Re: [Flightgear-devel] Generic Headshake/G-compression

2008-04-23 Thread Stuart Buchanan
--- On Sun, 20/4/08, Ron Jensen wrote:
 On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:55 -0700, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
  Hi All,
  
  Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork
 
 (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333),
 I've been
  working on an extension to the generic blackout/redout
 script which
  attempts to simulate the feeling of compression due to
 g-forces, by
  moving the pilot viewpoint vertically depending on the
 apparent
  g-force.

This has now been checked in.

  2) Currently the redout and headshake enabling
 properties are
  userarchive, which (as I understand it) means that the
 user's
  preference will over-write any aircraft setting. Given
 that both these
  generic features duplicate existing aircraft-specific
 code, I think I
  should remove this flag, so aircraft designers can
 over-ride it. Any
  comments?
 
 STRONGLY OPPOSE.  User preference should absolutely
 outweigh the
 aircraft designer.  While I might feel, as an aircraft
 designer, that a
 function adds a degree of realism, I can't and
 don't test on different
 hardware, monitor resolutions, multi-head setups, hardware
 simulator
 setups, etc.  which head-shake may cause problems with.
 
 I personally find it annoying to have the panels jumping
 around during
 IFR flight.

OK. I've left the enabling properties as userarchive.

However, aircraft designers can _disable_ it by simply settings 
/sim/rendering/headshake/rate-m-g=0

I think that should satisfy both users and aircraft designers.

-Stuart


  __
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Generic Headshake/G-compression

2008-04-21 Thread Vivian Meazza
Ron Jensen wrote:

 Sent: 20 April 2008 21:30
 On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:55 -0700, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
  Hi All,
  
  Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork 
  (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been 
  working on an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which 
  attempts to simulate the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by 
  moving the pilot viewpoint vertically depending on the apparent 
  g-force.
  
  This is a simplified version of what vivian, Josh et al. 
 created for 
  the Buccaneer and other aircraft.
  
  Of course, the main advantage of this is that it is completely 
  generic, and pretty lightweight too. The overhead ontop of the 
  redout/blackout is minimal: one extra property read/write 
 per frame, 
  only when the feature is enabled and in cockpit view.
  
  A patch for this is available from 
  http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/headshake.patch
  
  Comments are very welcome, but I'm particularly interested 
 in peoples 
  views on the following:
  
  1) Obviously this duplicates some aircraft-specific code, 
 and one can 
  argue that this sort of feature is only important for high-energy 
  jets, where it should be modelled in more detail than I have done. 
  I've been playing with this code on the Stampe, A4-F and Pitts, and 
  have felt that it has improved the feeling of realism, but then I 
  wrote it ;) Do people feel it is worth providing a generic 
  implementation, given that for most GA flying is at 2g or less, and 
  this will move the pilot viewpoint 5cm!
 
 It is worthwhile to model generically.  Many aircraft in CVS 
 could benefit from this feature without having to recode it for each.
 
  2) Currently the redout and headshake enabling properties are 
  userarchive, which (as I understand it) means that the user's 
  preference will over-write any aircraft setting. Given that 
 both these 
  generic features duplicate existing aircraft-specific code, 
 I think I 
  should remove this flag, so aircraft designers can 
 over-ride it. Any 
  comments?
 
 STRONGLY OPPOSE.  User preference should absolutely outweigh 
 the aircraft designer.  While I might feel, as an aircraft 
 designer, that a function adds a degree of realism, I can't 
 and don't test on different hardware, monitor resolutions, 
 multi-head setups, hardware simulator setups, etc.  which 
 head-shake may cause problems with.
 
 I personally find it annoying to have the panels jumping 
 around during IFR flight.

Are we talking about the same utility? Headshake as implemented is a
comparatively small effect, which is only visible at moderate to high G
loadings - you should never see it in IFR flight (unless you have been
trying aerobatics in IFR). I can antcipate no interaction with different
hardware, monitor resolutions, or multi-head setups, although it does need
to be disabled for hardware simulator setups. And unless you are seeing a
bug, the movement is gradual and only jumps around in the event of very high
G loadings - in a crash for example. Did you mean dynamic view?

 
  3) At the moment, this feature is limited to the y-offset 
 of the pilot 
  viewpoint. For non-military aircraft,  the most significant 
 g-forces 
  will be felt in the y-axis (in the pilots frame of 
 reference), as they 
  cannot yaw fast enough to cause any in the x-axis, and they 
 don't have 
  enough power to cause any in the z-axis. If it is worth providing a 
  generic feature, is it worth making it multi-dimensional?
 
 It may be worth while to add.  Perhaps it could be used to 
 give a sense of slip/skid for the GA pilot.
 


Vivian


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] Generic Headshake/G-compression

2008-04-20 Thread Stuart Buchanan
Hi All,

Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork 
(http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been working on 
an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which attempts to simulate 
the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by moving the pilot viewpoint 
vertically depending on the apparent g-force.

This is a simplified version of what vivian, Josh et al. created for the 
Buccaneer and other aircraft.

Of course, the main advantage of this is that it is completely generic, and 
pretty lightweight too. The overhead ontop of the redout/blackout is minimal: 
one extra property read/write per frame, only when the feature is enabled and 
in cockpit view.

A patch for this is available from 
http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/headshake.patch

Comments are very welcome, but I'm particularly interested in peoples views on 
the following:

1) Obviously this duplicates some aircraft-specific code, and one can argue 
that this sort of feature is only important for high-energy jets, where it 
should be modelled in more detail than I have done. I've been playing with this 
code on the Stampe, A4-F and Pitts, and have felt that it has improved the 
feeling of realism, but then I wrote it ;) Do people feel it is worth providing 
a generic implementation, given that for most GA flying is at 2g or less, and 
this will move the pilot viewpoint 5cm!

2) Currently the redout and headshake enabling properties are userarchive, 
which (as I understand it) means that the user's preference will over-write any 
aircraft setting. Given that both these generic features duplicate existing 
aircraft-specific code, I think I should remove this flag, so aircraft 
designers can over-ride it. Any comments?

3) At the moment, this feature is limited to the y-offset of the pilot 
viewpoint. For non-military aircraft,  the most significant g-forces will be 
felt in the y-axis (in the pilots frame of reference), as they cannot yaw fast 
enough to cause any in the x-axis, and they don't have enough power to cause 
any in the z-axis. If it is worth providing a generic feature, is it worth 
making it multi-dimensional?

-Stuart


  __
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Generic Headshake/G-compression

2008-04-20 Thread Ron Jensen

On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:55 -0700, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
 Hi All,
 
 Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork
 (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been
 working on an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which
 attempts to simulate the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by
 moving the pilot viewpoint vertically depending on the apparent
 g-force.
 
 This is a simplified version of what vivian, Josh et al. created for
 the Buccaneer and other aircraft.
 
 Of course, the main advantage of this is that it is completely
 generic, and pretty lightweight too. The overhead ontop of the
 redout/blackout is minimal: one extra property read/write per frame,
 only when the feature is enabled and in cockpit view.
 
 A patch for this is available from
 http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/headshake.patch
 
 Comments are very welcome, but I'm particularly interested in peoples
 views on the following:
 
 1) Obviously this duplicates some aircraft-specific code, and one can
 argue that this sort of feature is only important for high-energy
 jets, where it should be modelled in more detail than I have done.
 I've been playing with this code on the Stampe, A4-F and Pitts, and
 have felt that it has improved the feeling of realism, but then I
 wrote it ;) Do people feel it is worth providing a generic
 implementation, given that for most GA flying is at 2g or less, and
 this will move the pilot viewpoint 5cm!

It is worthwhile to model generically.  Many aircraft in CVS could
benefit from this feature without having to recode it for each.

 2) Currently the redout and headshake enabling properties are
 userarchive, which (as I understand it) means that the user's
 preference will over-write any aircraft setting. Given that both these
 generic features duplicate existing aircraft-specific code, I think I
 should remove this flag, so aircraft designers can over-ride it. Any
 comments?

STRONGLY OPPOSE.  User preference should absolutely outweigh the
aircraft designer.  While I might feel, as an aircraft designer, that a
function adds a degree of realism, I can't and don't test on different
hardware, monitor resolutions, multi-head setups, hardware simulator
setups, etc.  which head-shake may cause problems with.

I personally find it annoying to have the panels jumping around during
IFR flight.

 3) At the moment, this feature is limited to the y-offset of the pilot
 viewpoint. For non-military aircraft,  the most significant g-forces
 will be felt in the y-axis (in the pilots frame of reference), as they
 cannot yaw fast enough to cause any in the x-axis, and they don't have
 enough power to cause any in the z-axis. If it is worth providing a
 generic feature, is it worth making it multi-dimensional?

It may be worth while to add.  Perhaps it could be used to give a sense
of slip/skid for the GA pilot.

Ron



-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] Generic Headshake/G-compression

2008-04-20 Thread Syd
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
 Hi All,

 Enthused by a comment on the forum by snork 
 (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1333), I've been working on 
 an extension to the generic blackout/redout script which attempts to simulate 
 the feeling of compression due to g-forces, by moving the pilot viewpoint 
 vertically depending on the apparent g-force.

 This is a simplified version of what vivian, Josh et al. created for the 
 Buccaneer and other aircraft.

 Of course, the main advantage of this is that it is completely generic, and 
 pretty lightweight too. The overhead ontop of the redout/blackout is minimal: 
 one extra property read/write per frame, only when the feature is enabled and 
 in cockpit view.

 A patch for this is available from 
 http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/headshake.patch

 Comments are very welcome, but I'm particularly interested in peoples views 
 on the following:

 1) Obviously this duplicates some aircraft-specific code, and one can argue 
 that this sort of feature is only important for high-energy jets, where it 
 should be modelled in more detail than I have done. I've been playing with 
 this code on the Stampe, A4-F and Pitts, and have felt that it has improved 
 the feeling of realism, but then I wrote it ;) Do people feel it is worth 
 providing a generic implementation, given that for most GA flying is at 2g or 
 less, and this will move the pilot viewpoint 5cm!

 2) Currently the redout and headshake enabling properties are userarchive, 
 which (as I understand it) means that the user's preference will over-write 
 any aircraft setting. Given that both these generic features duplicate 
 existing aircraft-specific code, I think I should remove this flag, so 
 aircraft designers can over-ride it. Any comments?

 3) At the moment, this feature is limited to the y-offset of the pilot 
 viewpoint. For non-military aircraft,  the most significant g-forces will be 
 felt in the y-axis (in the pilots frame of reference), as they cannot yaw 
 fast enough to cause any in the x-axis, and they don't have enough power to 
 cause any in the z-axis. If it is worth providing a generic feature, is it 
 worth making it multi-dimensional?

 -Stuart

   
Hi Stuart , I had this option long long ago in all my aircraft , but 
Martin Spot claimed that it was unrealistic , so I removed it ... the 
old code is still in the 787 (which is a modification of the 777 Justin 
and I worked on ) , and the A6M2 has the code in jwarbirds.nas ...
Personally , I like the effect :)
Cheers
Syd 


-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel