On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Maik Justus wrote:
All effects I have only tested with the bo. But I will check everything
with the ch47 after finishing the coding. Please send me your ch47
config (or is it in cvs?). Probably there are some wrong signs for
clockwise rotating rotors. But the sign of the
Maik,
This helo def does not seem to be producing any main rotor torque. I
commented out the tail rotor, and no spinning. Turning notorque on or
off seems to make no difference. I was originally clued in when I
noticed that whatever changes I made to the file I always seemed to have
the tail
* Erik Hofman -- Monday 03 July 2006 13:45:
What you could do right now is committing the new HUD code [...]
Done. It can be activated via /sim/hud/visibility[1] and can be used
at the same time as the old HUD (/sim/hud/visibility[0]). It's not
identical, but in the end it should (almost) be.
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Josh Babcock wrote:
This helo def does not seem to be producing any main rotor torque.
Adjust the poweratpitch_0 parameter. (on tail rotor too)
Those seven 11m long blades probably cost a bit more than 53kW to turn at
185 rpms even at zero pitch. =)
But where do one find
Joacim Persson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Josh Babcock wrote:
This helo def does not seem to be producing any main rotor torque.
Adjust the poweratpitch_0 parameter. (on tail rotor too)
Those seven 11m long blades probably cost a bit more than 53kW to turn at
185 rpms even at zero
* Stefan Seifert -- Sunday 02 July 2006 23:35:
I finally managed to finish my rewrite of the fgjs tool (in patch -p0
form).
I found the old code quite horrible, even after the last improvements.
The new method is without any doubt superior. If nobody objects, then
I'll commit that tomorrow.
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 19:43, Josh Babcock wrote:
Joacim Persson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Josh Babcock wrote:
This helo def does not seem to be producing any main rotor torque.
Adjust the poweratpitch_0 parameter. (on tail rotor too)
Those seven 11m long blades probably cost a bit
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:46:56 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Probably won't win me an oscar
..why not? Republicans oughtta be waaay happy about your
no oil for the commies theme here. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of
Hi Josh,
yes, it's a bug. on variable is not initialized, and therefore this
effect can happen (depending on compiler and the situation in the memory).
Please add
_no_torque=0;
to
Rotor::Rotor()
in source/src/FDM/YASim/Rotor.cpp
(it's the first function in the file)
...and increase
chris wrote:
The main shaft on the D model sees about 3 million inchlb of torque. I do
not
have the number for the super stallion.
Is that at 0 deg pitch? I can extrapolate the torque for the e model by
multiplying that by 7/6 since they use the same blades and (I believe)
have the
Hi
Joacim Persson schrieb:
Or translate the rotor equations to jsbsim -- ?
I have choosen YASim, because I found there the two functions
_body.addForce(pos, force);
_body.addTorque(torque);
And this is the interface between YASim and the rotor-simulation. A
solver is
Maik Justus wrote:
Hi Josh,
yes, it's a bug. on variable is not initialized, and therefore this
effect can happen (depending on compiler and the situation in the memory).
Please add
_no_torque=0;
to
Rotor::Rotor()
in source/src/FDM/YASim/Rotor.cpp
(it's the first function in the
Maik Justus wrote:
The diff between the cvs and my debug version is:
- calculation of the rotor in different segments (with a
twist-Parameter) (but only in four directions (front, back, right, left)
- rather realistic calculation of consumed power (and therefore you can
autorotate)
-
Perhaps yasim weight elements should accept size-prop as an argument as
well as weight-prop. This way an external cargo dialog could let the
user specify how big an external load is.
Josh
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:16:57 +0200, Arnt wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:46:56 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Probably won't win me an oscar
..why not? Republicans oughtta be waaay happy about your
no oil for the commies theme here. ;o)
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
I found the old code quite horrible, even after the last improvements.
The new method is without any doubt superior. If nobody objects, then
I'll commit that tomorrow. Some things should IMHO get improved:
New version attached. I added some more info about the dead
16 matches
Mail list logo
