[Flightgear-devel] fgfs: freeglut_window.c:657: glutGetWindow: Assertion `fgState.Initialised' failed.
I downloaded the latest CVS SimGear/source/data and compiled it with --enable-sdl and --with-jpeg-factory parameters. When I run fgfs, I get this (haven't seen this problem yet and I did play wih SDL support before): zverina-ii:~/fgfs$ fgfs fgfs: freeglut_window.c:657: glutGetWindow: Assertion `fgState.Initialised' failed. Aborted zverina-ii:~/fgfs$ - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] progress of dc3-cockpit
Hi, have a look at the updated dc3 3d-cockpit: http://mitglied.lycos.de/iljamod/Models.zip some screenshots: http://mitglied.lycos.de/iljamod/cockpit.jpg http://mitglied.lycos.de/iljamod/overhead-panel.jpg http://mitglied.lycos.de/iljamod/throttle.jpg Does anybody know, what is the standard switches layout on the overhead panel? Does anybody know, how the fuel tank selector (on the throttle) works and what properties It needs? Thanks in advance, Ilja ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 09:15:09AM +0200, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. I'd even suggest also giving linear and rotational velocities for the surface polygon(s). This will allow to model things like A/C carriers, oil platforms moving and pitching in the sea. And earthquakes, if somebody cares :-) Kind regards, -Gerhard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Heading error calculation [brain exercise]
Does anyone know of a simple algorithm to calculate the difference between the desired heading and the actual heading, where the angle is given in degrees from 0 to 260? The stipulations are that the result must be = 180. For example, you can go from 60 to 340 degrees (counter-clockwise), 110 to 280 (clockwise), 290 to 40 (clockwise), etc. The desired result in the first case is -80, in the second case, 170, and for the last case, 110. And so on ... The ideal algorithm will have the fewest trivial operations. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heading error calculation [brain exercise]
On Sun, 2 May 2004 08:01:20 -0500 Jon Berndt wrote: Does anyone know of a simple algorithm to calculate the difference between the desired heading and the actual heading, where the angle is given in degrees from 0 to 260? The stipulations are that the result must be = 180. For example, you can go from 60 to 340 degrees (counter-clockwise), 110 to 280 (clockwise), 290 to 40 (clockwise), etc. The desired result in the first case is -80, in the second case, 170, and for the last case, 110. And so on ... The ideal algorithm will have the fewest trivial operations. desired heading - actual heading - difference ( in the range -360 to +360) if difference -180 then add 360 if difference 180 then substract 360 -- Jorge Van Hemelryck ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS and MSYS
Giles Robertson wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_=_NextPart_001_01C42FC5.F549B62D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Do you have a readable translation available ? 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] FGFS and MSYS
Martin Spott wrote: Giles Robertson wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_=_NextPart_001_01C42FC5.F549B62D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Do you have a readable translation available ? html http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Flight%20Gear%20Developer%20Documentationwikiid=2418wpid=123227 /html Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Heading error calculation [brain exercise]
Jon Berndt writes: Does anyone know of a simple algorithm to calculate the difference between the desired heading and the actual heading, where the angle is given in degrees from 0 to 260? The stipulations are that the result must be = 180. For example, you can go from 60 to 340 degrees (counter-clockwise), 110 to 280 (clockwise), 290 to 40 (clockwise), etc. The desired result in the first case is -80, in the second case, 170, and for the last case, 110. And so on ... see $SIMGEAR / simgear / sg_inlines.h SG_NORMALIZE_RANGE( Desired - Actual, -180.0, 180.0 ); Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Heading error calculation [brain exercise]
Does anyone know of a simple algorithm to calculate the difference between the desired heading and the actual heading, where the angle is given in degrees from 0 to 260? The stipulations are that the result must be = 180. For example, you can go from 60 to 340 degrees (counter-clockwise), 110 to 280 (clockwise), 290 to 40 (clockwise), etc. The desired result in the first case is -80, in the second case, 170, and for the last case, 110. And so on ... The ideal algorithm will have the fewest trivial operations. desired heading - actual heading - difference ( in the range -360 to +360) if difference -180 then add 360 if difference 180 then substract 360 Jorge Van Hemelryck Thanks, Jorge, for the answer I was looking for, as well is for ignoring my re-definition that a complete circle goes from 0 to 260 (See above ... Ooops!). Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Hi, sorry for my so late answer, but I can't connect to Internet every day! My post has developed a very big discussion. Thanks to all!! I'm going to see the hitlist.cxx file in the hitlist directory to learn more about the actual situation. Anyway, to realize my truck driving simulator I need a collision detection able to detect collision with the aircraft on runways, with the buildings, with the terrain. I know that is not so easy!! I have no experience in 3d programming now, the driving simulator is an idea for my thesis at the university, but I have only few months (=6) to spend about. With the previous post I have tried to understand if the collision det implementation was a reasonable effort for me, in other words if it was possible in this period of time! But, as I can see, it seems to be very hard!! Marco ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
On Monday 26 Apr 2004 5:39 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote, among other things: There is a *lot* of things going on with the FlightGear project at various levels and it would be nice to have a monthly or quarterly summary in newsletter form for ourselves too. I've volunteered to help John Wojnaroski with editing a FlightGear newsletter, and I've got as far as playing around with a mockup layout. Which is all very well, because we're missing a couple of things. Firstly, a title. Jon's newsletter is called 'Back of the Envelope', which I think is particularly clever - JSBSim is anything but a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are echoes of flight envelope, too. I'm severely lacking inspiration of this calibre, so here's my offer: a bottle of one of the fine beers from my local brewery [1], lovingly packed and shipped to your location, for the best suggestion for the title of a FlightGear newsletter. Competition closes 3 weeks from today, judges' decision is final, all entries become the property of, er, (forget that one), yadda yadda. Fame, glory and Wickwar beer! What are you waiting for? Secondly, we're missing suggestions for content. Suggest away, but what I'd really like is for you to suggest and volunteer to write, as well. Regards Jonathan [1] http://www.wickwarbrewing.co.uk/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
marco gugel wrote: Hi, sorry for my so late answer, but I can't connect to Internet every day! My post has developed a very big discussion. Thanks to all!! I'm going to see the hitlist.cxx file in the hitlist directory to learn more about the actual situation. Anyway, to realize my truck driving simulator I need a collision detection able to detect collision with the aircraft on runways, with the buildings, with the terrain. I know that is not so easy!! I have no experience in 3d programming now, the driving simulator is an idea for my thesis at the university, but I have only few months (=6) to spend about. With the previous post I have tried to understand if the collision det implementation was a reasonable effort for me, in other words if it was possible in this period of time! But, as I can see, it seems to be very hard!! For a complete collision detection, I would implement something in PLIB. Plib is maintaining a bounding sphere for every leaf and branch in the scenegraph tree, and it already uses bounding sphere intersection for its culling test. To see if 2 objects intersect, I would determine if the bounding sphere of their top branch intersect. If not, end of work. If they intersect, I would go down one level and examine the bounding spheres of their components, and so on until either there is no intersection, or some leaves of one object intersect with some of the other object. At the lowest level, I will have to test the actual triangles instead of spheres to have a real result. There will be a special traversal mask to ignore some leaves that are in fact transparent to achieve an effect that do not reflect a physical feature of the object ( for example a cloud or a light halo ). I don't know if it makes sense to you. Don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
On Sun, 2 May 2004 16:20:08 +0100 Jonathan Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Firstly, a title. Jon's newsletter is called 'Back of the Envelope', which I think is particularly clever - JSBSim is anything but a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are echoes of flight envelope, too. 'Gear Chatter' Rick ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
I've volunteered to help John Wojnaroski with editing a FlightGear newsletter, This is great news. Firstly, a title. Jon's newsletter is called 'Back of the Envelope', which I think is particularly clever - JSBSim is anything but a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are echoes of flight envelope, too. I'm severely lacking inspiration of this calibre, so here's my offer: a bottle of one of the fine beers from my local brewery [1], lovingly packed and shipped to your location, for the best suggestion for the title of a FlightGear newsletter. Competition closes 3 weeks from today, judges' decision is final, all entries become the property of, er, (forget that one), yadda yadda. FlightBeer. A just reward. :-) Fame, glory and Wickwar beer! What are you waiting for? Secondly, we're missing suggestions for content. Suggest away, but what I'd really like is for you to suggest and volunteer to write, as well. I think that the first one should contain some sort of introduction to FlightGear. There are certainly a lot of articles already written on that topic, but it just seems appropriate. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
Jonathan Richards wrote: On Monday 26 Apr 2004 5:39 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote, among other things: There is a *lot* of things going on with the FlightGear project at various levels and it would be nice to have a monthly or quarterly summary in newsletter form for ourselves too. I've volunteered to help John Wojnaroski with editing a FlightGear newsletter, and I've got as far as playing around with a mockup layout. Which is all very well, because we're missing a couple of things. Firstly, a title. Jon's newsletter is called 'Back of the Envelope', which I think is particularly clever - JSBSim is anything but a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are echoes of flight envelope, too. I'm severely lacking inspiration of this calibre, so here's my offer: a bottle of one of the fine beers from my local brewery [1], lovingly packed and shipped to your location, for the best suggestion for the title of a FlightGear newsletter. Competition closes 3 weeks from today, judges' decision is final, all entries become the property of, er, (forget that one), yadda yadda. Fame, glory and Wickwar beer! What are you waiting for? Secondly, we're missing suggestions for content. Suggest away, but what I'd really like is for you to suggest and volunteer to write, as well. Regards Jonathan [1] http://www.wickwarbrewing.co.uk/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel It has been said that the flight envelope rests on the ground with the left edge at 0 airspeed. So when dealing with experimental aircraft it is wise to remember that the upper right corner, maximum altitude and speed, is where your postage gets canceled. So some play on postage and postmarks might have a black hummer edginess that would be fun. Charles Puffer ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Frederic Bouvier wrote: marco gugel wrote: Hi, sorry for my so late answer, but I can't connect to Internet every day! My post has developed a very big discussion. Thanks to all!! I'm going to see the hitlist.cxx file in the hitlist directory to learn more about the actual situation. Anyway, to realize my truck driving simulator I need a collision detection able to detect collision with the aircraft on runways, with the buildings, with the terrain. I know that is not so easy!! I have no experience in 3d programming now, the driving simulator is an idea for my thesis at the university, but I have only few months (=6) to spend about. With the previous post I have tried to understand if the collision det implementation was a reasonable effort for me, in other words if it was possible in this period of time! But, as I can see, it seems to be very hard!! For a complete collision detection, I would implement something in PLIB. Plib is maintaining a bounding sphere for every leaf and branch in the scenegraph tree, and it already uses bounding sphere intersection for its culling test. To see if 2 objects intersect, I would determine if the bounding sphere of their top branch intersect. If not, end of work. If they intersect, There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
Jonathan Richards said: Firstly, a title. Jon's newsletter is called 'Back of the Envelope', which I think is particularly clever - JSBSim is anything but a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are echoes of flight envelope, too. I'm severely lacking inspiration of this calibre, so here's my offer: a bottle of one of the fine beers from my local brewery [1], lovingly packed and shipped to your location, for the best suggestion for the title of a FlightGear newsletter. Competition closes 3 weeks from today, judges' decision is final, all entries become the property of, er, (forget that one), yadda yadda. Fame, glory and Wickwar beer! What are you waiting for? How about Gear Up! with the exclamation point included, like that old web directory turned portal that stole its name from Gulliver's Travels? Secondly, we're missing suggestions for content. Suggest away, but what I'd really like is for you to suggest and volunteer to write, as well. Hmmm...let me think about that. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
Jonathan Richards wrote: Firstly, a title. How about: Don't panic in nice and friendly letters? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
How about at a lower level, perform a sort of some sort and isolate polygons that face each other, put these polygons into an array, and then only perform intersection checks on the polygons in these arrays? Regards, Ampere On May 2, 2004 12:41 pm, Erik Hofman wrote: There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS and MSYS
Martin Spott wrote: Giles Robertson wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_=_NextPart_001_01C42FC5.F549B62D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Do you have a readable translation available ? Your mail reader can't handle UTF-8? That sounds like a bug in the reader, not the sender. What are you using? Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sonntag, 2. Mai 2004 01:18, Norman Vine wrote: Every thing you need, or perhaps I should say, everything FlightGear knows about the local scenery is contained in in the hitlist data structure. SRC / Scenery / hitlist.[ch]xx AFAIK The only doumentation is the code it self. :) Ok, will start digging there. Thanks ... Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION: possible or not?
On Sonntag, 2. Mai 2004 12:23, Gerhard Wesp wrote: On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 09:15:09AM +0200, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: 1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair. I'd even suggest also giving linear and rotational velocities for the surface polygon(s). This will allow to model things like A/C carriers, oil platforms moving and pitching in the sea. And earthquakes, if somebody cares :-) Yep, you are right. At least the carrier stuff is interresting I think :) Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Erik Hofman wrote: There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. The truly adventurous should note that the mostly 2D nature of the problem lends itself nicely to a tree-based (quadtree or BSP) hierarchical representation. The coarse intersection of bounding spheres should be the next level of refinement, finally followed by testing of individual polygons. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] COLLISION DETECTION
Andy Ross writes: Erik Hofman wrote: There might be one step in between here, which I have been thinking of a bit. It would be easy to implement a bounding cylinder (2d collision detection) and only if there is a hit go to the bounding sphere. For me it looks like that approach would be much less costly as directly determining a bounding sphere. The truly adventurous should note that the mostly 2D nature of the problem lends itself nicely to a tree-based (quadtree or BSP) hierarchical representation. The coarse intersection of bounding spheres should be the next level of refinement, finally followed by testing of individual polygons. Currently all sub elements of a flightgear scenery tile are loaded in to a 'wide' graph. ie root | | | | | Tile Node(s) | __ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Fan Nodes all at eaqual depth And what IMO is needed for *fast* collision detection is a 'deeper' graph ROOT | | | | | | Tile Node | QUAD TREE of Fan Nodes with assosciated SSG bounding spheres This could be implemented as a load time optimization step Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS and MSYS
Andy Ross wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Giles Robertson wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_=_NextPart_001_01C42FC5.F549B62D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Do you have a readable translation available ? Your mail reader can't handle UTF-8? That sounds like a bug in the reader, not the sender. What are you using? mail2news, inn, tin ;-)) Aside from that, I find it very unfamiliar to post _any_ sort of human-_un_readable messages to a mailing list. Isn't it ? 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] FGFS and MSYS
Martin Spott wrote: mail2news, inn, tin ;-)) Aside from that, I find it very unfamiliar to post _any_ sort of human-_un_readable messages to a mailing list. Isn't it ? It was a perfectly readable text document, it was just flagged with an encoding of UTF-8, which while more general than necessary (the actual document was 100% ASCII) isn't technically incorrect. This is no more incorrect or unreadable than sending the identical document with a Latin-1 encoding, which presumably you would have been able to read fine. My Mozilla displayed it inline as part of the message. Honestly, you need to get a more recent mail client. Text encoding limitations are ancient history; the whole world is moving to unicode. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS and MSYS
My apologies to those who couldn't read the original message. To clarify what happened at this end: My mail service is run off a MS Exchange server. I'm not the admin (read: yes, I hate it too. Don't complain to me about it). When I'm onsite I use Outlook, which interfaces fine, and appears to be able to send most messages without killing people's clients or rendering stuff unreadable. When I'm offsite, I have to use the MS exchange webmail system. This does some very, very weird things, and the problems with it I won't go into, but it does mangle things and send them in unicode, and won't let me send non-html email (or so I think - if this comes out as plain text, please tell me). On a rather different note: I'd be perfectly happy to set up a nightly MS build (using msys/mingw), if people think that there is demand for it, and that it would be useful. Is this a sensible thing to do? Giles Robertson -Original Message- From: Andy Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 02/05/2004 21:34 To: FlightGear developers discussions Cc: Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS and MSYS Martin Spott wrote: mail2news, inn, tin ;-)) Aside from that, I find it very unfamiliar to post _any_ sort of human-_un_readable messages to a mailing list. Isn't it ? It was a perfectly readable text document, it was just flagged with an encoding of UTF-8, which while more general than necessary (the actual document was 100% ASCII) isn't technically incorrect. This is no more incorrect or unreadable than sending the identical document with a Latin-1 encoding, which presumably you would have been able to read fine. My Mozilla displayed it inline as part of the message. Honestly, you need to get a more recent mail client. Text encoding limitations are ancient history; the whole world is moving to unicode. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel winmail.dat___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear aircraft download page
I've set up a simple download page for downloads of the aircraft I've done for FlightGear at: http://www.overthetop.freeserve.co.uk/FlightGearAC.html Apart from the YF-23, all of the aircraft there have new names and so should co-exist with the versions currently in the CVS base package. Each archive contains a copy of the GPL in the 'COPYING' file. They should all be compatible with the current cvs version of FG i.e. 0.9.4. The instructions are hardly comprehensive and are probably inadequate for less savvy FG users but I'll try to improve things as I find out what needs doing and as time permits. Please let me know of any problems with downloading the archives. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
On Sun May 2 11:08:06 CDT 2004, Jon Berndt jsb at hal-pc.org wrote: snip FlightBeer. A just reward. :-) Hmm. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3286049.stm refers, I think :¬) Nonetheless, your entry is in the hat; multiple tries are allowed! I thought things were a bit quiet through the day, while I have been fiddling with Scribus, and it appears that blueyonder had stopped delivering my mail, maybe because I had four or five thousand emails hanging around on their mail server. Ooops. So I have done some mass deletions, and caught up with the day's traffic on the mailing list from the archives http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/ If anyone sent me an entry off-list, it would be a good idea to resend. You don't want to miss out on that pint! Thanks Jonathan ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:25:24 +0200, Erik wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jonathan Richards wrote: Firstly, a title. How about: Don't panic in nice and friendly letters? ..nah, needs a devilish smiley like in that gourmet abo line in the Crocodile Dundee movie: 'Nah, needs garlic.' ;-) ...nah, don't panic. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
On Sunday 02 May 2004 01:25 pm, Erik Hofman wrote: Jonathan Richards wrote: Firstly, a title. How about: Don't panic in nice and friendly letters? Resistance Is Useless You could have a bad poem of the month. :-D Erik ___ 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] Spitfire Propeller vs. YASim
Spitfire Mk IIA Ah - surprising! Here is an email Rick Fuelcock sent me a short while ago. I hope it helps. Sorry for the poor formating. --- snip - Rather than send you the GBE code , I will direct you to the site where I got it: http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/aero/propeller/prop1.html Just click on program 1 at the bottom of the page. Program 2 (right below) is mathlab code for the implementation without the bells and whistles. I have been playing around with program 1, and have obtained very encouraging results. I keyed in a Spitfire prop with radius 1.55 m and a blade area of 0.98m^3. The program only let's you design a simple blade with a straight, symetrical taper. Rather than complicate things, I just kept the cord constant at .210 the radius to give a total area of .327m^3 per blade. Not knowing anything for sure about the blade angle at a given radius, I just used the default pitch of 0.5, where: pitch = 2pi * r tan theta and theta is the geometric angle of the blade at r. The model also lets you tilt the whole blade +/- any desired angle setting. Assuming the max speed of the Spitfire to be 154.7 m/s, I toyed with angle setting until I obtained a max prop efficiency at angle setting 19.45, J value of 2.09, which corresponds to a true airspeed of 154.7 m/sec for a 1.55 m radius prop, engine running at 3000 rpm and gear ratio 0.477. The model produced a theoretical efficiency of about 85%, with Cq = 0.071. Next, I calculated the torque, using the formula Q=Cq * rho * n^2 * D^4, where n is prop rotation in revolutions per second ( the code converts this to radians) and D is prop diameter. I assumed rho of 0.5 Kg/m^3, an altitude of about 15,000 feet. I than multiplied the torque by angular velocity in radians per second, to get the power (watts) needed to counteract the torque of the prop. This worked out to 865 KW, which converts to 1159 HP. This is about 10% hiigher than what the Merlin could actually put out at the shaft, but it's pretty damn good. Remember, the model is known to be about 5% to 10% too optimistic in predicting performance, so if you take this into account, the prediction is nearly spot on! --- snip - Regards Vivian Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
Jonathan Richards writes: If anyone sent me an entry off-list, it would be a good idea to resend. Probably to English specific but the first thing I thought of Eagle Tails Note Tail and Tale are pronounced the same in English Tale: A recital of events or happenings; a report or revelation: Tail: The posterior part of an animal, especially when elongated and extending beyond the trunk or main part of the body. Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/GUI dialog.cxx, 1.12, 1.13 dialog.hxx, 1.4, 1.5 prop_picker.cxx, 1.4, 1.5 prop_picker.hxx, 1.3, 1.4
Andy Ross said: snip Also, the property picker is now non-modal, I presume the modality wasn't an intentional feature. It either wasn't an option then or something in pui was broken...can't remember which. If it works...great! That's probably been the #1 debugging annoyance, for me anyway. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear news letter
On Sunday 02 May 2004 16:20, Jonathan Richards wrote: Firstly, a title. Jon's newsletter is called 'Back of the Envelope', which How about Foxtrot Golf ? Secondly, we're missing suggestions for content. Suggest away, but what I'd really like is for you to suggest and volunteer to write, as well. Perhaps it would be an idea to break these down into topics. Then aim to have, say, 3 topics covered in each newsletter. If people are going to be subscribing then we want to keep them interested and as the target audience are going to have diverse interests in FlightGear we want to have something that caters for everyone. Also I think it's easier for potential writers to try to think of an article on an aspect of FlightGear, flight simulation, computing, software development or aviation if a set of topics have been defined. In addition a number of people (at the Linux Expo and on list/forum) were asking when is FlightGear v1.0 going to be released. A lot of people have a keen interest in FlightGear's development and I think it would be nice if there is something showing current release targets in terms of capability etc and aspects of FG being actively worked on. I know I'm opening a can of worms here and understand FG is under no commericial influences (AFAIK). One major plus point is potential developers could see a nice entry point for themselves. All the best, Al Regards Jonathan [1] http://www.wickwarbrewing.co.uk/ ___ 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] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/GUI dialog.cxx, 1.12, 1.13 dialog.hxx, 1.4, 1.5 prop_picker.cxx, 1.4, 1.5 prop_picker.hxx, 1.3, 1.4
Jim Wilson wrote: Andy Ross wrote: Also, the property picker is now non-modal, I presume the modality wasn't an intentional feature. It either wasn't an option then or something in pui was broken...can't remember which. If it works...great! That's probably been the #1 debugging annoyance, for me anyway. Me too. :) As far as I can tell, plib represents modality via typing only. If the top-level puObject in a stack is a puPopup, then you get a normal non-modal window. If it happens to be a puDialogBox (a subclass of puPopup), then it behaves modally because it gets special-cased by the event propagation code. There is actually no C++ code in the puDialogBox class at all. It exists only to be a distinguishable type for the event handler. This is, IMHO, a questionable design decision; a boolean flag on puPopup* would have been much simpler. As is, I couldn't make modal dialogs draggable without essentially cutting and pasting code. (FWIW, it didn't seem like moving a modal alert dialog was a very important feature, so I didn't.) Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FGFS and MSYS
Andy Ross wrote: It was a perfectly readable text document, [...] No, the message looks like this: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_=_NextPart_001_01C42FC5.F549B62D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSd2ZSBjb21waWxlZCBGR0ZTIHVuZGVyIE1TWVMsIGFuZCBoYXZlIHdyaXR0ZW4gaW5zdHJ1Y3Rp b25zIG9uIGhvdyB0byBkbyBpdC4NCiANCkl0IHNlZW1zIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUncyBhIHByb2JsZW0g _I_ can't read this without further assistance :-) 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
