Martin Spott wrote:

Hello Curt, thanks for your resume !

Oops, did I misclick with this stupid laptop touch pad and attach my resume by mistake?

That sounds interesting, but it's not completely clear to me what they
acutally did to achieve this  ;-)
Did they create an interface within their own simulation that connects
to stock FlightGear, did they extend FlightGear with their specific
interface (source code available ?), did they modify the existing
FlightGear interface to match their needs ?

They use FlightGear's existing netfdm and netctrls structures (they support both v0.9.3 and v0.9.8 versions) within their own code. This way you can connect up to a stock version of FlightGear with minimal messing around. They had a neat demo of a lifting body vehicle returning from space on final approach to KSFO. The dynamics and control was all done in simulink with the aerospace blockset and flightgear was used to visualize the flight in real time. They setup a simple model of the vehicle with animated control surfaces ... they exaggerated the actual movements and painted the underside of the surfaces orange so you could see when they deployed or moved.

It was a really nifty little demo.

And a second question, please: Does their "Aerospace Blocks" have any
relation the "AeroSim Blockset" by U-Dynamics as presented on these

No, the u-dynamics stuff is completely independent. I believe it's similar in scope and purpose, but the Mathworks version is integrated directly into their current aerospace blockset release (available for download (to customers) starting yesterday.) It's not a cheap product but for those that have it, FlightGear adds a *lot* of functionality to what they can do with it.

In addition, the Mathworks stuff supports version 0.9.3 and 0.9.8 (current version) where as the u-dynamics stuff only supports v0.7.9 and v0.9.2 last I checked.



Curtis Olson
HumanFIRST Program
FlightGear Project
Unique text:        2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to