I vote Yea.
Josh
Jon Berndt wrote:
I give up. Sort of.
I just want things to work out properly between the FDM
Oh, yeah, that too.
Josh
Erik Hofman wrote:
Josh Babcock wrote:
Or just have a command that creates an object at a certain point with
a certain velocity vector and orientation.
I think you still need the moments to get a decent traject match.
snip
No. No. No. No. There need not be a prior agreement. The 3D modeler
uses whatever origin suits. It appears in many cases that's the nose.
Yes, yes.
There has to be an understanding of the difference between the frames of
reference (FDM and 3D model). If we are providing the position of
Norman Vine wrote:
Jim Wilson writes:
Exactly.
From sgLoad3DModel (in SimGear/simgear/scene/model.cxx):
Yup, something like that is how it's supposed to work but ...
I remember your asking about how to set this up and that you didn't like
the axis angle form that we were using
I've started work on some 3D panel instruments. You can see them, in
various stages of completion, in the latest CVS version of the pa28-161.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Honest, I'm not writing a windows virus here. :-)
I am working on an fltk app to make it easier to install / uninstall 10x10
.tar.gz scenery chunks. I have the install part mostly working (via libtar
/ libz) so now I am looking at uninstalling.
For unix I can do a depth first traversal of the
(Windows media video)
http://www.wedda.demon.nl/tbird.wmv
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Jon Berndt wrote:
No. No. No. No. There need not be a prior agreement. The 3D modeler
uses whatever origin suits. It appears in many cases that's the nose.
Yes, yes.
There has to be an understanding of the difference between the frames of
reference (FDM and 3D model). If we are
On Saturday 14 February 2004 22:10, Josh Babcock wrote:
Actually, I was thinking of playing with wing flexing with the model
that I am working on now, but I figured that I already had too many
bells and whistles. I was going to divide each wing into about four
sections and put them into a
On Sunday 15 February 2004 08:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on wing bending too but i am still on working
out how a physical model of this wing bending would look like in real life.
Upgrade:
And how to simplify it and integrate it nicly into flightgear so that it is
still fast
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Honest, I'm not writing a windows virus here. :-)
I am working on an fltk app to make it easier to install / uninstall 10x10
.tar.gz scenery chunks. I have the install part mostly working (via libtar
/ libz) so now I am looking at uninstalling.
For unix I can
58 matches
Mail list logo