RE: [Flightgear-devel] Conversion scenery MS Flightsim 2002 toflightgear
As far as I am aware any scenery designed for FS2K2 using the Gmax program can not be converted for Flightgear as yet.If it was designed with one of the other programs that make scenery for FS then maybe. Thanks for your reply, I don't know if it was gmax. But its mainly these *.*af -Files and a *.bgl-file, and some bitmaps with structures. Also there are *.pat, *.mdl, *.r8, *.caf and some other filetypes if that helps. Thought, just the *.bgl must be converted, according to the faq of flightgear. Gordon Hello all, I have a very detailed scenery for Braunschweig Airport in Germany EDVE 52 19 09 N 276 ft 10 33 22 E one of my colleagues made for MS Flightsimulator 2002. He allowed to use it for flightgear as freeware, too. Is there anyone who can do the conversion of the scenery ? Since I'm not an experienced programmer (in fact having not even linux...) I can't do the conversion of my own. I would like to email the scenery to anyone, who likes to give it a try... (Step-by-step hints for the conversion are also appreciated !) Regards, Gordon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Conversion scenery MS Flightsim 2002toflightgear
Hello Gordon The af and caf are the same file.It just means there are more than ten textures for the object.The af extension is numbered 0 to 9 then if they need any more textures for the object they number them a,b,c hence the caf. So the af and r8 are texture files and the bgl and mdl are the object files the .pat file I dont know. But all the texture and object files would have to be converted then they would have to be located in FG. If you could tell me exactly were the files can be downloaded from I could have a look and see what might be involved. Cheers Innis Gordon Strickert Thanks for your reply, I don't know if it was gmax. But its mainly these *.*af -Files and a *.bgl-file, and some bitmaps with structures. Also there are *.pat, *.mdl, *.r8, *.caf and some other filetypes if that helps. Thought, just the *.bgl must be converted, according to the faq of flightgear. Gordon _ Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=clickclientID=174referral=Hotmail_taglines_plainURL=http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Inspired by others on this list I had my first flight with controls in my hands on a C172. This was the first flight I ever had on such a small plane. I once sat in a BN2 as a passanger but I must admit that sitting in a 10 seater, even though it was a great excitement sitting behind the co's seat (no co present on this flight), wathing everything that's going on, was far not that much a great experience as the flight yesterday. The Instructor took of from EDLN runway 13 and handed the controls over to me after reaching 1500 feet. I had about 10 minutes time to head south and get the feeling how to fly at a constant altitude - I didn't really 'manage' it but it worked quite well for the first time (watch the horizon !). After reaching the 'playground' over an open mining of brown coal we had time for a little 'programme'. Standard turn right (I overshot by about 15 seconds), standard turn left, another standard turn (much better than the first one). The next excercises were shown by the instructor before I had the chance to do them myself - I had to handle carb heating and throttle, the instructor dealt with the mixture. So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank (how would you call this in English ?) and two stall recoveries (hey, you lost only 100 feet !). _This_ was really a pretty nice experience after all. During our programme a pair of Tornados came by way below us, VFR at about 150 feet. After 25 minutes I headed for the airport the instructor took over for approach. EDLN is an airfield with (small) airline traffic, so you have to follow certain procedures that are quite new to me. But I think I'll be able to learn that stuff. Hey guys (and gals), do that yourself, it is really worth it ! And don't forget to watch out, especially remember the position of the horizon anytime, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Martin Spott wrote : Inspired by others on this list I had my first flight with controls in my hands on a C172. This was the first flight I ever had on such a small plane. Hey, that's great. ... Hey guys (and gals), do that yourself, it is really worth it ! And don't forget to watch out, especially remember the position of the horizon anytime, You can say what you want, but simulation cannot render the feeling of having a real plane in its hands. who's next ? -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about clouds in Flightgear vs. FS2004
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now i defined FG_USE_CLOUDS_3D at the beginning of the main.cxx file. But when starting make i get this error: main.o: In function `fgRenderFrame(void)': /home/oliver/x/src/cvs/flightgear-cvs/source/src/Main/main.cxx:520: undefined reference to `SkySceneLoader::Set_Cloud_Orig(Point3D *)' Ah, you are almost there. Now you only have to add -lsgclouds3d to the line containing -lsgmisc in you Makefile or Makefile.am Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Martin Spott wrote: Inspired by others on this list I had my first flight with controls in my hands on a C172. This was the first flight I ever had on such a small plane. The Instructor took of from EDLN runway 13 and handed the controls over to me after reaching 1500 feet. I had about 10 minutes time to head south and get the feeling how to fly at a constant altitude - I didn't really 'manage' it but it worked quite well for the first time (watch the horizon !). After reaching the 'playground' over an open mining of brown coal we had time for a little 'programme'. So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank (how would you call this in English ?) and two stall recoveries (hey, you lost only 100 feet !). _This_ was really a pretty nice experience after all. During our programme a pair of Tornados came by way below us, VFR at about 150 feet. Seems you had a lot more exciting moments in your first trip than I had! The most exciting was a few sharp turns around an aquaduct. Anyhow, I agree with you that every one who likes to use simulators should at least once try to fly a real airplane. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhow, I agree with you that every one who likes to use simulators should at least once try to fly a real airplane. I wouldn't say I like to use simulators. I simply was looking for a piece of software I could partially misuse for my own purpose. Somehow I got attracted by FlightGear because it offers one step of a way I was heading for since I left school but never managed to walk. Now I might come out spending time and money for the PPL that was previously determined to be poured into my private project ;-)) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Martin Spott writes: Inspired by others on this list I had my first flight with controls in my hands on a C172. This was the first flight I ever had on such a small plane. Excellent -- congratulations! The Instructor took of from EDLN runway 13 and handed the controls over to me after reaching 1500 feet. I had about 10 minutes time to head south and get the feeling how to fly at a constant altitude - I didn't really 'manage' it but it worked quite well for the first time (watch the horizon !). I'm sure that it went fine. In Canada, even for the instrument rating, you have to hold enroute altitude only +/-100 feet (with extra allowance for significant turbulence), though most people try to keep it much tighter. For the private pilot's license, I think that the tolerance is +/- 200 feet, but I'll have to check. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to hold +/- 10 feet for VFR or IFR, but do not even think about beating yourself up in your early training because of a few altitude excursions, even if your country's standards are a little tighter than over here. After reaching the 'playground' over an open mining of brown coal we had time for a little 'programme'. Standard turn right (I overshot by about 15 seconds), standard turn left, another standard turn (much better than the first one). The next excercises were shown by the instructor before I had the chance to do them myself - I had to handle carb heating and throttle, the instructor dealt with the mixture. That sounds like a lot to be doing on the intro flight -- the usual program (at least in North America) is just to fly a 30-minute sightseeing flight, giving the student the controls at altitude and possibly (with a lot of assistance) for takeoff and landing. Timed turns are very advanced stuff -- their only real purpose is for partial-panel IFR without radar vectors. For 'playground', we say 'practice area' in North America. Wie sagt man's auf Deutsch? So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank (how would you call this in English ?) and two stall recoveries (hey, you lost only 100 feet !). Steep turns and stalls in an intro flight? By gawd! Did you ask for all that especially, or is it standard? I think it's great that you did all that and that you enjoyed it (and did well, from the sound of it), but the trouble is that it would scare a lot of people in an intro flight. By the way, we use only 45 degrees for our steep turns -- not nearly as exciting. _This_ was really a pretty nice experience after all. During our programme a pair of Tornados came by way below us, VFR at about 150 feet. That kind of thing is always wonderful. I took my family up for a couple of quick circuits on Canada Day (1 July), and the Snowbirds (http://www.snowbirds.dnd.ca/) were up in their CT-114's about four miles ahead of us doing aerobatics and formation work over downtown Ottawa. It was great for my pax seeing them from the air (at eye level) and listening to them talking to tower; at one point, the Snowbirds all went vertical and made a fan with their smoke trails right at 12 O'Clock. On the ground, my family also got to watch a 182 dive-bombing the field repeatedly trying to do a banner pickup. After 25 minutes I headed for the airport the instructor took over for approach. EDLN is an airfield with (small) airline traffic, so you have to follow certain procedures that are quite new to me. But I think I'll be able to learn that stuff. I think that it's good to train out of a moderately busy field, because then radio procedures and ATC will never be a stress. I flew into New York airspace a few weeks ago (of PUSHING TIN fame) to land at KCDW, and it was no big deal. Hey guys (and gals), do that yourself, it is really worth it ! And don't forget to watch out, especially remember the position of the horizon anytime, Forgetting that simple rule probably cost me at least a few hundred $$ in extra lessons. That's why I wrote this (in case anyone hasn't seen it already): http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/Tutorials/circuit/ Thanks for the report, and welcome to the club. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Martin Spott writes: I wouldn't say I like to use simulators. I simply was looking for a piece of software I could partially misuse for my own purpose. Somehow I got attracted by FlightGear because it offers one step of a way I was heading for since I left school but never managed to walk. Now I might come out spending time and money for the PPL that was previously determined to be poured into my private project ;-)) Martin: I don't know how much free time you have, but if you price it out, it could turn out that it's cheaper to come to North America to do your PPL training (I'm pretty sure the hours will be recognized in Germany though you might have to redo the flight test and written exam -- check, of course). The average cost for finishing a PPL in Canada, including ground school and all other expenses, is about CAD 7,500-8,000 (ca. EUR 5,000); if you're a fast learner, it could be as little as CAD 6,000 (EUR 3,800). What's the average cost in DE? All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Congratulations! Great feeling, isn't it? I started about 6 weeks ago, in a 152, and had a very similar experience... Didn't do any stalls on the first flight, but I was kind of shocked when he had me do the taxiing and the takeoff by myself. (Maybe that's the difference between an intro flight and lesson 1.) He did nothing but the radios. (Class D airport - KORH) I lost a lot of altitude on my first turns despite the fact I knew enough to expect to have to add back pressure... A 60 degree bank is one *steep* turn. For a PPL in the states, they ask you to demonstrate steep turns, but at 45 degrees. If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. I was absolutely mortified when my instructor didn't take the controls on final approach. He actually expected me to land it! I was under strict voice control... Carb heat on, reduce power to 1500 RPM, keep it lined up, add some power, steady.steady drop the nose a bit, power all the way out No, really, all the way keep the nose down MATT! LET THE NOSE DOWN That's it Yes, we do want to reach the ground level out a little more back pressure. LIFT THE NOSE! keep it steady [THUD] Beautiful! Flaps up, and steer with your feet. About 20 seconds of sheer terror. And in retrospect, I've got about 25 landings under my belt, and that one was actually pretty good, although I didn't like it at the time In any case, it really is a blast, and I too highly recommend an intro flight (if not lesson 1...) for anybody who enjoys flying a sim (or playing around)... (Do not ask to flight beneath bridges...!) Martin, if you decide to continue on for you PPL, I can recommend a good ground school program in Cleared for Takeoff by King Schools. (Resold by Cessna, too.) It's something like 26 CDs; you simply watch the video, and answer some questions. It's windows based, however, and very much geared to the US, which may or may not be useful to you... Any how, good luck! And welcome! -Matt Martin Spott wrote: Inspired by others on this list I had my first flight with controls in my hands on a C172. This was the first flight I ever had on such a small plane. I once sat in a BN2 as a passanger but I must admit that sitting in a 10 seater, even though it was a great excitement sitting behind the co's seat (no co present on this flight), wathing everything that's going on, was far not that much a great experience as the flight yesterday. The Instructor took of from EDLN runway 13 and handed the controls over to me after reaching 1500 feet. I had about 10 minutes time to head south and get the feeling how to fly at a constant altitude - I didn't really 'manage' it but it worked quite well for the first time (watch the horizon !). After reaching the 'playground' over an open mining of brown coal we had time for a little 'programme'. Standard turn right (I overshot by about 15 seconds), standard turn left, another standard turn (much better than the first one). The next excercises were shown by the instructor before I had the chance to do them myself - I had to handle carb heating and throttle, the instructor dealt with the mixture. So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank (how would you call this in English ?) and two stall recoveries (hey, you lost only 100 feet !). _This_ was really a pretty nice experience after all. During our programme a pair of Tornados came by way below us, VFR at about 150 feet. After 25 minutes I headed for the airport the instructor took over for approach. EDLN is an airfield with (small) airline traffic, so you have to follow certain procedures that are quite new to me. But I think I'll be able to learn that stuff. Hey guys (and gals), do that yourself, it is really worth it ! And don't forget to watch out, especially remember the position of the horizon anytime, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Matt Fienberg writes: If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. ... and on your seat cushion. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Very true... But it's the wing load that cause your stall speed to increase... Seat cussion load causes other problems ;) David Megginson wrote: Matt Fienberg writes: If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. ... and on your seat cushion. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Hi, I'm writing a little application to link Aerowinx PS1 simulator to FlightGear to have a better world visualization. (to C. Olson: the project discussed by mail the 18 April) I use the FG 0.9.1 from CVS where I found a java library to drive FG from the network. (I'm updating my CVS to 0.9.2 right now) For now, the flightgear aircraft is only at the good altitude. :D 1° I read into the java library some variables like /position/altitude-ft and I would like know if there is a document listing all the variables. 2° I sent updates from the network and the aircraft is moving... fine. But it seems that updates are too slow. Is there a theorical update frequency to avoid some step in the aircraft flight ? or the faster update is the better update ? Regards Christophe. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure that it went fine. In Canada, even for the instrument rating, you have to hold enroute altitude only +/-100 feet (with extra allowance for significant turbulence), though most people try to keep it much tighter. For the private pilot's license, I think that the tolerance is +/- 200 feet, but I'll have to check. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to hold +/- 10 feet for VFR or IFR, [...] I found it not to be too difficult. I consider the yoke of a C172 as the major hurdle: You push it but you get only miminal feedback if it really moves of if it's just you wrist that is twisting a few millimeters. I'll try to have plane with stick the next time so I get a feeling for the difference. I sat in a C172 and other planes many times - standing still on the ground. I have the impression the yoke of a C172 is not optimal when you want to realize only small evelator movement. What about your Piper ? They have the same one at the flight school. Still it's embarassing how easy it is to hold the altitude within +/- 20 feet even in a bit 'bumpy' air when you look at the horizon. Every time I looked at the altimeter for more than a few seconds I started flying waveform. After returning to the view out of the screen I managed to stabilize altitute within 5 seconds or so. For 'playground', we say 'practice area' in North America. Wie sagt man's auf Deutsch? Oh', I'm shure there is an appropriate translation for 'practice area' in German, but I consider the word 'playground' as well chosen: Nobody out there (except the Tornado's) and lots of space to to everything you like :-) Just like a 'Spielplatz'. You're aiming at 'Übungsgelände'. Steep turns and stalls in an intro flight? By gawd! Did you ask for all that especially, or is it standard? I don't think there's a standard. I've been doing a little bit with model airplanes and a helicopter during school and I've got a bit of practice with FlightGear (). So I made an agreement with the instructor to do those things he feels safe with me controlling the plane and do avoid those he does not agree on. Simple as that :-) In 'real' live the instructor is CEO as a small (12 people) software company. He's running the flight school in his spare time. He's doing this for fun only, not to make money - I consider this as a great deal ! Forgetting that simple rule probably cost me at least a few hundred $$ in extra lessons. That's why I wrote this (in case anyone hasn't seen it already): http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/Tutorials/circuit/ Oh, I've read this several times. Still it makes quite a big difference reading a tutorial and remembering the contents of the tutorial while you are in air :-) Thanks, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Just gotta rationalize If I go for my PPL, I need to stay healthy. If I don't, I'll just keep my butt on the couch, eat, and gain weight. Well, we don't what *that* to happen. We all know how expensive healthcare is... Therefore, the cheap solution, is to simply get my PPL... ;) -Matt Martin Spott wrote: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how much free time you have, but if you price it out, it could turn out that it's cheaper to come to North America to do your PPL training (I'm pretty sure the hours will be recognized in Germany though you might have to redo the flight test and written exam -- check, of course). I already considered this as a valuable idea. _But_: I don't earn money as long as I don't work. I'm sort of freelancer Unix sysadmin and I'm in the situation that I have to earn the necessary 9.000 Euro before I can spend them for the PPL. If I take three weeks off then I'm loosing about the same amount of money that I save by doing flight training in north America I'll have do ask my dad ;-)) When I went to Canada for holidays (twice) I thought about adding some time for the PPL but that didn't work out because of monetary reasons. Aside of this, I can't stay away from my customers for more than three weeks, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Christophe DONTAINE writes: Hi, I'm writing a little application to link Aerowinx PS1 simulator to FlightGear to have a better world visualization. (to C. Olson: the project discussed by mail the 18 April) I use the FG 0.9.1 from CVS where I found a java library to drive FG from the network. (I'm updating my CVS to 0.9.2 right now) For now, the flightgear aircraft is only at the good altitude. :D 1° I read into the java library some variables like /position/altitude-ft and I would like know if there is a document listing all the variables. 2° I sent updates from the network and the aircraft is moving... fine. But it seems that updates are too slow. Is there a theorical update frequency to avoid some step in the aircraft flight ? or the faster update is the better update ? Hi, Unfortunately the interface mechanism you are using is not designed to be high bandwidth. I believe it runs at 5hz? and only processes one line/command per iteration. It would work better to send over an FGNetFDM structure (src/Network/net_fdm.hxx) via UDP. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org 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
Re: re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Martin Spott writes: I found it not to be too difficult. I consider the yoke of a C172 as the major hurdle: You push it but you get only miminal feedback if it really moves of if it's just you wrist that is twisting a few millimeters. I'll try to have plane with stick the next time so I get a feeling for the difference. The trim wheel makes a big difference: you always want to set the yoke so that the horizon is in the right place, then immediately trim off all pressure. As long as you're holding the yoke loosely with only your thumb and index finger (with your left elbow on the armrest), you'll develop a good sensitivity for fine control pressures. That said, if you're getting a bit of play -- that is, if you can move the yoke noticeably without moving the control surfaces -- then you should consider asking your instructor to put a squawk in the logbook. Even a small yoke movement should result in a small control-surface movement. I sat in a C172 and other planes many times - standing still on the ground. I have the impression the yoke of a C172 is not optimal when you want to realize only small evelator movement. What about your Piper ? They have the same one at the flight school. I have not noticed any play in my yoke. One general problem, though, is phugoid oscillations -- if you make a small elevator change, it will automatically develop into a series of diminishing waves that you then have to damp out. That might be why it seems hard to make small changes right now. Still it's embarassing how easy it is to hold the altitude within +/- 20 feet even in a bit 'bumpy' air when you look at the horizon. Every time I looked at the altimeter for more than a few seconds I started flying waveform. After returning to the view out of the screen I managed to stabilize altitute within 5 seconds or so. You might find that it gets a bit harder, even VFR, when you have more to distract you (radio work, scanning for traffic, maps and navigation, E6B calculations, etc.) but it still sounds like you have a lot of good, natural ability. What time of day did you fly? On a summer afternoon, the thermals can give you quite a good workout (you blink your eyes and you've lost or gained 200 feet). Morning and evening are smoother. Steep turns and stalls in an intro flight? By gawd! Did you ask for all that especially, or is it standard? I don't think there's a standard. I've been doing a little bit with model airplanes and a helicopter during school and I've got a bit of practice with FlightGear (). So I made an agreement with the instructor to do those things he feels safe with me controlling the plane and do avoid those he does not agree on. Simple as that :-) Good -- I was worried that he might be doing that with every new student. In your case, I think it made sense. In 'real' live the instructor is CEO as a small (12 people) software company. He's running the flight school in his spare time. He's doing this for fun only, not to make money - I consider this as a great deal ! Sounds good to me. Obviously you trusted each other enough to do some serious upper air work in the first lesson, and that's a good sign. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Matt Fienberg writes: Just gotta rationalize If I go for my PPL, I need to stay healthy. If I don't, I'll just keep my butt on the couch, eat, and gain weight. Well, we don't what *that* to happen. We all know how expensive healthcare is... Therefore, the cheap solution, is to simply get my PPL... At 75% power, my plane burns 8.5 gph by the book, or about 7.5 gph in real life. That means that every 23 lb I gain is 30 minutes of fuel lost, and vice-versa. Right now, I can fly with my wife, two kids, dog, light luggage, and full fuel, and stay about 30 lb under maximum gross weight; as my girls grow bigger, I'll have to either lose weight or fly without full tanks (and perhaps leave the dog behind). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Matt Fienberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Congratulations! Great feeling, isn't it? Oh, absolutely ! Thanks to all for the good wishes. You're encouraging me to do the second step. A 60 degree bank is one *steep* turn. For a PPL in the states, they ask you to demonstrate steep turns, but at 45 degrees. If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. At least I was told this would be 60 degree. The second mark on the artificial horizon. Isn't it ? For me this looks pretty much like 60 degree. In Germany we call it very similar: 'Steilkurve', that's pretty much the direct translation. I was absolutely mortified when my instructor didn't take the controls on final approach. He actually expected me to land it! I was under strict voice control... Carb heat on, reduce power to 1500 RPM, keep it lined up, add some power, steady.steady drop the nose a bit, power all the way out No, really, all the way keep the nose down MATT! LET THE NOSE DOWN That's it Yes, we do want to reach the ground level out a little more back pressure. LIFT THE NOSE! [...] In FlightGear it's quite easy to touch down before the beginning of the runway. This feels a bit different when you encounter all the poles and lights below your feet on a real landing :-) Martin, if you decide to continue on for you PPL, I can recommend a good ground school program in Cleared for Takeoff by King Schools. (Resold by Cessna, too.) It's something like 26 CDs; you simply watch the video, Thanks. I'll decide how to do my trainig when the Time Has Come and I'll consider your suggestion, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:09:07 -0500 Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christophe DONTAINE writes: Hi, I'm writing a little application to link Aerowinx PS1 simulator to FlightGear to have a better world visualization. (to C. Olson: the project discussed by mail the 18 April) I use the FG 0.9.1 from CVS where I found a java library to drive FG from the network. (I'm updating my CVS to 0.9.2 right now) For now, the flightgear aircraft is only at the good altitude. :D 1° I read into the java library some variables like /position/altitude-ft and I would like know if there is a document listing all the variables. 2° I sent updates from the network and the aircraft is moving... fine. But it seems that updates are too slow. Is there a theorical update frequency to avoid some step in the aircraft flight ? or the faster update is the better update ? Hi, Unfortunately the interface mechanism you are using is not designed to be high bandwidth. I believe it runs at 5hz? and only processes one line/command per iteration. You could try upping the frequency via the command line, --props=socket,bi,20,,5500,tcp. There was a bug where the frequency was always 5Hz regardless of the command line. Hopefully this was fixed. It would work better to send over an FGNetFDM structure (src/Network/net_fdm.hxx) via UDP. Agreed, although it might be tricky from a java app. Bernie ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Martin Spott writes: Martin, if you decide to continue on for you PPL, I can recommend a good ground school program in Cleared for Takeoff by King Schools. (Resold by Cessna, too.) It's something like 26 CDs; you simply watch the video, Thanks. I'll decide how to do my trainig when the Time Has Come and I'll consider your suggestion, Actually, the first step is to order a copy of the book STICK AND RUDDER by Wolfgang Langweise and read it cover-to-cover at least twice. It was written in the early 1940's, but is still in print and is still the bible of VFR flying -- I've never met a pilot who read it and didn't recommend it strongly. Order it now -- it's a cheap investment at EUR 24.00. Unfortunately, I didn't read it until after I finished my PPL (and after I'd written my Circuit in FlightGear tutorial): http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070362408/ Outside of Germany: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070362408/ http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070362408/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070362408/ etc. Also highly recommended for people who fly only the sim -- you can try out the techniques with the book open on your desk in front of you. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would work better to send over an FGNetFDM structure (src/Network/net_fdm.hxx) via UDP. Maybe sometime someone finds the time to 'normalize' this interface to make it platform independent ;-) I'll see if I get a colleague doing this - if Curt does not object. I think it makes sense to define byte order and size of the respective values a 'standard' like they happen to be on Unix/ia32, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Views
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:04:11PM -, Jim Wilson wrote: Hmm, this makes me think we could use the Linux way of switching text consoles: alt+F1 ... alt+F8 - 8 different views! I know there's at least one flight simulator that toggles views with the function keys. Maybe it's ACM (I didn't use ACM for 7 years or so ). We must be careful not to intefere with Linux' console switching, As far as I remember, you need CTRL+ALT+Fx to switch console under X. Right. I don't think we're using any ALT key bindings. Are there compatibility issues here? Can we do ALT? I think many windowmanagers (and windows itself, Alt+F4) use Alt for their purposes. I'd like to have Alt free for System and Windowmanager stuff. I'm thinking along the lines of emacs: Control for most shortcuts, and Meta for others (which the user could map to Alt, or Windoze keys, or whatever) In blender eg. i can't use some Alt- shortcuts since i've have some Alt- mapped for my windowmanager (ion). Regards, Manuel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Maiden flight
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank (how would you call this in English ?) and two stall recoveries (hey, you lost only 100 feet !). Wow. Did your instructor know you had flight simulation experience? Or did you request the 60 degree turn and stall recovery maneuvers? I told him the way I'm involved in the Flightgear project and he responded Aaaah, quality control ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Martin Spott writes: Maybe sometime someone finds the time to 'normalize' this interface to make it platform independent ;-) I'll see if I get a colleague doing this - if Curt does not object. I think it makes sense to define byte order and size of the respective values a 'standard' like they happen to be on Unix/ia32, Could you be more specific? The routines already support network byte order, however there are cases (i.e. interfacing to an external perl script using pack/unpack, where network byte order is not desirable) so I'd like to keep this optional. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org 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
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Maiden flight
So I had a few narrow curves with 60 degree bank A 60 degree bank is one *steep* turn. For a PPL in the states, they ask you to demonstrate steep turns, but at 45 degrees. If I remember correctly, a 60 deg turn causes a 2G load on the wings. I suspect that the big reason the FAA uses 40 degrees for private pilots is so they can use 55 degrees for commercial pilots while keeping both angles below the 60 degree regulatory limit where parachutes are required. Both kinds of steep turn are specified with an altitude tolerance, a speed tolerance, a bank angle tolerance, heading tolerance (on rollout) and must be performed coordinated with obvious scanning for traffic. Most people can manage 'any two' on that list and I guess the origin of the maneuver would have been a spate of accidents caused by people stalling out of the turn into a spin, or flying into the ground, etc etc. The maneuver can be attempted in FGFS, complete with the distractions, but it's worth learning how to direct the view direction to the side and 45 degrees down (i.e. at the horizon when turning) first. 8-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Spott writes: Maybe sometime someone finds the time to 'normalize' this interface to make it platform independent ;-) Could you be more specific? The routines already support network byte order, however there are cases (i.e. interfacing to an external perl script using pack/unpack, where network byte order is not desirable) so I'd like to keep this optional. O.k., I understand. But what am I going to do when the 'client' runs on a different platform with different byte order where an int probably has a different size (say a PPC750) ? You know that I can't decide to stick to one plaform ;-) It's just a thought with platform interoperability in mind. But if I really start flight trainig this idea probably becomes obsolete because I won't have the time and money to proceed with my project Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Martin Spott writes: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Spott writes: Maybe sometime someone finds the time to 'normalize' this interface to make it platform independent ;-) Could you be more specific? The routines already support network byte order, however there are cases (i.e. interfacing to an external perl script using pack/unpack, where network byte order is not desirable) so I'd like to keep this optional. O.k., I understand. But what am I going to do when the 'client' runs on a different platform with different byte order where an int probably has a different size (say a PPC750) ? You know that I can't decide to stick to one plaform ;-) It's just a thought with platform interoperability in mind. But if I really start flight trainig this idea probably becomes obsolete because I won't have the time and money to proceed with my project I just don't have the time right now to do 10x the work, just to support a situation that *might* possibly occur in the future. Most people that are going to link up machines for some serious purpose, are likely to buy similar machines. Also, doesn't the C/C++ standard define an int and float to be 4 bytes? I think we cover most reasonable/expected cases right now, and if we do run into something different in the future, then I think it would make sense to spend the effort at that time. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Maiden flight
Alex Perry writes: I suspect that the big reason the FAA uses 40 degrees for private pilots is so they can use 55 degrees for commercial pilots while keeping both angles below the 60 degree regulatory limit where parachutes are required. Both kinds of steep turn are specified with an altitude tolerance, a speed tolerance, a bank angle tolerance, heading tolerance (on rollout) and must be performed coordinated with obvious scanning for traffic. Most people can manage 'any two' on that list and I guess the origin of the maneuver would have been a spate of accidents caused by people stalling out of the turn into a spin, or flying into the ground, etc etc. I do a bit of R/C modeling on the side and this spring I got two aircraft into flying condition that were significantly more aerobatic than anything I've flown previously. One of them is very quick and has a lot of elevator authority, I'm able to *easily* stall it out of a tight loop and sometimes even a steep turn. It's amazing how quickly things can go to H-E-double toothpicks once a wing or two loses lift ... especially when you have a lot of torque up front. It probably happens quicker in a small R/C hotrod than with full scale C172, but still it's enough to give a person a healthy respect of the fringes of the flight regime. http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt/Models/UltraSport40/ Being that I'm not very good at aerobatic flying, one thing that is fun/easy to do is to climp the airplane up as high as I can stand to let it go (you get to the point where you can't see the airplane orientation any more which is a bad for an R/C pilot standing on the ground) then cut the throttle (or don't cut the throttle) :-) and pull full up elevator and help out a little bit with full aileron/rudder (which isn't needed very long). The puts the aircraft into a spin which you can hold indefinitely as it gracefully spins groundward from the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Twenty 360's in a row is kind of cool ... even if it takes no flying skill to do. You loose altitude pretty fast, but it's nothing like a full throttle dive. In R/C flying, spin recovery is a matter of centering the controls until you gain enough flying speed and then pull the nose up with a little elevator. I'm hoping to a get a cheap digital camera in the next few weeks, so if I can find a photographer, maybe I'll be able to post a few short movies. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
Ouch! It seems that I just launch a long discussion :) Bernie Bright I will try this evening for the --props, thank you What about the variables ? 1° I read into the java library some variables like /position/altitude-ft and I would like know if there is a document listing all the variables. Christophe. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Ha, this is the result of three days of practicing for a 3d model of a fokker 100 (and the aeromatic model to match): http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/ Erik http://www.rekkof.nl/fokker100/index_fokker_100.htm It looks like you've got the shape worked out correctly. Very nice! Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Jim Wilson wrote: Erik Hofman said: Ha, this is the result of three days of practicing for a 3d model of a fokker 100 (and the aeromatic model to match): http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/ It looks like you've got the shape worked out correctly. Very nice! There are still some weir artifacts I can't explain. First there's the black tail (??) And if you look carefully you also see there are sections that don't fit nicely to the rest (the shading differs, for example at the cockpit section). I had to do it all three times to get it at this stage, but in the end it's ended up a fairly low polygon model and it looks as if it could be an aircraft. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] autopilot changes
These changes should preserve previous functionality (with the exception of a couple bug fixes). Bugs fixed: - AP no longer resets the error accumulator when switching altitude modes or just closing the autopilot GUI. It will not be necessary to collect the barf bags after selecting a new altitude anymore. Makes things much smoother. - climb_rate calculation in the altitude hold mode included a factor that made sense for the c172. It is now scaled according to the configuration's target climb rate. Additions: Autothrottle (supports speed control only) is more configurable and accurate. VerticalSpeed mode added (automatically arms to altitude if flown toward altitude setting). Exposed various properties, added new lock properties. Here are the changes: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/newauto-mods.diff Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
An alternative reason for keeping it is the KLM stewardesses (at least the last time I went on a Fokker 100 I was suitably impressed). I don't really agree with the article...that's why I had to find alternative reasoning:-) Although my standpoint has a strong degree of bias. The model is looking good! What tool have you been using? On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 16:01, Erik Hofman wrote: Ha, this is the result of three days of practicing for a 3d model of a fokker 100 (and the aeromatic model to match): http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/fokker/ Erik http://www.rekkof.nl/fokker100/index_fokker_100.htm ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Christopher S Horler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Christopher S Horler wrote: An alternative reason for keeping it is the KLM stewardesses (at least the last time I went on a Fokker 100 I was suitably impressed). I don't really agree with the article...that's why I had to find alternative reasoning:-) Although my standpoint has a strong degree of bias. I am probably a bit biased too, but maybe I can convince some others by explaining that the MD-80 is basically a Fokker 100 before the split between McDonnel Douglas and Fokker and the Fokker 100 is produced for the American marked by Fairchild. Anyhow, I am biased and I think it's a shame that the oldest aircraft manufacturer disappeared after severe mis-management. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about clouds in Flightgear vs. FS2004
Ah, you are almost there. Now you only have to add -lsgclouds3d to the line containing -lsgmisc in you Makefile or Makefile.am Erik Ok, i did that now. Everything compiles fine but when i start Flightgear with --enable-clouds3d i get again the following error: Unknown option '--enable-clouds3d' Any ideas? Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Erik Hofman writes: I am probably a bit biased too, but maybe I can convince some others by explaining that the MD-80 is basically a Fokker 100 before the split between McDonnel Douglas and Fokker and the Fokker 100 is produced for the American marked by Fairchild. I always thought the MD-80 was a stretched-out DC-9. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim Wilson wrote: Erik Hofman said: There are still some weir artifacts I can't explain. First there's the black tail (??) And if you look carefully you also see there are sections that don't fit nicely to the rest (the shading differs, for example at the cockpit section). Are you using ac3d or blender? ac3d. Ah ok. In that case select the tail object, and on object menu, optimize vertices and surfaces. Triangulate anything that has a concave surface (surface menu?). If its still black there after that check to see if there are any vertices that don't belong. Select invidiual or pairs of vertices and make sure that the vertices selected number in the upper left is what you expect. Some can't be fixed. So if all else fails, go into surface mode. Select that one surface and delete it. Then select the vertices that you want to be in the replacement surface (use CTRL+left click in the 3d window). Select them in counter clockwise order. Then select create ordered surface on the vertex menu. Make the surface single sided. If it disappears after that then select Flip Normals on the surface menu (they weren't counter clockwise). Generally you want almost everything single sided (except the occassional fin or door poly. Also any object that is a single surface needs to be triangulated to prevent plib from screwing it up. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] autopilot changes
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 18:19, Jim Wilson wrote: These changes should preserve previous functionality (with the exception of a couple bug fixes). Bugs fixed: - AP no longer resets the error accumulator when switching altitude modes or just closing the autopilot GUI. It will not be necessary to collect the barf bags after selecting a new altitude anymore. Makes things much smoother. - climb_rate calculation in the altitude hold mode included a factor that made sense for the c172. It is now scaled according to the configuration's target climb rate. Additions: Autothrottle (supports speed control only) is more configurable and accurate. VerticalSpeed mode added (automatically arms to altitude if flown toward altitude setting). Exposed various properties, added new lock properties. Here are the changes: http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/newauto-mods.diff Best, Jim Goody - I look forward to playing with them:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: I am probably a bit biased too, but maybe I can convince some others by explaining that the MD-80 is basically a Fokker 100 before the split between McDonnel Douglas and Fokker and the Fokker 100 is produced for the American marked by Fairchild. I always thought the MD-80 was a stretched-out DC-9. There was a need for a replacement of the DC-9 and that's where Fokker and McDonnel Douglas teamed up. The Fokker 100 is a derived of the Fokker 28 which needed to be replaced also. I don't know the details of why they didn't continue but the MD-80 is and Fokker 100 share the same basics. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Jim Wilson wrote: Ah ok. In that case select the tail object, and on object menu, optimize vertices and surfaces. Triangulate anything that has a concave surface (surface menu?). If its still black there after that check to see if there are any vertices that don't belong. Select invidiual or pairs of vertices and make sure that the vertices selected number in the upper left is what you expect. Some can't be fixed. So if all else fails, go into surface mode. Select that one surface and delete it. Then select the vertices that you want to be in the replacement surface (use CTRL+left click in the 3d window). Select them in counter clockwise order. Then select create ordered surface on the vertex menu. Make the surface single sided. If it disappears after that then select Flip Normals on the surface menu (they weren't counter clockwise). Generally you want almost everything single sided (except the occassional fin or door poly. Also any object that is a single surface needs to be triangulated to prevent plib from screwing it up. It won't be today, but I'll definitely try this out. Thanks Jim! Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 100 3D model
Erik Hofman wrote: There was a need for a replacement of the DC-9 and that's where Fokker and McDonnell Douglas teamed up. The Fokker 100 is a derived of the Fokker 28 which needed to be replaced also. I don't know the details of why they didn't continue but the MD-80 is and Fokker 100 share the same basics. I do know why they split up, McDonnell Douglas wanted to make a 120+ passenger aircraft while Fokker wanted to max out at 100 passengers. BTW: http://www.100megsfree4.com/yyzphotos/airline_pages/fisher_photo/c_ftas_fok28.jpg http://www.zap16.com/images/CIV_AR19_2.jpg http://www.100megsfree4.com/yyzphotos/airline_pages/fisher_photo/n134aa_aa_dc9.jpg http://www.kolumbus.fi/osku.ekqvist/ac_images/md80_alaska.jpg Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] offset-azimuth
I checked in changes to fix offset-azimuth a bit. Previously, the presets code was snapping the aircraft heading to the nearest runway heading even when an offset-azimuth was specified. Now, if an offset-azimuth is present, the aircraft will stay at the user-specified heading. For example, this will start the aircraft flying southwards with the airport off the right wing: fgfs --offset-distance=3 --altitude=2000 --vc=110 --offset-azimuth=90 --heading=180 All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Rudder Trim
I may have asked this before... not sure There is a property Rudder Trim, are any controls mapped to this by default. Also the keyboard gives me rudder movement in only one direction at present and it isn't reported in the property browser. This is using the default C172. Chris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rudder Trim
Also the keyboard gives me rudder movement in only one direction at present and it isn't reported in the property browser. This is using the default C172. Do you mean that KP_Enter works but KP_0 doesn't do anything? Anything else that isn't working? I'm asking because I had a very similar thing recently. Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rudder Trim
I'll have to get back to you on that - that's not the control listed in the docs - KP_Enter (the 0 works) On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 22:29, Major A wrote: Also the keyboard gives me rudder movement in only one direction at present and it isn't reported in the property browser. This is using the default C172. Do you mean that KP_Enter works but KP_0 doesn't do anything? Anything else that isn't working? I'm asking because I had a very similar thing recently. Andras === Major Andras e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://andras.webhop.org/ === ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Christopher S Horler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Avionics Options
I've added some shortcut options for setting up the basic avionics from the command-line: --nav1=[radial:]frequency --nav2=[radial:]frequency --adf=[rotation:]frequency --dme=nav1|nav2|frequency Here is an example, tuning NAV1 to 114.6, setting the indicator to the 320 radial, and slaving the DME to NAV1: fgfs --nav1=320:114.6 --dme=nav1 All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG Network interface
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:57:19 -0500 Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bernie Bright writes: Unfortunately the interface mechanism you are using is not designed to be high bandwidth. I believe it runs at 5hz? and only processes one line/command per iteration. You could try upping the frequency via the command line, --props=socket,bi,20,,5500,tcp. There was a bug where the frequency was always 5Hz regardless of the command line. Hopefully this was fixed. Hi Bernie, Another thing that would be helpful would be to process all pending commands each time through rather than just the first in the queue. How hard would it be to make this change? Tricky. We are limited by how plib.net handles line terminators which is controlled by how often netChannel::poll() is called. However we could change PropsChannel::foundTerminator() to handle several commands per line. Commands could be separated with semicolons. Or perhaps some commands could take more than one argument, eg get /foo/bar /foo/baz. Cheers, Bernie ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aero-matic Q:
Can somebody explain what to do with the files that the aero-matic script produces? I entered the small amount of information for a C152, generated the three files, and modified the propulsion xml names as described on the webpage. Now what? I built a c152 directory inside data/aircraft, and put the c152.xml there. I put the engine file (lycoming_O-235-L2C.xml) and the prop file, (c152-prop.xml) both in the data/engine directory. Is this correct? I started up fgfs with the attribute --aero=c152, and well, it certainly had some affect... It took off on its own... sitting at idle, the engine was running at 1500 rpm, and full throttle was almost all the way around to the zero mark I've looked through the files, and the numbers (those that I can understand...) seem reasonable. This is a 110 hp engine! Am I going about this the right way? Thanks, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Some Observations on scenery affects on frame rates
Hello All Having got the 3D scenery around SanFrancisco to show I thought I might load up KSFO with some A/C and see what the affects might be.The results were Using the untextured model that David used gave 18fps Using a textured 737 I have gave 5fps Using the A320 textured model of Fred's gave 10fps And using the 747 with textures the sim stalled any time I was facing the A/C. Some of the other things I observed were. You need to have a separate .ac file for each different textured A/C in the scenery. Which would lead to rather large scenery files. The model David used sits at 90deg comparied to the other A/C I used. Each A/C sat at a slightly different height for the same set altitude. eg: some half buried and some sitting in the air. The frame rate drop seemed to occur no matter how near or far you are from the airport.This would seem to indicate that we need some form of LOD.I know AC3D has the ability to produce as many LOD models as would be required. With only 27 A/C and the untextured terminal at KSFO it seems we are not going to get a lot of 3D scenery before most of the lower end computers grind to a halt. Some things that would help(just my opinion) Being able to access the A/C models from their A/C folder. The ability to use different textures on the one model in the scenery. The ability to move around the scenery using the arrow keys and to transmit current position to a file which could later be used to produce the stg files. I provide this information as a talking point as to how we can improve FG. I look forward to your comments and ideas. Cheers Innis _ Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=clickclientID=174referral=Hotmail_taglines_plainURL=http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Some Observations on scenery affects on framerates
Innis Cunningham writes: Some things that would help(just my opinion) Being able to access the A/C models from their A/C folder. A slightly different approach would be to have the models be accquisitionable from a higher level directory in the path ie if model isn't found in the current directory where the stg lives look in the next higher directory untill it was found. This way we can have common names for common structures yet still have local differances The ability to use different textures on the one model in the scenery. This should be doable now, as SSG definately supports this The ability to move around the scenery using the arrow keys and to transmit current position to a file which could later be used to produce the stg files. Magic Carpet Mode with the alternate HUD is *very* handy :-) Hmm, we used to be able to print the position on demand. but I don't see a key binding for that anymore Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
