Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument help
The engine has four cylinders and the four-position switch in question allows the pilot to select between four Cylinder Head Temperature sensors (one in each cylinder head). Kris WillyB wrote: H Ok, I'm probably confusing the switch then. I resized and enhanced the photos and have attached the new one I made from it. Is that 4 position switch for the C HT or am I totally wrong on that? Re's WillyB On Monday 28 July 2003 11:42, Alex Perry wrote: From: Matthew Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] If ther eis a switch for CHT .. would this be so you can manually adjust the temp if needed? No. Cylinder Head Temp is usually used to help you assess the health of your engine. CHT itself doesn't have a switch, it is purely a measurement. _However_ ... * Some people put EGT and CHT on the same dial and need a switch to select which output is being shown at any given time. * Like EGT, it is often useful to have a peak hold feature, in which case you need a switch to disable the peak hold. * You normally have one CHT sensor per cylinder (sometimes two), so you either need to have lots of dials, or a switch to select among them, or an electronic display to cycle through them, etc. * On a racing aircraft, I might be tempted to connect an autothrottle to the CHT (with a switch to disable it), just like a lot of acft have an autolean that operates the mixture on carburated engines. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Realism
Christopher S Horler wrote: Fuel Burn - I think someone mentioned this once Yes, this is definitely messed up (for JSBSim at least. I have not investigated any of the others). Some issues I've found are: the density of the fuel is wrong, somewhere along the line gallons are passed to a method which expects pounds, and the specific fuel consumption resulting from the power calulation is a little bit off. I added an adjustable parameter in the JSBSim engine file for that. Let me see if I can find some code to paste here (a diff will be rather meaningless by now)... // From src/FDM/JSBSim/FGPiston.cpp: // in FGPistion() // init default fuel-flow adjustment ff_adjustment(0.92), // get an (optional) adjustment value from the config else if (token == FF_SCALAR) *Eng_cfg ff_adjustment; // in doAirFlow() // the '2' below is supposed to be 'Cycles' // double swept_volume = (displacement_SI * (RPM/60)) / 2; double swept_volume = (displacement_SI * (RPM/60)) / Cycles; // in doFuelFlow() // see ff_adjustment declaration above. m_dot_fuel = m_dot_air / sr_fuel * equivalence_ratio *ff_adjustment; // keeping gph, but FGTank knows about fuel in pounds, not gals // so adding _pph for ConsumeFuel() FuelFlow_pph = m_dot_fuel * 3600// seconds to hours * 2.2046; // kg to lb // changed 'kerosine' to 'av-gas' (6.6 to 6.0) // eventually we'll want to config this so that we // can burn deisel, alcohol or hydrogen (for example). FuelFlow_gph = FuelFlow_pph / 6.0; // lb to gal_us of av-gas // in CalcFuelNeed() // FGTank knows about pounds, not gallons return FuelFlow_pph / 3600 * State-Getdt() * Propulsion-GetRate(); Kris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Lot's of Fun!
Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: ... I look forward to being able to fly through our own version of it. After the posting here of the Eifel tower fly-through, I tried to duplicate the maneuver in MSFS. Their tower has solid sides with transparency in the bitmap and thus one cannot fly under it :( (unless, I suppose, one turns off the allow building collisions option, but then there's hardly a challenge). MS also doesn't provide the long grass approach before the tower. The monument is instead depicted tightly framed by rather tall buildings. On the other hand, in FS2004 there is a saved flight that comes with the sim which encourages the pilot to fly through an open barn. Apparently if you do it successfully a bunch of chickens will fly out. I tried it at E3, but clipped the doorway with a wingtip and thus can't verify the chicken story... :P Kris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel]
I've always used gcc on Irix. Kris Arnt Karlsen wrote: On 11 Jul 2003 12:47:47 GMT, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course not. Erik's crappy compiler doesn't seem to find it strange that a function doesn't return anything. :- :-)) There is no alternative on IRIX, Martin. ..no? Try Google(IRIX alternate c++ compiler), Google(IRIX GNU c++ compiler) etc. ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Texture Sizes
Often times upgrading one part means going to a whole new computer, such as when the new part isn't supported by the motherboard, OS, or something else. With laptops it's often impossible to upgrade anything but RAM and disk. This means that a $50 graphics card isn't really available to everyone who has $50 and wants better graphics. I figure as long as Erik can still run FG on his O2 the backward compatibility is probably at an acceptable level. ;-) BTW Erik, does your box use an R5k or R10k (cpu)? Kris Christian Mayer wrote: Richard A Downing FBCS schrieb: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:52:49 +0200 Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO we should require a card with TL setup as minimum, i.e. GeForce class. And they should be able to handle a reasonable texture size. I totally disagree with this idea. Lots of life left in TNT2s. It's not good practise to 'require' too modern hardware. IMO. Richard. OK, the two cheapes cards I could find were of the TNT2 type (29 EUR and 34 EUR) - but the next more expensive one was for 39 EUR an GeForce2 MX 440. (1 EUR = roughly 1 USD). Those are proces for *new* hardware. eBay should be cheaper... At those cheap prices I can expect the people to upgrade when there's a need for it. And especially I can't expect to slow down development for the majority of the users. This is even more the point when older cards are automatically taken care for (PLIB scales the textures down when necessary) And still even more: a TNT2 can easly handle textures bigger than 245x256. Its precessor, the RivaTNT could already handle bigger textures (IIRC up to 4096x4096) So I really don't think we should limit ourselves *here*. I don't remember exactly when the first GeForce cards did show up. I think it was some time around 2000. That's 3 1/2 years ago. That is ages for graphic accelerators and not very modern. CU, Christian ___ 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 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [PATCH] simgear/timing/sg_time.hxx: exportlocal_offset
Melchior FRANZ wrote: The clock instrument should be set to local time at startup. [snip] (Or do pilots really run their clocks at UTC?) Yes, but they call it zulu time. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Windsock Model
There needs to eventually be a rules-based placement system for airport scenery in order to put hangars, windsocks, buildings and tower models at all airports (perhaps other scenery like static planes, cars, trucks, tractors, etc). I see this being an extension of the auto-gen scenery object system. I disagree with only placing windsocks (or anything else) only at the takeoff airport because I primarily enjoy flying cross-country. The positions wouldn't need to be pre-calculated for every airport in the world. Just like the auto-gen scenery objects, airport objects should only exists when you are close enough for them to matter. Thus windsocks wouldn't need to be placed at their rules-based locations at an airport until you're within maybe a mile of the runway. Kris Jim Wilson wrote: Matthew Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but shouldn't windsock placement be automatic and defined from the airport scenery? At one point we breifly discussed a rules based way of placing windsocks. It actually isn't all that complex, but it needs to be coded. Basically you'd have to put one near the end of each runway and just one in the middle at short fields (off to the side of course, or we'd have a sock in the way). I wouldn't necessarily bother placing it at all rendered airports, but rather just calculate the placement for the airport you are taking off from, at the same time the take off position and tower positions are calculated. This would probably be more reliable than trying to maintain data. You could always have the function check for data (if accurate positions are known) and only generate positions when the predefined data is absent. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Windsock Model
Of course! :P I'm working on non-visual things at the moment, but I plan to do that and other scenery changes afterwards. Kris Jim Wilson wrote: Kris Feldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There needs to eventually be a rules-based placement system for airport scenery in order to put hangars, windsocks, buildings and tower models at all airports (perhaps other scenery like static planes, cars, trucks, tractors, etc). I see this being an extension of the auto-gen scenery object system. I disagree with only placing windsocks (or anything else) only at the takeoff airport because I primarily enjoy flying cross-country. The positions wouldn't need to be pre-calculated for every airport in the world. Just like the auto-gen scenery objects, airport objects should only exists when you are close enough for them to matter. Thus windsocks wouldn't need to be placed at their rules-based locations at an airport until you're within maybe a mile of the runway. Sounds great! Can you do it? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
