Re: [Flightgear-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear
Dave Culp wrote: Just checked in a JSBSim.hxx and JSBSim.cxx to JSBSim CVS that makes crash handling user-configurable. The default behavior is the current subterranean flying behavior. If the user sets the property /sim/pause-on-crash to true, then the sim will pause on crash, which is the same behavior Yasim has, so this should be the default for FlightGear. If the user sets the property /sim/reset-on-crash to true, then the sim will reset on crash. Personally I would like to see just one property (/sim/reset-on-crash) which could be true or false (default for FlightGear). If you update JSBSim then I'll update FlightGear accordingly. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear
Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 20:52 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : As for the /fdm/jsbsim property cloning problem, this has been around for some time now. Any reset of FlightGear while using a JSBSim aircraft will cause another /fdm/jsbsim node to be created. I've tried stopping that but have had no luck. There are several people using properties from /fdm/jsbsim to drive instruments and they are possibly used in some nasal scripts, so this problem breaks some of their panels, and maybe more things. That is not new it is exactly the same error in fgfs-9.8. An other exemple of consequence: we cannot start a turbine Engine (737 aircraft). we can do it the first time after loading== ignition+n2+starter -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 12:33 +0200, Gerard ROBIN a crit : Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 20:52 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : As for the /fdm/jsbsim property cloning problem, this has been around for some time now. Any reset of FlightGear while using a JSBSim aircraft will cause another /fdm/jsbsim node to be created. I've tried stopping that but have had no luck. There are several people using properties from /fdm/jsbsim to drive instruments and they are possibly used in some nasal scripts, so this problem breaks some of their panels, and maybe more things. That is not new it is exactly the same error in fgfs-9.8. An other exemple of consequence: we cannot start a turbine Engine (737 aircraft). we can do it the first time after loading== ignition+n2+starter Sorry only one part of my message has been sent I repeat. That is not new it is exactly the same error in fgfs-9.8. An other exemple of consequence: we cannot start a turbine Engine (737 aircraft). we can do it the first time after loading== ignition+n2+starter AND, before trying to include a new property that BUG should be solved Without, the effort to improve the crash-handling in JSB, will be USELESSLY. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [RFC] nasal initialization group in joystick xml files
* Andy Ross -- Monday 06 June 2005 18:10: Alternatively, the whole subsystem API could get a post_init() method, which is called on all subsystems after the system initialization phase but before update() is called on any of them. Maybe this is an even cleaner solution... That's now implemented and sent to Erik. (Didn't read that posting again, and had forgotten that you suggested a name for this new method. So I found one myself: postinit() :-) If Erik accepts the (quite trivial) patch, I'll commit the rest myself, along with some other changes to the input/joystick system. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] Re: animation bug
From: Melchior FRANZ
* Josh Babcock -- Thursday 09 June 2005 05:39:
It looks like rotate animations require an x-m coord for center tags
even though you can get away without y-m or z-m. What's worse, it
not only fails silently, it grabs the y-m value for x-m and then
uses the z-m value for y-m. Here comes the code.
That's apparently by design.
The attached path should make it more consistent: if there's at least one
of axis/{x,y,z}, then use the axis notation. And there's at least one of
center/{x,y,z}-m then use the defined center. (Only tested with *important*
aircraft ... and the bo105 worked well with it.
m.
Hi Melchior,
That is different, but not really better than what is in CVS now.
For points in space it doesn't make any more sense to default them to zero than
anything else. I'm not familiar with how fully configured XML systems should
work and what DTD (doc type definitions) can provide, but it'd be awful nice to
be able to throw an error when something is not correct or reasonable in the
XML. It doesn't seem reasonable to specify more than zero but less than 3
coordinates for either the center tag or the axis end point tags, because these
points in space. Even if a value IS zero, it is unecessarily ambiguous.
Only with the original rotation syntax (e.g. axisx-m1.0/x-m/axis) does
it make sense to default unspecified values to zero. This is why I say this
patch isn't any less broken than the current cvs.
In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea for me to use the existing axis tag
as was when adding the ability to specify axes by their endpoints (which BTW is
much easier than using the old rotation syntax). Or...alternatively, maybe the
structure of the original syntax should be something like this:
axis
x-m/x-m
y-m/y-m
z-m/z-m
center/center
/axis
Because as the x1-m... x2-m... coordinates are properties describing the
axis, center is also by rights a property that describes the axis and not
the animation (as is implied by current syntax that specifies the center at
the same level as the axis).
I'm not sure right off how best to do this, but I do think that Flightgear and
Simgear would benifit by having a smart parser that could follow rules and give
intelligent error messages back to developers. Does anyone know if an XML
parser that used DTD specifications could work for this?
Best,
Jim Wilson
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [PATCH] Re: animation bug
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 10 June 2005 14:34: For points in space it doesn't make any more sense to default them to zero than anything else. You miss the point. The patch is not about initializing anything. I just added that to make clear that this will be zero if it's uninitialized. Or does reading a number from an unset property *not* return zero? Now it's visible in the code, too. nice to be able to throw an error when something is not correct or reasonable in the XML. would indeed be nice. It doesn't seem reasonable to specify more than zero but less than 3 coordinates for either the center tag or the axis end point tags, because these points in space. Even if a value IS zero, it is unecessarily ambiguous. We know that you love verbosity from previous discussions about the material animation. :-} This is why I say this patch isn't any less broken than the current cvs. In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea for me to use the existing axis tag This *is* less broken than what you delivered. Because now it doesn't depend on the x-component *alone* which way the animation goes. This was horribly inconsistent and unpredictable for those who don't read the source code. An even better solution would be nice of course. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [PATCH] Re: animation bug
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 10 June 2005 14:34: I'm not sure right off how best to do this, but I do think that Flightgear and Simgear would benifit by having a smart parser [...] Alternatively, one could simply set insane values by default. If you get something near infinity for unset properties, you'll soon learn to initialize everything. Not all axis properties set? - The rotor rotates around a point somewhere in the galaxy ... ;-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear
Erik Hofman wrote:
Dave Culp wrote:
If the user sets the property /sim/pause-on-crash to true, then
the sim will pause on crash, which is the same behavior Yasim has,
so this should be the default for FlightGear. If the user sets the
property /sim/reset-on-crash to true, then the sim will reset on
crash.
Personally I would like to see just one property (/sim/reset-on-crash)
which could be true or false (default for FlightGear). If you update
JSBSim then I'll update FlightGear accordingly.
Or /sim/crash-behavior = {none|reset|pause} ?
Andy
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [PATCH] Re: animation bug
From: Melchior FRANZ * Jim Wilson -- Friday 10 June 2005 14:34: For points in space it doesn't make any more sense to default them to zero than anything else. You miss the point. The patch is not about initializing anything. I just added that to make clear that this will be zero if it's uninitialized. Or does reading a number from an unset property *not* return zero? Now it's visible in the code, too. nice to be able to throw an error when something is not correct or reasonable in the XML. would indeed be nice. It doesn't seem reasonable to specify more than zero but less than 3 coordinates for either the center tag or the axis end point tags, because these points in space. Even if a value IS zero, it is unnecessarily ambiguous. We know that you love verbosity from previous discussions about the material animation. :-} I think you meant to say clarity, not verbosity ;-). The question is, how does the parser tell the difference between intentional and erroneous omissions? We don't have to help the modellers out but it might be a good idea where the omission is likely erroneous :-) This is why I say this patch isn't any less broken than the current cvs. In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea for me to use the existing axis tag This *is* less broken than what you delivered. Because now it doesn't depend on the x-component *alone* which way the animation goes. This was horribly inconsistent and unpredictable for those who don't read the source code. An even better solution would be nice of course. Oh alright, I'll give you it is maybe a 35% improvement level over current CVS :-). Barring the possibility that someone wants to build in a standard way to specify rules, maybe we should just log alert messages when the animation is misconfigured. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: [PATCH] Re: animation bug
Hi Melchior, There was one thing I forgot to mention. In that animation.diff patch file you also have an unrelated change that does some clamping in the material animation. I understand the logic behind this, but the typical behavior (the way the translationn values are handled further down the line) is the texture wraps at 1.0 and 0.0. IIRC, this behavior is essential in some of the 747 panel stuff. I haven't tested this myself, but thought I'd give you a heads up in case there's a problem lurking in that particular change. Thanks, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] timer help
are there any references to use time delay in functions. i am trying to delay speedbrake for 1.5 scnds everytime activated or deactivated in larcsim . i tried to use sleep() functions in msvc71 but makes the whole sim sleep:) i am looking for example time delays in fg source and would be happy if anyonepoints... _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
Could some of you help me out and test this solution to the JSBSim property cloning-after-reset problem? In the file source/src/FDM/JSBSim/FGFDMExec.cpp, line 137, just comment out the FDM counter, like this: //FDMctr++; It works well here, but I'd like to make sure it works for those who might have slightly older versions of this file. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 12:20 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : Could some of you help me out and test this solution to the JSBSim property cloning-after-reset problem? In the file source/src/FDM/JSBSim/FGFDMExec.cpp, line 137, just comment out the FDM counter, like this: //FDMctr++; It works well here, but I'd like to make sure it works for those who might have slightly older versions of this file. Dave Tested with my own carrier landing patched release : IT IS OK == no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
//FDMctr++; Tested with my own carrier landing patched release : IT IS OK == no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset. Thanks Gerard, I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. Note that this will not allow multiple instances of JSBSim, which nobody is using right now (I don't think?). In the future we'll fix it so that the user instance of JSBSim is always the zeroeth instance, and other instances will start at instance number one. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] poll
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Dave Culp wrote: This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Maybe with the magic carpet FDM. Real FDMs though, no way. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] timer help
eagle monart wrote: are there any references to use time delay in functions. i am trying to delay speedbrake for 1.5 scnds everytime activated or deactivated in larcsim . i tried to use sleep() functions in msvc71 but makes the whole sim sleep:) i am looking for example time delays in fg source and would be happy if anyonepoints... _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d You could easily do it in NASAL using settimer(). Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : //FDMctr++; Tested with my own carrier landing patched release : IT IS OK == no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset. Thanks Gerard, I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. Note that this will not allow multiple instances of JSBSim, which nobody is using right now (I don't think?). In the future we'll fix it so that the user instance of JSBSim is always the zeroeth instance, and other instances will start at instance number one. Dave As far as i try to understand, i don't find any specific needs which can ask for multiple instances of JSBSimmay be several aircrafts in the same FG (a waco glider towed by a -C47 ???) -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Dave Culp wrote: This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d By flying under the terrain you means like flying in a tunnel under a montain ? I think it's improbable. And how would you manage landing on ground or water if one can fly under them ? Harald. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 13:27 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Dave That is a good question:-) OK Aircrafts should not have a normal flight underground or undersea. It should continu in a crash situation to go into (not under) and that gives opportunity to run an animation (broken wings, explode, ..diving when into the sea..and everything an human brain can imagine ) -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Dave Culp wrote: This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems pretty non-sensical to me. I don't think any other FDM allows flight through material that is denser than air. I've had to put my earth-worm simulator on the backburner for now anyway so I don't see this as a very useful feature. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Dave Culp a écrit : This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Fly under terrain : no Fly under bridges : yes Taxi under hangars : yes -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do? Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 14:19 -0500, Curtis L. Olson a crit : Dave Culp wrote: This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems pretty non-sensical to me. I don't think any other FDM allows flight through material that is denser than air. I've had to put my earth-worm simulator on the backburner for now anyway so I don't see this as a very useful feature. Regards, Curt. No don't that was a Joke, because, Everyone in the flightgear community knows: with a good UNDERCARRIAGE definition we get, at least, a Yasim equivalent result, in my opinion better. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
I know I'm new to this, but:
if (PlaneHitsWater()){
if (planesLandingGear == Floats){
checkIfLandingOrAugeringIn();
}
elseif (planesLandingGear == Wheels){
crash == true;
}
}
seems like a reasonable way to do things.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 2:27 PM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] poll
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Nasal Settimer
Do you have a ref for a function definition for NASAL's settimer() please? I am working on a red_headed_stepchild_of_a_hard_to_work_with_joystick.xml that might require it also :-) - Original Message - From: Josh Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@flightgear.org Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] timer help eagle monart wrote: are there any references to use time delay in functions. i am trying to delay speedbrake for 1.5 scnds everytime activated or deactivated in larcsim . i tried to use sleep() functions in msvc71 but makes the whole sim sleep:) i am looking for example time delays in fg source and would be happy if anyonepoints... _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d You could easily do it in NASAL using settimer(). Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Friday 10 Jun 2005 21:20, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do? Ampere That's an interesting idea:) Relative viscosity of water must be a bit like super/hyper-sonic in air but the relative speed-of-sound for the mediums won't match at all. Is there any close analogue to cavitation with propellers? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:38:55 +0200, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : //FDMctr++; Tested with my own carrier landing patched release : IT IS OK == no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset. Thanks Gerard, I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. Note that this will not allow multiple instances of JSBSim, which nobody is using right now (I don't think?). In the future we'll fix it so that the user instance of JSBSim is always the zeroeth instance, and other instances will start at instance number one. Dave As far as i try to understand, i don't find any specific needs which can ask for multiple instances of JSBSimmay be several aircrafts in the same FG (a waco glider towed by a -C47 ???) ..formation flight, comparing a JSBSim C47 to a YaSim C47 flying side by side? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] AC3D version
Which version of AC3D gave compatible model files for FlightGear? I have found references to the crease funtion not working with FG. Thanks, Stacie ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear]
Message transfr De: Gerard Robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet: Re: [Jsbsim-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:13:21 +0200 Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 14:59 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : It seems like I misunderstood someone's complaint about JSBSim crash handling. Nobody wants subterranean flying. This will make the crash handling much cleaner. We can make pause the default behavior and reset the optional behavior, based on a property reset-on-crash. Everyone agreed on this? Dave I would not discuss longer and longer about that property. None of my JSB Aircrafts (including these coming from the community) fly underground. I have defined the contact points in the Undercarriage, every one can do it. It look like the Geometry Yasim definition with more flexibility. I am testing the management of crash by specific animations (clone of the impressive bo105). In addition to: the JSB contact points definition is very useful for SeaPlane which have float and landing gear equipment. (walrus, catalina, goose...) In that case the float are contact points on which the seaplane stand when it is on the water (you must have the gears up) On land the landing gear are down. I hope that new property will not delete these functionality -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 22:59 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a crit : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:38:55 +0200, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : //FDMctr++; Tested with my own carrier landing patched release : IT IS OK == no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset. Thanks Gerard, I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. Note that this will not allow multiple instances of JSBSim, which nobody is using right now (I don't think?). In the future we'll fix it so that the user instance of JSBSim is always the zeroeth instance, and other instances will start at instance number one. Dave As far as i try to understand, i don't find any specific needs which can ask for multiple instances of JSBSimmay be several aircrafts in the same FG (a waco glider towed by a -C47 ???) ...formation flight, comparing a JSBSim C47 to a YaSim C47 flying side by side? STOP. i am becoming crazy :-/\ -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll (more complex than at first appears?)
Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper, that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with fuel. The actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet into the water, perhaps more if landing in 'seas'. There absolutely must be some code to support sea planes landing in the water. The only references I can find seem to be rather old: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-810.pdf 'Analysis and Modification of Theory for Impact of Seaplanes on Water' (that seems to be a NACA not NASA doc for you historiuans!) However, if there is at least a primitve method of dealing with seaplanes, perhaps simply not setting crash condition to true, and increasing headwind up to a resistance equating the floats hitting the water, that would deal with the condition in the short term. Then, there is the issue of jet propelled aircraft. I have some wonderful footage of an F-14 doing a fly-by of a carrier at 20 feet off of the waves. Sure, it looks cool... but according to historic data you can only pull this move if you are going at least as fast as xx knots. If you fly a turbojet powered airplane too slow, too close to the water, then the forward turbulence of your aircraft will cause you to ingest water through your intakes. How about a prop plane like a C-123? The farthest a propeller's blade is going to reach is a good 4 feet above the bottom of the fuselage? Shouldn't FG be 'smart' enough to realize that in extreme conditions a plane like this could, theoretically, touch the surface of a body of water yet still not crash? Sigh... I guess I have been looking for a part of FG to work on. If someone makes it so I could work this issue and come up with some reasonable rules, so that it doesn't end up with patch-on-patch-on-patch to deal with the issue of aircraft intersecting water. - Original Message - From: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@flightgear.org Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll On Friday 10 Jun 2005 21:20, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do? Ampere That's an interesting idea:) Relative viscosity of water must be a bit like super/hyper-sonic in air but the relative speed-of-sound for the mediums won't match at all. Is there any close analogue to cavitation with propellers? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I'm new to this, but:
if (PlaneHitsWater()){
if (planesLandingGear == Floats){
checkIfLandingOrAugeringIn();
}
elseif (planesLandingGear == Wheels){
crash == true;
}
}
seems like a reasonable way to do things.
I just found a way to simplify FlightGear by quite a bit:
if ( !gearOnGround() )
flyAroundABit();
Voilla.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AC3D version
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 16:08 -0500, Corrubia, Stacie K a crit : Which version of AC3D gave compatible model files for FlightGear? I have found references to the crease funtion not working with FG. Thanks, Stacie If you Fly with fgfs 9.8 it is not any difficulties with AC3D release the last one is good. If fgfs 9.6 you must have a very older release. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll (more complex than at first appears?)
theoreticle wrote: Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper, that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with fuel. The actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet into the water, perhaps more if landing in 'seas'. There absolutely must be some code to support sea planes landing in the water. The water interaction really isn't so difficult (it's just like landing gear compression, but with an extra term for drag due to water flow). The harder part is hacking the scenery subsystem to understand which polygons are water and propagate this information out through the groundcache to the FDMs. That will likely require touching a ton of code all over the simulator; it's always the data modelling issues that cause the problems. Algorithms are easy. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll (more complex than at first appears?)
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 17:27 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a crit : Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper, that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with fuel. The actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet into the water, perhaps more if landing in 'seas'. There absolutely must be some code to support sea planes landing in the water. The only references I can find seem to be rather old: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-810.pdf 'Analysis and Modification of Theory for Impact of Seaplanes on Water' (that seems to be a NACA not NASA doc for you historiuans!) However, if there is at least a primitve method of dealing with seaplanes, perhaps simply not setting crash condition to true, and increasing headwind up to a resistance equating the floats hitting the water, that would deal with the condition in the short term. Then, there is the issue of jet propelled aircraft. I have some wonderful footage of an F-14 doing a fly-by of a carrier at 20 feet off of the waves. Sure, it looks cool... but according to historic data you can only pull this move if you are going at least as fast as xx knots. If you fly a turbojet powered airplane too slow, too close to the water, then the forward turbulence of your aircraft will cause you to ingest water through your intakes. How about a prop plane like a C-123? The farthest a propeller's blade is going to reach is a good 4 feet above the bottom of the fuselage? Shouldn't FG be 'smart' enough to realize that in extreme conditions a plane like this could, theoretically, touch the surface of a body of water yet still not crash? Sigh... I guess I have been looking for a part of FG to work on. If someone makes it so I could work this issue and come up with some reasonable rules, so that it doesn't end up with patch-on-patch-on-patch to deal with the issue of aircraft intersecting water. That document is very interesting. With my very little experience, when i have modelled a catalina PBY5, i have found with JSBSim the facility to define many contact points which define the geometry of the fuse floating part, with parameters: spring damper friction viscosity for each point, we get results which could be partly representatives JSBSim team development could better say if in that case algorithms are enough. Are we near to, or really far away. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:36:35 -0400, Josh wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dave Culp wrote: This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Maybe with the magic carpet FDM. Real FDMs though, no way. ..that hack would introduce a bug here: ;o) http://home.online.no/~hasto/reiser/hurtigruta/torghatt-hol-syd.jpg ..biggest one thru is a RNoAF TwinOtter on a partly autorized trip back in the Cold War days. It's a fairly safe bet this record will stand above any Cub stunt, or any Bird Dog stunt, as these are looser fits. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:53:23 +0200, Frederic wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dave Culp a crit : This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me? If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed. Fly under terrain : no Fly under bridges : yes Taxi under hangars : yes ..fly thru hangars and hear colorful language from TWR: yes ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in FlightGear]
Nobody wants subterranean flying. This will make the crash handling much cleaner. We can make pause the default behavior and reset the optional behavior, based on a property reset-on-crash. Everyone agreed on this? Dave In that case the float are contact points on which the seaplane stand when it is on the water (you must have the gears up) On land the landing gear are down. I hope that new property will not delete these functionality May i add an other remark? yes ! thank you With the contact points definitions you can do an emergency landing. just define the belly , and you can land gears up in the field of your choice, your aircraft is on the ground, and, so, you have to wait for help during that time... a cow is wondering your performance.. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] property cloning solution
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:16:06 +0200, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 22:59 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a crit : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:38:55 +0200, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a crit : //FDMctr++; Tested with my own carrier landing patched release : IT IS OK == no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset. Thanks Gerard, I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. Note that this will not allow multiple instances of JSBSim, which nobody is using right now (I don't think?). In the future we'll fix it so that the user instance of JSBSim is always the zeroeth instance, and other instances will start at instance number one. Dave As far as i try to understand, i don't find any specific needs which can ask for multiple instances of JSBSimmay be several aircrafts in the same FG (a waco glider towed by a -C47 ???) ...formation flight, comparing a JSBSim C47 to a YaSim C47 flying side by side? STOP. i am becoming crazy :-/\ ..hush, we don't some white coats come grab you. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
By flying under the terrain you means like flying in a tunnel under a montain ? I think it's improbable. And how would you manage landing on ground or water if one can fly under them ? What happens when the FDM system is used for ground based vehicles that _could_ enter a tunnel? g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do? Nope ... they just float a bit lower down than surface ships. Hydrofoils fly. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:44:39 +0100, Vivian wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do? Nope ... they just float a bit lower down than surface ships. Hydrofoils fly. ..let's qualify fly; both submarines and airship can and often do use _some_ aero|hydrodynamic lift, usually the bulk is aero|hydrostatic displacement lift. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
I don't think any other FDM allows flight Well most of them fly through buildings, but that's a different issue. ;) As far as models go, ground interactions should be aircraft specific, IMHO, and each aircraft model should create its own instance of landing gear models and collision points (wing tips, fuselage belly, tail booms...etc.). If these are absent, then the aircraft will fly through the ground. I see no reason to eliminate the possibility of sub-terranian exploration. Just make no gaurantee about what things should look like. Is there any close analogue to cavitation with propellers? Not really. Air is compressible, which means it will expand proportionally with a decrease in pressure, rather than an abrupt evaporation with low pressure like what happens with water. Propeller blades can stall, I suppose, but that would only happen with a constant speed propeller at too high a blade pitch, which would require a prop governor failure. Drew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] poll
I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems pretty non-sensical to me. I don't think any other FDM allows flight through material that is denser than air. I've had to put my earth-worm simulator on the backburner for now anyway so I don't see this as a very useful feature. Curt. If there are no ground contact points defined for an aircraft you can go anywhere. That was by design. You'll understand why as soon as I get FGSeaHorse, FGEarthworm, and FGMantaRay integrated into Makefile.am. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
