> > Hi Bertrand,
> >
> > I am currently working on a more generic solution to the issue based on
> > your
> > patch. Currently we have at least three different places within
> > FlightGear
> > calculating tank contents and converting them between different units.
> > The idea is to have a TankPrope
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> I am currently working on a more generic solution to the issue based on
> your
> patch. Currently we have at least three different places within
> FlightGear
> calculating tank contents and converting them between different units.
> The idea is to have a TankProperties class enc
> That was not my point.
> I was talking about the Nasal error.
> Nasal runtime error: vector index 7 out of bounds (size: 7)
> at
> /wrklvm/FlightGear/FlightGear_CVS/data/Aircraft/Boeing314/Nasal/Boeing314-f
> uel.nas, line 79
That should be fixed. However, the version in GIT is broken due to a
> But you have broken my patch! :)
Apologies! It's been a busy week and I tried to commit smart fixes between
long work-days. Obviously not a good idea ;-)
> Also, Anders pointed out that more tanks may be needed even if they
> are not (yet) in the property tree, so ultimately the FDM should be
>
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM, henri orange wrote:
> That was not my point.
> I was talking about the Nasal error.
I know. I just pointed out that the GIT version is broken anyway.
BUT working around the missing file, it DOES now fly, without the fuel
nasal error.
--
Csaba/Jester
---
That was not my point.
I was talking about the Nasal error.
Nasal runtime error: vector index 7 out of bounds (size: 7)
at
/wrklvm/FlightGear/FlightGear_CVS/data/Aircraft/Boeing314/Nasal/Boeing314-fuel.nas,
line 79
called from:
/wrklvm/FlightGear/FlightGear_CVS/data/Aircraft/Boeing314/Nasal/Boe
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM, henri orange wrote:
> Will it solved the Boeing314 issue ?
The Boeing314 in GIT doesn't even get that far, it is missing a file
"Nasal/Boeing314-limits.xml"
Commenting the reference out, the aircraft at least takes off.
--
Csaba/Jester
-
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
>> And that is because of the hardcoded default of 8 fuel tanks. Attached
>> patch makes sure at least the existing tanks are covered by the
>> properties.
>>
> Thanks for spotting this. I was naive enough to think no aircraft ever has
> more t
Will it solved the Boeing314 issue ?
2011/2/8 Torsten Dreyer
> > And that is because of the hardcoded default of 8 fuel tanks. Attached
> > patch makes sure at least the existing tanks are covered by the
> > properties.
> >
> Thanks for spotting this. I was naive enough to think no aircraft ever
> And that is because of the hardcoded default of 8 fuel tanks. Attached
> patch makes sure at least the existing tanks are covered by the
> properties.
>
Thanks for spotting this. I was naive enough to think no aircraft ever has
more then eight tanks. Now TankProperties are created for every con
Hello,
Beware that version, break the tanks system of Boeing 314
Here the Nasal error
Nasal runtime error: vector index 7 out of bounds (size: 7)
at
/wrklvm/FlightGear/FlightGear_CVS/data/Aircraft/Boeing314/Nasal/Boeing314-fuel.nas,
line 79
called from:
/wrklvm/FlightGear/FlightGear_CVS/data
On Sunday, February 06, 2011 01:13:28 PM Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> > I have checked your code and it breaks the previous behaviour for
> > JSBSim. Your code is overwriting JSBSim values during initialization,
> > I would rather do it the other way around and make JSBSim overwrite
> > FlightGear defau
> I have checked your code and it breaks the previous behaviour for
> JSBSim. Your code is overwriting JSBSim values during initialization,
> I would rather do it the other way around and make JSBSim overwrite
> FlightGear default values. Especially because the capacity of all the
> tanks is now se
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Csaba Halász wrote:
>
> But the Concorde still doesn't fly, it now runs out of fuel after a
> few seconds. Still investigating that issue.
And that is because of the hardcoded default of 8 fuel tanks. Attached
patch makes sure at least the existing tanks are covere
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
> 2011/2/6 Torsten Dreyer :
>>
>> I tried the few JSBSim and YASim aircraft that I'm able to handle, please
>> report if I broke anything.
>>
>
> Have you read my previous e-mail ? I attached a patch because JSBSim
> fuel calcs are broken (
2011/2/6 Torsten Dreyer :
>
> I tried the few JSBSim and YASim aircraft that I'm able to handle, please
> report if I broke anything.
>
Have you read my previous e-mail ? I attached a patch because JSBSim
fuel calcs are broken (tested aircraft is p51d). All P51d tank
capacities, levels and fuel de
> Need to update the MSVC90 project file?
Yep - that's done.
All builds should be "green" again.
This patch provides consistent tank properties for
/consumables/fuel/tank[0..7]. The handled properties under each branch are
* level-kg (fuel level in kilogramm)
* density-kgpm3 (fuel density in kg
2011/2/6 Torsten Dreyer :
> I'm curently testing various aircraft on Windows and Linux and I hope to get
> this commited later today.
>
Torsten,
I have checked your code and it breaks the previous behaviour for
JSBSim. Your code is overwriting JSBSim values during initialization,
I would rather d
On 6 Feb 2011, at 14:34, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> I'm curently testing various aircraft on Windows and Linux and I hope to get
> this commited later today.
Need to update the MSVC90 project file?
http://flightgear.simpits.org:8080/job/FlightGear-next-Win/395/
James
2011/2/6 Torsten Dreyer :
>
> I am currently working on a more generic solution to the issue based on your
> patch. Currently we have at least three different places within FlightGear
> calculating tank contents and converting them between different units.
> The idea is to have a TankProperties cla
> Hi FG developers,
>
> Since no further comments have been made, is there any chance to see
> this patch committed in Flight Gear ?
>
> In case you would have additional comments or questions before
> committing, I am of course open to answer them
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bertrand.
Hi Bertrand,
I am c
2011/1/30 Bertrand Coconnier :
> 2011/1/29 Ron Jensen :
>>
>> + double fuelDensity = Propulsion->GetTank(i)->GetDensity();
>>
>> ( ... )
>>
>> + Propulsion->GetTank(i)->GetContents() / fuelDensity);
>>
>>
>> Should we guard against GetDensity() returning 0?
>
> Correct.
>
> Please find an upda
2011/1/29 Ron Jensen :
>
> + double fuelDensity = Propulsion->GetTank(i)->GetDensity();
>
> ( ... )
>
> + Propulsion->GetTank(i)->GetContents() / fuelDensity);
>
>
> Should we guard against GetDensity() returning 0?
Correct.
Please find an updated version of the patch that uses the standard
On Saturday 29 January 2011 07:36:54 Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
> 2011/1/28 Hal V. Engel :
> > A thread was opened on the forum about how the C172P appeared to be
> > incorrectly calculating the amount of fuel in gallons based on the weight
> > of the fuel. It appears that the conversion is using 6
A better improved patch that supersedes the previous FuelDensity.diff
I sent to this list.
This one takes /consumables/fuel/tank[n]/density-ppg into account in the calcs.
Cheers,
Bertrand.
2011/1/29 Bertrand Coconnier :
> 2011/1/28 Hal V. Engel :
>> A thread was opened on the forum about how the
2011/1/28 Hal V. Engel :
> A thread was opened on the forum about how the C172P appeared to be
> incorrectly calculating the amount of fuel in gallons based on the weight of
> the fuel. It appears that the conversion is using 6.6 lbs/gal when it should
> be using something close to 6.0. That is
>
A thread was opened on the forum about how the C172P appeared to be
incorrectly calculating the amount of fuel in gallons based on the weight of
the fuel. It appears that the conversion is using 6.6 lbs/gal when it should
be using something close to 6.0. That is
/fdm/jsbsim/propulsion/tank[n
27 matches
Mail list logo
