--- "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tony Peden writes: > > In my day job, my own experience has been that > > real-time plotting is useful when you know exactly > > what you are looking for and you only need to see > a > > limited number of parameters. The rest of the > time, > > recording the data and plotting after the fact > works > > out to be better. > > > > That said, it *would* be a very cool thing to be > able > > to do. > > Yes, this would be no substitute for data logging > and post processing, > but if you know what you are looking for, I do think > it could be > useful. > > The immediate thing that comes to my mind is this: > > As a side project I'm working on integrating a > 'commercial' fdm with > FlightGear via a network interface. One of the > things this code > supports is control loading. The hardware guys are > chomping on the > bit wanting to know what range of values the > software is going to kick > out. > > Something like a quick and dirty embedded graphing > program would be > pretty nifty. > > "cout" probably works just as well, but it's not as > pretty. :-) And > once you had the basic graphing mechanism in place, > it would be > trivial to let the user specify which property(ies) > to graph. > > Maybe we could even hook up the GUI prop-picker to > specify which > values we want rather than forcing the user to type > them all in. > > FWIW, I think it's important for the FDM guys to > frequenty fly their > code in real time. In real time with visuals > attached, various > incorrect effects and behaviors can really jump out > at you ... stuff > that you'd never notice when looking through tabular > data, or even a > graph. Sometimes the trend is correct, but the > scale or the sign is > way off.
IMO, this can be good for catching obvious stuff, but I personally would much rather hear commentary from a pilot experienced in type. IANAP, so I often don't know how much stock to put in my own impressions. There just isn't any substitute for getting the thoughts of someone whose "been there and done that" I also think that I know *too much* about the details of the aero and that pilots who don't have an in-depth understanding of aero engineering can oftentimes give better feedback than those who do. > > I would think that being able to fly in real time, > and see some > key graphical data output would be an immensly > useful debugging tool. Yes, it can be. You have the opportunity to iterate, though you do need to be careful that you're flying the aircraft in a repeatable way. With post-processing though, repeatability is not as much of an issue, its easier to look at many different parameters, if needed, and other things like cross plotting and data manipulation are easier as well. > > For instance, nosing over the c310 causes it to go > into an infinite > acceleration cycle. Hmmm I wonder of that is drag > related? Ok, pop > up a live graph of thrust, nose over, watch the > graph with everything > else going on. Nope, drag looks good. I wonder if > it's thrust > related. Oooo, look at that thrust go off the chart > ... ok now let's > graph some individual propellor/engine parameters > ... etc. etc. > > That's how my mind works anyway ... :-) > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program > FlightGear Project > Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt > http://www.flightgear.org > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel