Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: The new 3D clouds are a good exemple of programming ressource, which could be used to simulate random waves ( i will get god lightnings or rather devil fires, if i continu in that way ). What I was referring to was moving masses of water. Simulating water sparkles is not a bad idea but doesn't require triangle mesh manipulations. Erik ___ 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: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Erik Yes it is very useful,i have made some modifications according to my needs, especially for water . These parameters give a wide range of possibility. -- Gerard ___ 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: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d And for all the rotor heads out there, the surface area of the ground makes a huge difference to a helicopter in real life. e.g.. Tall grass is much preferable to concrete for emergency landings and high performance takeoffs. A smooth surface can seriously degrade hover in ground effect performance. OTOH, a bumpy surface can greatly increase the chance of dynamic rollover. Improving the ground material system would lay the groundwork for adding modeling for those effects to YASim. (though VRS, autorotation and translational lift are probably all more important) Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Yes it is very useful,i have made some modifications according to my needs, especially for water . These parameters give a wide range of possibility. If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 16:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Yes it is very useful,i have made some modifications according to my needs, especially for water . These parameters give a wide range of possibility. If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. Erik OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik Open to discussion: Sea Water MINE rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.3/bumpiness Sea Water FG rolling-friction2/rolling-friction bumpiness0.8/bumpiness Lake MINE rolling-friction0.8/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Lake FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness IntermittentStream MINE rolling-friction4/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness IntermittentStream FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik FORGET my Message SEEM TO BE SOMETHING WRONG WRONG , in my last material.xml Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 19:17 +0200, Gerard Robin a crit : Le mardi 14 juin 2005 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik REPLACE THE PREVIOUS WRONG ONE (the disadvantage to have three FG release in //). Open to discussion: Sea Water MINE rolling-friction2/rolling-friction bumpiness0.8/bumpiness Sea Water FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Lake MINE rolling-friction1.5/rolling-friction bumpiness0.5/bumpiness Lake FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness IntermittentStream MINE rolling-friction4/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness IntermittentStream FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make sense for an aircraft with wheels landing on a beach strip. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Jon Stockill wrote: Gerard Robin wrote: Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make sense for an aircraft with wheels landing on a beach strip. I had my doubts about this also. This requires the JSBSim friction to be altered instead. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:50:21 +0200, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le lundi 13 juin 2005 01:13 +0200, Gerard Robin a crit : Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 22:07 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a crit : On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. I think we're all getting carried away a bit. We are aiming at a professional *flightsimulator* to be used as a training aid, not for Hollywood film making. ...the funny thing is, FG _is_ useable for film making, and wasting some time on making an Hollywood film could easily land us some serious funding to do the things we wanna do. Erik Personally I don't care much for submarines and sealife in a flight sim. What Flight Unlimited did was when you crashed in water the screen went a murky water color and your altitude starts heading for negative figures. No fish, no sharks and no coral but you get the point that you just crashed into water and that should be sufficient in my opinion. ...true, but landing a sea plane in any significant weather, means we should model sea states, waves behave differently depending on things like currents, depth, wind etc, also on lakes and rivers. If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics. ...then we have the waves made by the aircraft floats. ;o) You are right and today we have to search for the best effect with an object animated like the aircraft shadow. I have tried to do it http://ghours.club.fr/Walrus-Villefranche1.jpg ..neat plane, but your sparkling waveless spray demos my point nicely, dunk a Walrus into 5 thru 25ft seas, and you'll find that the one ton big toothed seal can spank you mildly thru _roundly_, just like the water the plane lands or dunks into. ;o) May be with Sparkle we could get a better aspect And I forgot: Plib include some functions in _SSG Auxiliary Libraries_ which are very useful. ..useful to model physical forces? Or just to hit the degauss button remotely to simulate a nose punch? ;o) ..don't read me as we have enough fancy eyecandy, we need more of that too, but we also need running water here. ;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
If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics. ...then we have the waves made by the aircraft floats. ;o) You are right and today we have to search for the best effect with an object animated like the aircraft shadow. I have tried to do it http://ghours.club.fr/Walrus-Villefranche1.jpg ...neat plane, but your sparkling waveless spray demos my point nicely, dunk a Walrus into 5 thru 25ft seas, and you'll find that the one ton big toothed seal can spank you mildly thru _roundly_, just like the water the plane lands or dunks into. ;o) May be with Sparkle we could get a better aspect And I forgot: Plib include some functions in _SSG Auxiliary Libraries_ which are very useful. ...useful to model physical forces? Or just to hit the degauss button remotely to simulate a nose punch? ;o) ...don't read me as we have enough fancy eyecandy, we need more of that too, but we also need running water here. ;o) Anyway, that is mainly to illustrate the discussion, to demonstrate the limitation of our system (today). I did it only on that Walrus because it is little (the animation is only driven by the aircraft speed, agl and pitch). It was said that we do not have to make the Hollywood quality movie and i agree. However we could try to find the way which drive to get the best picture, with a combination of specific animations driven by speed, forces,... light processing, and characteristics of materials. It is a pity to see a seaplane taking off, and nothing happen on the sea level , the ground-effect is able to give parameters which could help the design. The new 3D clouds are a good exemple of programming ressource, which could be used to simulate random waves ( i will get god lightnings or rather devil fires, if i continu in that way ). -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:11:42 +0200, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It was said that we do not have to make the Hollywood quality movie and i agree. ..we have enough to get funding for the missing bits. ;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
Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) Ampere ___ 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: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. I think we're all getting carried away a bit. We are aiming at a professional *flightsimulator* to be used as a training aid, not for Hollywood film making. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. I think we're all getting carried away a bit. We are aiming at a professional *flightsimulator* to be used as a training aid, not for Hollywood film making. Erik Personally I don't care much for submarines and sealife in a flight sim. What Flight Unlimited did was when you crashed in water the screen went a murky water color and your altitude starts heading for negative figures. No fish, no sharks and no coral but you get the point that you just crashed into water and that should be sufficient in my opinion. If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. I think we're all getting carried away a bit. We are aiming at a professional *flightsimulator* to be used as a training aid, not for Hollywood film making. ..the funny thing is, FG _is_ useable for film making, and wasting some time on making an Hollywood film could easily land us some serious funding to do the things we wanna do. Erik Personally I don't care much for submarines and sealife in a flight sim. What Flight Unlimited did was when you crashed in water the screen went a murky water color and your altitude starts heading for negative figures. No fish, no sharks and no coral but you get the point that you just crashed into water and that should be sufficient in my opinion. ..true, but landing a sea plane in any significant weather, means we should model sea states, waves behave differently depending on things like currents, depth, wind etc, also on lakes and rivers. If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics. ..then we have the waves made by the aircraft floats. ;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
Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 22:07 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a crit : On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. I think we're all getting carried away a bit. We are aiming at a professional *flightsimulator* to be used as a training aid, not for Hollywood film making. ...the funny thing is, FG _is_ useable for film making, and wasting some time on making an Hollywood film could easily land us some serious funding to do the things we wanna do. Erik Personally I don't care much for submarines and sealife in a flight sim. What Flight Unlimited did was when you crashed in water the screen went a murky water color and your altitude starts heading for negative figures. No fish, no sharks and no coral but you get the point that you just crashed into water and that should be sufficient in my opinion. ...true, but landing a sea plane in any significant weather, means we should model sea states, waves behave differently depending on things like currents, depth, wind etc, also on lakes and rivers. If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics. ...then we have the waves made by the aircraft floats. ;o) You are right and today we have to search for the best effect with an object animated like the aircraft shadow. I have tried to do it http://ghours.club.fr/Walrus-Villefranche1.jpg May be with Sparkle we could get a better aspect -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le lundi 13 juin 2005 01:13 +0200, Gerard Robin a crit : Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 22:07 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a crit : On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200, Paul wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday, 12 June 2005 09:22, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. I think we're all getting carried away a bit. We are aiming at a professional *flightsimulator* to be used as a training aid, not for Hollywood film making. ...the funny thing is, FG _is_ useable for film making, and wasting some time on making an Hollywood film could easily land us some serious funding to do the things we wanna do. Erik Personally I don't care much for submarines and sealife in a flight sim. What Flight Unlimited did was when you crashed in water the screen went a murky water color and your altitude starts heading for negative figures. No fish, no sharks and no coral but you get the point that you just crashed into water and that should be sufficient in my opinion. ...true, but landing a sea plane in any significant weather, means we should model sea states, waves behave differently depending on things like currents, depth, wind etc, also on lakes and rivers. If someone wants to make a submarine simulator then they are welcome to make a fork of FlightGear and name it SubGear but I'm interested in aerodynamics and not aquadynamics. ...then we have the waves made by the aircraft floats. ;o) You are right and today we have to search for the best effect with an object animated like the aircraft shadow. I have tried to do it http://ghours.club.fr/Walrus-Villefranche1.jpg May be with Sparkle we could get a better aspect And I forgot: Plib include some functions in _SSG Auxiliary Libraries_ which are very useful. -- 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?)
Le samedi 11 juin 2005 09:24 -0700, Andy Ross a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big problems . I'm not understanding this at all; JSBSim and YASim have all but identical* gear systems. Can you please post the YASim configuration you are having trouble with? I suspect you are just misunderstanding something. Are you trying to make the aircraft sit on the automatic contact points? That won't work, they have very high spring constants and are designed to detect crashes. You need to define gear objects with non-tiny compression distances. I think the confusion here might be the assumption that you can only have one set of gear and that they must all retract when /controls/gear-down is set to false. That has never been true with YASim. Andy * Differences of which I am aware: JSBSim uses manual contact points, whereas YASim generates them automatically. JSBSim uses a single set of retractable gear, whereas YASim allows different gear object to retract independently. Since our last talking, i have tried to rebuild from 'souvenirs' the FDM YaSim model which was for me a _big problem_ the result with the actual CVS release is good. Better than before with an older fgfs release (9.4 ??) So now, in addition to the usual retractable gears, with _gear_ which define several contact points, i get a good position of the aircraft (mains gear-up). Thanks and Sorry for my _certitude_; i was not up to date. 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?)
On Friday 10 Jun 2005 22:41, Andy Ross wrote: 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 One problem with using YASim for sea planes is that the fuselage mustn't contact the surface as this equates to a crash. While I was experimenting with the SR45 I found that I had to omit the lower fuselage deck to achieve this, which must then affect the flying accuracy. I sort of got around it by using a non-retractable gear, which at least added some drag back. one of the last things I tried was to link the brakes of this gear to the gear compression so that the braking effect reduced or increased as the hull rose or sank into the water. LeeE ___ 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 samedi 11 juin 2005 10:20 +0100, Lee Elliott a crit : On Friday 10 Jun 2005 22:41, Andy Ross wrote: 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 One problem with using YASim for sea planes is that the fuselage mustn't contact the surface as this equates to a crash. While I was experimenting with the SR45 I found that I had to omit the lower fuselage deck to achieve this, which must then affect the flying accuracy. I sort of got around it by using a non-retractable gear, which at least added some drag back. one of the last things I tried was to link the brakes of this gear to the gear compression so that the braking effect reduced or increased as the hull rose or sank into the water. LeeE Oh you met exactly what i got when i tried (for the fun) to model an helicopter with floats (SeaStallion) . I could not use JSB (no rotor FDM) and with the use of Yasim it has been very difficult to find the right way which make that model to stand correctly on water with gear-up. To answer that, JSBSim gives a better flexibility. -- 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? No, this is not a misunderstanding. Probably your conclusion of we need to avoid such a situation is different from mine. I would not want to let aircraft fly below terrain surface but i would not want FG to automagically initiate a reset as well. A crash demonstration as Melchior did it for the BO-105 is probably the 'best' solution. Aside from that flying below a bridge or taxiing into a hangar is a desired feature. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ 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?)
Lee Elliott wrote: One problem with using YASim for sea planes is that the fuselage mustn't contact the surface as this equates to a crash. While I was experimenting with the SR45 I found that I had to omit the lower fuselage deck to achieve this, which must then affect the flying accuracy. I suspect the real problem is that there weren't enough gear objects. On a seaplane, anything that contacts the water is a landing gear. Something with a realistic gear compression should be touching the surface before the automatically generated fuselage contact point does; this requirement isn't any different from any other aircraft. FWIW, adding special behavior for contact points when they touch water (relaxed crash distance and spring constant, I guess) wouldn't be hard, provided the hard part is done: telling the FDM when the intersection point is with water. 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?)
Gerard Robin wrote: I could not use JSB (no rotor FDM) and with the use of Yasim it has been very difficult to find the right way which make that model to stand correctly on water with gear-up. To answer that, JSBSim gives a better flexibility. Both JSBSim and YASim use manually placed gear objects. There is no meaningful difference in the way they are configured. Getting the c.g. correct and making aircraft stand up straight is just hard. :) Note that there is no water yet. Making an aircraft stand correctly on water is no different from making it stand correctly on the runway. 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 samedi 11 juin 2005 08:39 -0700, Andy Ross a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: I could not use JSB (no rotor FDM) and with the use of Yasim it has been very difficult to find the right way which make that model to stand correctly on water with gear-up. To answer that, JSBSim gives a better flexibility. Both JSBSim and YASim use manually placed gear objects. There is no meaningful difference in the way they are configured. Getting the c.g. correct and making aircraft stand up straight is just hard. :) Note that there is no water yet. Making an aircraft stand correctly on water is no different from making it stand correctly on the runway. Andy NO The big difference is, a seaplane can have 2 types of contact points one which is the usual gears on ground, which is retractable and well defined on both FDM. the second which is part of the fuse and auxiliary floats, with JSBSim we have not any difficulties to define it ( i have a seaplane modelled with 12 contact points) and makes the aircraft standing correctly. with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big problems . -- 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?)
Gerard Robin wrote: with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big problems . I'm not understanding this at all; JSBSim and YASim have all but identical* gear systems. Can you please post the YASim configuration you are having trouble with? I suspect you are just misunderstanding something. Are you trying to make the aircraft sit on the automatic contact points? That won't work, they have very high spring constants and are designed to detect crashes. You need to define gear objects with non-tiny compression distances. I think the confusion here might be the assumption that you can only have one set of gear and that they must all retract when /controls/gear-down is set to false. That has never been true with YASim. Andy * Differences of which I am aware: JSBSim uses manual contact points, whereas YASim generates them automatically. JSBSim uses a single set of retractable gear, whereas YASim allows different gear object to retract independently. ___ 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?)
Andy wrote: whereas YASim allows different gear object to retract independently. !!! ... now there's a thought. Hmmm. I feel a feature request coming for JSBSim. :-) Jon ___ 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 samedi 11 juin 2005 09:24 -0700, Andy Ross a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: with Yasim we must find a medium way to get the same effect. About retractable gears no problems, about contact points on the fuse big problems . I'm not understanding this at all; JSBSim and YASim have all but identical* gear systems. Can you please post the YASim configuration you are having trouble with? I suspect you are just misunderstanding something. Are you trying to make the aircraft sit on the automatic contact points? That won't work, they have very high spring constants and are designed to detect crashes. You need to define gear objects with non-tiny compression distances. I think the confusion here might be the assumption that you can only have one set of gear and that they must all retract when /controls/gear-down is set to false. That has never been true with YASim. Andy * Differences of which I am aware: JSBSim uses manual contact points, whereas YASim generates them automatically. JSBSim uses a single set of retractable gear, whereas YASim allows different gear object to retract independently. OK i'll try to find my old project or to rebuild it , because many many water as passed under the Avignon Bridge since ... -- 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?)
On Saturday 11 Jun 2005 16:35, Andy Ross wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: One problem with using YASim for sea planes is that the fuselage mustn't contact the surface as this equates to a crash. While I was experimenting with the SR45 I found that I had to omit the lower fuselage deck to achieve this, which must then affect the flying accuracy. I suspect the real problem is that there weren't enough gear objects. On a seaplane, anything that contacts the water is a landing gear. Something with a realistic gear compression should be touching the surface before the automatically generated fuselage contact point does; this requirement isn't any different from any other aircraft. FWIW, adding special behavior for contact points when they touch water (relaxed crash distance and spring constant, I guess) wouldn't be hard, provided the hard part is done: telling the FDM when the intersection point is with water. Andy Hello Andy, I didn't really have a problem with the number of gear objects - I used a soft sprung tandem layout for the main gear with firm sprung out-riggers for the floats, which were retractable. It actually seemed to work quite well, with the a/c leaning a little to one side on the float that was in the water. As the a/c accelerated for take-off it rose up out of the 'water' quite nicely:) The main problem was that one of the fuselage entries had to be omitted - I originally tried to use three entries as this matched the SR45 fuselage well. As to how much difference this made to what was largely a guess-work fdm is anyone's guess. I figured that it should be possible to model a set of wash waves and spray that could be linked to the compression too. Lot of work though. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
On June 11, 2005 06:07 pm, Oliver C. wrote: I agree with the terrain. But i think that airplanes need to be able to sink after they crash. :) So the best way would be to make the terrain and watersurfaces independent from each other. This would also have some positive side effects because it would allow us to animate waves of the sea and make the sea transparent, especially at the coastlines. For this, it would also be a good idea to display the ground under the sea and merge the terrain with the ground under the sea instead of with the sea level. This would also allows us to include submarines, like someone above in this thread said. Best Regards, Oliver C. I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... or flying above a coral reef and see the corals on the sea floor. =) Seperating land and water will also allow tidal effects to be modelled. As for underwater exploration, I for one wouldn't mind taking the UFO down and see some underwater landmarks such as the Titanic. hehe. Ampere ___ 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: I like that idea. It would be nice to fly along the coast of a tropical island, look down and be able to see the white sand under the water... I think we could already get this by exploring the shallow water attribute in the VMAP data well, I could be wrong, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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
