Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Download/Install App
> Why do you think that? I've not seen any negative responses. > It's like everything else, a good idea is always welcome but like you, > others might not have time to develop it (right away). > > Erik > Well it may be a good idea, but just not worth the development time for most people. But if anyone ever wants to go at it, let me know. I'd be able to help a little, but just not enough to do everything. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Download/Install App
Arthur Wiebe wrote: But as it seems to be a bad idea, I guess we can forget this thread. Why do you think that? I've not seen any negative responses. It's like everything else, a good idea is always welcome but like you, others might not have time to develop it (right away). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Download/Install App
> And maybe it would also be a good idea to package aircraft and scenery > in rpm or deb format. That way you don't have to worry about > dependencies like how so many planes use the p51 instruments. fgadmin > could run it's own rpm or deb database. Not sure how this would work on > non-unix platforms, but I don't see any showstoppers. > > Josh > At first I thought you were joking. But I guess it would work. > ... and we could call it ... *pause* ... fgadmin! I tried fgadmin (just now actually) and couldn't figure out how to use it right away. Clicking "Select All" or "Deselect All" did nothing. Didn't even get a notice. The GUI is really bad I have to say. But as it seems to be a bad idea, I guess we can forget this thread. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Download/Install App
Arthur Wiebe wrote: > This is an idea that's been floating around in my head for awhile, > mainly because there is currently no *very easy* way for a newbie to > install new aircraft in FlightGear. Unless that user is used to going > through Program\ Files in Windows and through package contents on OSX. > > The idea is for an aircraft application. This application would > download (preferrably an XML file) from a server, parse, and through a > GUI have the ability to select aircraft, see details including > previews, press a button to download and install. > The application would guess the most likely places for where to > install. But let the user change it of course. > > The application would be written in C++ using the wxWidgets framework > so that it will look and work right on all platforms. > > But there's no way I'm going to take it on myself. /me sick of that. > So any takers? Or is it a rotten idea I should never have posted > about? Or perhaps even something already discussed. > > -- > > - http://sourceforge.net/users/artooro/ > - http://artooro.blogspot.com > > > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d And maybe it would also be a good idea to package aircraft and scenery in rpm or deb format. That way you don't have to worry about dependencies like how so many planes use the p51 instruments. fgadmin could run it's own rpm or deb database. Not sure how this would work on non-unix platforms, but I don't see any showstoppers. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Download/Install App
On Saturday 26 November 2005 14:25, Arthur Wiebe wrote: > The idea is for an aircraft application. This application would > download (preferrably an XML file) from a server, parse, and through a > GUI have the ability to select aircraft, see details including > previews, press a button to download and install. > The application would guess the most likely places for where to > install. But let the user change it of course. > The application would be written in C++ using the wxWidgets framework > so that it will look and work right on all platforms. This hypothetical application sounds very much to me like an extension to the existing fgrun... > But there's no way I'm going to take it on myself. /me sick of that. > So any takers? Or is it a rotten idea I should never have posted > about? Or perhaps even something already discussed. Personally, I think it's a good idea, particularly for a certain class of users who often seem to have absolutely no concept of what goes on behind those mesmerising icons. At the moment, they either flood the users list with the same old repetitive emails (which is part of what it's there for, of course), or much worse, just give up on FG as being "over their heads". Apps with similar facilities are not uncommon; I'm sure it could be done fairly easily. But again, not by me since I'm not a C/C++ programmer and have enough to work on as it is, even with fgfs related things... It maybe sounds about right for a project idea for undergraduate students, as has been requested here recently... Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft for v0.9.9
Lee Elliott wrote: > On Friday 18 Nov 2005 15:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > >>Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.) >> >>Take a look at the latest aircraft download page: >> >>http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/ >> >>There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created >>for the web page. We need a 171x128 pixel image for each >>aircraft that has a 3d model. This needs to be saved as >>"thumbnail.jpg" in the aircrafts top level directory ... you >>can look at other aircraft for examples. >> >>It would be great if we could have pictures for everything >>before we spam the world with our v0.9.9 release. >> >>Thanks! >> >>Curt. > > > Josh has been doing some nice work on the Canberra model so I'll > leave the thumbnail and author details to him - ok Josh? > > The TU-114 status should be set to something like 'development' > or 'pre-alpha' because of the fundamental problems with the prop > pitch control. I can do an update for the status change and a > thumbnail if you wish. > > LeeE > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > I should be able to make a good thumbnail as soon as I can fix my OpenGL installation. josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft for v0.9.9
On Friday 18 Nov 2005 15:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.) > > Take a look at the latest aircraft download page: > > http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/ > > There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created > for the web page. We need a 171x128 pixel image for each > aircraft that has a 3d model. This needs to be saved as > "thumbnail.jpg" in the aircrafts top level directory ... you > can look at other aircraft for examples. > > It would be great if we could have pictures for everything > before we spam the world with our v0.9.9 release. > > Thanks! > > Curt. Josh has been doing some nice work on the Canberra model so I'll leave the thumbnail and author details to him - ok Josh? The TU-114 status should be set to something like 'development' or 'pre-alpha' because of the fundamental problems with the prop pitch control. I can do an update for the status change and a thumbnail if you wish. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft for v0.9.9
I can work on aircraft thumbnails for the download page. What is the best way to submit them? Regards, Paul Bohnert "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)Take a look at the latest aircraft download page:http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created for the web page. We need a 171x128 pixel image for each aircraft that has a 3d model. This needs to be saved as "thumbnail.jpg" in the aircrafts top level directory ... you can look at other aircraft for examples.It would be great if we could have pictures for everything before we spam the world with our v0.9.9 release.Thanks!Curt.-- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curtHumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.orgUnique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d___Flightgear-devel mailing listFlightgear-devel@flightgear.orghttp://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft models
Hi Jon "Jon Berndt" writes I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd be interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email) which aircraft you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that are not really known about (albeit in various states of fidelity) - and perhaps not for release, but I'd still like to know about them. Boeing 707-300 & 737-300 Jon Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft models
On June 3, 2005 12:33 pm, Jon Berndt wrote: > I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. > I'd be interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal > email) which aircraft you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models > floating around that are not really known about (albeit in various states > of fidelity) - and perhaps not for release, but I'd still like to know > about them. Both the MD11 and the A380 use JSBSim. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft models
Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 à 07:33 -0500, Jon Berndt a écrit : > I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd > be > interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email) > which aircraft > you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that are > not really > known about (albeit in various states of fidelity) - and perhaps not for > release, but I'd > still like to know about them. > > Jon > jsb*at*hal-pc*dot*org > > OK: on my side, i will look at, if in my "Zoo Aircrafts" i have some which are standard usable (without garantie) > -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Jon Stockill wrote: > Ben Morrison wrote: > >> Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface. >> One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is >> free. I will look at AC3D. > > > I have a registered version of AC3D, and now prefer to work in blender - > once you learn the interface it's just a lot nicer to use. The learning > curve is a bit steep at first, but it's extremely efficient once you're > used to it. > I agree. I started with AC3D, but moved to blender because I found it much faster and more flexible. I don't like having all the animation and rendering stuff lying around, but I have learned to ignore that part of the interface. It doesn't slow it down either, it's a very speedy program. PS, I'm in the middle of a big model (B29) and would be happy to share tips both on blender and general modeling. Drop me a line and I can hop on #flightgear sometime convenient to GMT-5 Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
This doesn't relate to this topic in anyway but the site looks like it is partially down (www.flightgear.org). The menu on the left is missing. Has anyone else noticed this? I am getting javascript errors and after viewing the source it looks like the function call MainMenu() is causing an error. The Japanese version is working. Lol, too bad I can't read Japanese. Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 Ã 16:33 +0200, Erik Hofman a Ãcrit : > Gerard ROBIN wrote: > > > AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D > > modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities > > missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D. > > Why not, is that forbidden? > > Erik > ..No , the end user is the master of his own decision :-) ?!?!?! -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Gerard ROBIN wrote: AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D. Why not, is that forbidden? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 Ã 09:46 -0400, Ben Morrison a Ãcrit : > > "Ben Morrison" writes > > >The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modelling > >aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's > >about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model, > >just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to > >the > >size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? > > > >Thanks, > >Ben > > Innis Cunningham wrote > > > Solid work day in day out about 2 weeks but I would get sick of it so > > about 2 months. Also the fact that you are starting on Blender does not > > help. I am sure Blender is a great program but it is not all that > > intuitive to use. I use AC3D. Starting from scratch is the way to go.I > > would say start with the fuselage by creating cylinders and shaping them to > > resemble the fuselage. You might be surprised how quick things develop. > > > > Cheers > > Innis > > > Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface. > One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is > free. I will look at AC3D. > > Ben > AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D. Blender will be very useful don't be fear to go into.It is well structured. Look at the tutorial that is very helpful. > > Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface. One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is free. I will look at AC3D. I have a registered version of AC3D, and now prefer to work in blender - once you learn the interface it's just a lot nicer to use. The learning curve is a bit steep at first, but it's extremely efficient once you're used to it. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
"Ben Morrison" writes >The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling >aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's >about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model, >just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to >the >size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? > >Thanks, >Ben Innis Cunningham wrote > Solid work day in day out about 2 weeks but I would get sick of it so > about 2 months. Also the fact that you are starting on Blender does not > help. I am sure Blender is a great program but it is not all that > intuitive to use. I use AC3D. Starting from scratch is the way to go.I > would say start with the fuslage by creating cylinders and shaping them to > resemble the fuselage. You might be surprised how quick things develop. > > Cheers > Innis Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface. One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is free. I will look at AC3D. Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
"Ben Morrison" writes The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model, just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Solid work day in day out about 2 weeks but I would get sick of it so about 2 months.Also the fact that you are starting on Blender does not help.I am sure Blender is a great program but it is not all that intuitive to use.I use AC3D. Starting from scratch is the way to go.I would say start with the fuslage by creating cylinders and shaping them to resemble the fuselage.You might be surprised how quick things develop. Thanks, Ben Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 11, 2005 01:35 pm, Ben Morrison wrote: > When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the > aircraft? Sort of, but "dimensions of parts on the aircraft" would be a better description. =) Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the aircraft? If so, I have all of this data already. The problem I see is my lack of experience with Blender and the fact that I am a computer programmer not a graphics artist. If someone enjoys drawing models I would be happy to give them the proper dimensions of every part that is needed and then take the project over once I have the model. I just don't think I can draw a model from scratch. On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote: > How long would you say it would take you to create this model, > just so I have an idea. It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look right. Experience also contributes, of course. My first model took me more than a month to get right. > I was also wondering if taking a plane close to > the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Kitbashing? May be. But aircrafts rarely share parts. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote: > How long would you say it would take you to create this model, > just so I have an idea. It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look right. Experience also contributes, of course. My first model took me more than a month to get right. > I was also wondering if taking a plane close to > the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Kitbashing? May be. But aircrafts rarely share parts. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to modify and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them can be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different approach for animation they build different objects for different positions of aircraft parts. E.G the landing gear will have a separate model for gear up than gear down and then they just hide the model they dont want to show.This did change when they went to GMAX models but as far as I am aware PLIB can't handle those models. I would say build your own you will look back in a years time and say what a load of rubbish but the experience will be invaluble.One thing I would say is to make the fuselage with plenty of sides because if and when you come back to improve it you won't have to start from scratch as I have had to do.Currently I use no less than 40 sided fuslages. Cheers Innis The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model, just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if taking a plane close to the size of a C130 and modifying it to look like a C130 is an option? Thanks, Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Hi Harald Harald JOHNSEN writes I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or panel). Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better to start a new one ? What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ? Of the two you mention above(you need animation for both)panel design or more exactly instrument design is one area were FG could use a boost.The advantage of instruments for people starting out is they are small and not to complicated and not to many(well none)pesky compound curves. Harald. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Hi Ben "Ben Morrison" writes Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to modify and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them can be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different approach for animation they build different objects for different positions of aircraft parts. E.G the landing gear will have a separate model for gear up than gear down and then they just hide the model they dont want to show.This did change when they went to GMAX models but as far as I am aware PLIB can't handle those models. I would say build your own you will look back in a years time and say what a load of rubbish but the experience will be invaluble.One thing I would say is to make the fuselage with plenty of sides because if and when you come back to improve it you won't have to start from scratch as I have had to do.Currently I use no less than 40 sided fuslages. Ben Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
"Ampere K. Hardraade" writes On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote: > To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics > model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? > > In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file > for JSBSim available: > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ > > Erik Isn't Innis working on one as well? It was on my list to start but I have done nothing yet so if someone else wants to have a go at it by all means.The more the better Ampere Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 10, 2005 01:48 pm, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or > panel). > Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better > to start a new one ? > > Harald. There are quite a few aircrafts in the cvs that need to be work on. I think it will be better if those planes get comleted first before having more semi-finished aircrafts. If your skill lies in programming, you might want to think about working on Nasal scripts for us modellers. I for one, will welcome that. =) Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ? Well, you'd make a crazy guy happy if you add a C150 to FlightGear but I think you should better build one that you _personally_ like. Creating an aircraft for FG is apparently a lot of work and you need a certain amount of personal motivation/enthusiasm to finish the task, 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] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Ben Morrison wrote: Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. I'm not sure there is any single aircraft that has fully exploited all the facilities FlightGear provides. Lee Elliott's aircraft seem to be especially nice in terms of the external 3d model and surface/gear animation. Some of his gear retraction/compression animations are simply outstanding and amazing. Other people have done some really great 3d cockpits ... the P51 was one of the first examples, there is also the spitfire and hunter. The standard C172 has a pretty complete electrical system modeled ... down to the individual buses and circuit breakers which are all fully functional in the sense that you can pop a circuit breaker and everything down stream will go dark. Some aircraft have really well tuned flight dynamics models such as the pa28-161. The 3d model is fine, but nothing too fancy, and the 3d cockpit is not yet finished (i.e. no radio stack.) The piper cub might be a nice example to start with. It's pretty simple all around, but has animated control surfaces, a 3d cockpit, and all the other basic components. It can be a *lot* of work to fully model all aspects of an aircraft, occasionally developers have teamed up to each work on their area of expertise and build a better aircraft than any of them could have done individually. Regards, Curt. I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or panel). Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better to start a new one ? What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ? Harald. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote: > To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics > model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? > > In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file > for JSBSim available: > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ > > Erik Isn't Innis working on one as well? Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:35:47 +0100, Jon wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ben Morrison wrote: > > > Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example > > to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For > > example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, > > etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made > > for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. > > If it's a model you want to redistribute then you'll need to be > careful about the licensing (obviously if it's a model you yourself > made for MSFS then this isn't a problem). ..to clarify, if you want it distributed as a FlightGear aircraft, you will either have to set up your own organization to do this, or, license your AC130-H under the GPL, so it can become a FlightGear aircraft. As the copyright holding author, you can actually do both. ;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] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. I'm not sure there is any single aircraft that has fully exploited all the facilities FlightGear provides. Lee Elliott's aircraft seem to be especially nice in terms of the external 3d model and surface/gear animation. Some of his gear retraction/compression animations are simply outstanding and amazing. Other people have done some really great 3d cockpits ... the P51 was one of the first examples, there is also the spitfire and hunter. The standard C172 has a pretty complete electrical system modeled ... down to the individual buses and circuit breakers which are all fully functional in the sense that you can pop a circuit breaker and everything down stream will go dark. Some aircraft have really well tuned flight dynamics models such as the pa28-161. The 3d model is fine, but nothing too fancy, and the 3d cockpit is not yet finished (i.e. no radio stack.) The piper cub might be a nice example to start with. It's pretty simple all around, but has animated control surfaces, a 3d cockpit, and all the other basic components. It can be a *lot* of work to fully model all aspects of an aircraft, occasionally developers have teamed up to each work on their area of expertise and build a better aircraft than any of them could have done individually. 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] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. If it's a model you want to redistribute then you'll need to be careful about the licensing (obviously if it's a model you yourself made for MSFS then this isn't a problem). -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: > I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't > worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how > it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file for JSBSim available: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ Erik Sorry, I already have a fdm and I will be doing a 3d model. Ben Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I think I will try to convert a model made for Microsoft's Flight Simulator. Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: > I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't > worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how > it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file for JSBSim available: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ Erik Sorry, I already have a fdm and I will be doing a 3d model. Ben ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Model: AC130-H
Ben Morrison wrote: I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven’t worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)? In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file for JSBSim available: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsbsim/JSBSim/aircraft/C130/ Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
On January 24, 2005 03:45 am, Erik Hofman wrote: > I expect you have replaced the accelerated drivers by a software only > driver now. You should have installed the mesag3-dev package only. > > Erik On January 24, 2005 07:32 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > As someone else mentioned, it sounds like you need to revisit your > accelerated driver config and make sure that is all running. It sounds > like you very likely could be back to software only rendering. > > Curt. Thanks guys. I guess I will have to reinstall all the packages that the computer uninstalled. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On January 21, 2005 09:01 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Quoting Innis Cunningham: "Curtis L. Olson" writes Innis, I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? Thanks Curt and yes I am runing windows. But if there was a line ending problem would this have not showed up in 9.6 and 9.5.In these versions it runs without trouble. The ac loader has been overhauled and many features were added, and regressions or stricter checked could have sneak in. Send me privately this model if you want me to test on the windows platform with adequate debugging tools. -Fred Problem fixed. There was a dependency on the 747. This will be removed in the future. Now, I got a little problem of my own. Initially, I couldn't compile plib because it kept saying that I am missing glList and glLookat. This was "fixed" after I installed mesag3, and the computer automatically removed libraries belonged to x-window and x-lib-mesa. There was no problem during compilation after that. Everything went smoothly until I tried to run FlightGear. After entering the command line, the FlightGear window poped up, showed me the splash screen, then the entire system frozed. I could hear the harddrive working like crazy. This went on for about 5 minutes, then FlighGear terminated with a message "Terminated"... very helpful. These symptoms indicate that FG used up all your main memory and then was "terminated" by the operating system ... which is preferable to the operating system being terminated by FlightGear. :-) I tried pipping the output into a text file. Unfortunately, the file was incompleted for some reason. I assume this problem I am having is related to the package changes. I want to hear opinions from you guys before I reinstall x-lib-mesa again. As someone else mentioned, it sounds like you need to revisit your accelerated driver config and make sure that is all running. It sounds like you very likely could be back to software only rendering. 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] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Now, I got a little problem of my own. Initially, I couldn't compile plib because it kept saying that I am missing glList and glLookat. This was "fixed" after I installed mesag3, and the computer automatically removed libraries belonged to x-window and x-lib-mesa. There was no problem during compilation after that. Everything went smoothly until I tried to run FlightGear. After entering the command line, the FlightGear window poped up, showed me the splash screen, then the entire system frozed. I could hear the harddrive working like crazy. This went on for about 5 minutes, then FlighGear terminated with a message "Terminated"... very helpful. I tried pipping the output into a text file. Unfortunately, the file was incompleted for some reason. I assume this problem I am having is related to the package changes. I want to hear opinions from you guys before I reinstall x-lib-mesa again. I expect you have replaced the accelerated drivers by a software only driver now. You should have installed the mesag3-dev package only. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
On January 21, 2005 09:01 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote: > Quoting Innis Cunningham: > > "Curtis L. Olson" writes > > > > >Innis, > > > > > >I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did > > >notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file > > > permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are > > > running windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one > > > of the files? > > > > Thanks Curt and yes I am runing windows. > > But if there was a line ending problem would this have not showed up > > in 9.6 and 9.5.In these versions it runs without trouble. > > The ac loader has been overhauled and many features were added, and > regressions or stricter checked could have sneak in. Send me privately this > model if you want me to test on the windows platform with adequate > debugging tools. > > -Fred Problem fixed. There was a dependency on the 747. This will be removed in the future. Now, I got a little problem of my own. Initially, I couldn't compile plib because it kept saying that I am missing glList and glLookat. This was "fixed" after I installed mesag3, and the computer automatically removed libraries belonged to x-window and x-lib-mesa. There was no problem during compilation after that. Everything went smoothly until I tried to run FlightGear. After entering the command line, the FlightGear window poped up, showed me the splash screen, then the entire system frozed. I could hear the harddrive working like crazy. This went on for about 5 minutes, then FlighGear terminated with a message "Terminated"... very helpful. I tried pipping the output into a text file. Unfortunately, the file was incompleted for some reason. I assume this problem I am having is related to the package changes. I want to hear opinions from you guys before I reinstall x-lib-mesa again. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
Quoting Innis Cunningham: > "Curtis L. Olson" writes > > > >Innis, > > > >I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did > >notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, > >capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, > >perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? > > Thanks Curt and yes I am runing windows. > But if there was a line ending problem would this have not showed up > in 9.6 and 9.5.In these versions it runs without trouble. The ac loader has been overhauled and many features were added, and regressions or stricter checked could have sneak in. Send me privately this model if you want me to test on the windows platform with adequate debugging tools. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
"Curtis L. Olson" writes Innis, I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? Thanks Curt and yes I am runing windows. But if there was a line ending problem would this have not showed up in 9.6 and 9.5.In these versions it runs without trouble. Curt. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft loading problem in 9.8
Innis, I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the files? Curt. Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All As you may or maynot be aware Ampere Hardraade and I are building the A380 for FG but when I went to put the A380 folder into the Aircraft folder in 9.8 and run the sim I get this fault "failed to load aircraft from Aircraft/A380/XML /A380.xml". fallig back to glider.ac. Now you may notice that the aircraft file is not in the models folder as I think was a requirement a couple of versions back. But this has worked fine in both 9.5 and 9.6.In fact I uninstalled 9.8 and reinstalled 9.6 and moved the A380 folder into it.It worked fine I then uninstalled 9.6 and reinstalled 9.8 moved the A380 into the Aircraft folder and ran the sim but it came up with the same error message. This is probably a slightly unusual model in that the total model is made up of both .ac and .3ds files(fuselage,gear & fin .ac wing,engines and horizontal stabilizer 3ds)but this works fine in 9.6. Another thing is the model shows up fine in the FGRUN selection window but not in the sim. So has something been inadvertently changed that FG will not accept this path to the model in 9.8?. I also wonder if anybody has had anyhting like this with installing downloaded aircraft in 9.8. Besides the small problem above this is a great sim, getting almost 70 fps sitting on 28R at KSFO on a 2gig atholon with 512 memory and nvidia FX5200 graphics card. So a big thank you to all those involved. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- 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] Aircraft downloads
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:27:42 +, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ..this looong post with unsnipped quotes is a FG licensing FAQ candidate, so I don't snip this time. > On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to > > > > > non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS > > > > > have been done by people who want to ensure that their > > > > > work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to > > > > > make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial > > > > > organisations. Some people also like to include > > > > > non-violence conditions. > > > > > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free > > > > source code license gives the author more control over his > > > > code, also for commercial or military use. > > > > > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free > > > > to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or > > > > Trolltech with Qt. > > > > > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not > > > always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit > > > for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it > > > (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten > > > on the bum). > > > > .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression > > It's not just FUD. If you fail to foresee all the possible ways > that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, > can specifically permit something that you don't want. ..such as? > It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have > accepted conditions in a licence. ..ah, a feature. ;o) > I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the > abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these > issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific > licence. .. > > > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need > > > for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work > > > (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). > > > I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to > > > fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me > > > to give it to you. > > > > ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) > > I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:) > > But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at > all. It's just a permission to use. ..precisely that permission, is a license. Licenses does not have to be unlimited, and may even be conditional. They cease being licenses and become contracts as you require your contractual "licensee" to say or do a certain act, such as click "ok" to enter into said contract. ..all Microsofts End User License Agreement's are contracts. > > > > > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set > > > fire to it, I won't give it to you. > > > > ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your > > license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, > > have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper > > plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can > > circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your > > ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording > > your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) > > :) > > One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with > your automobile. If a friend offers to let you use their > automobile do you demand a licence before accepting? ..that offer of a permission is an offer of a license. > Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you > manage to interpret the licence you demanded? ..you confuse licenses with contracts. Very common, and what FUDmeisters want happening. > > > > > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even > > > though I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the > > > > > GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the > > > > > lack of control over the work once released under the > > > > > license, I can't > > > > > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under > > > > the GPL. > > > > > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no > > > control over what anyone else does with what I've released > > > under the GPL. > > > > ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ > > work. > > Yep. > > > > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that > > > > > control. > >
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
On 21/01/2005 at 10:05 Jim Wilson wrote: >Frederic Bouvier said: > >> Stewart Andreason a écrit : >> >> > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. >> > >> > > fgfs >> > >> > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open >> > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' >> > for reading >> > Abort >> > >> This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from >> the standard distribution. It is available on the website though. >> > >Any chance the AI could be intelligent enough to silently load a different >model or skip it altogether if the ac file isn't there? > That would make sense. I've never worked with exceptions before - only failure indicated by function return value. What's the general gist - if I wrap my call to the load aircraft function in try.. catch blocks and then handle the exception will it stop the "Failed to load aircraft" and "Abort" messages currently getting to teh screen? Oh, and BTW, the reason the AI system initialises even when turned off is so that the user can turn on the traffic from the AI/ATC menu whilst running the sim. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
Am Freitag 21 Januar 2005 08:59 schrieb Frederic Bouvier: > Stewart Andreason a écrit : > > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. > > > > > fgfs > > > > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open > > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' > > for reading > > Abort > > This plane is required by the AI/ATC module Which in turn has implications for the standard aircraft selection *hint* Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
Frederic Bouvier said: > Stewart Andreason a écrit : > > > It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. > > > > > fgfs > > > > WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open > > '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' > > for reading > > Abort > > > This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from > the standard distribution. It is available on the website though. > Any chance the AI could be intelligent enough to silently load a different model or skip it altogether if the ac file isn't there? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] aircraft required to start
Stewart Andreason a écrit : It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear. > fgfs WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open '/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac' for reading Abort This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from the standard distribution. It is available on the website though. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 20:10, David Megginson wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI > > because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check) > > I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some > ASIs do have a circular sliderule (or similar) around the edge to > calculate true airspeed, but all ASIs necessarily show indicated > airspeed because that's what has the most aerodynamic significance for > the plane (i.e. it's going to rotate, climb, approach, stall, etc. at > the same indicated airspeeds at 10,000 ft density altitude and at sea > level, even though the true airspeeds are significantly different). > > What is the density altitude is the TAS for the Beech 1900 specified > at? 25,000 ft? If so, then divide by about 1.5 to find out what > number you should see on the ASI. > > > All the best, > > > David I couldn't find any further info on the ASI being compensated and you're undoubtedly right so I will go with that. Thanks :-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote: > David Luff said: > > On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: > > >> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack > > >> some magic. > > > > > >Setting up > > > > > >> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. > > >> Berdnt was > > > > > >claiming > > > > > >> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working > > >> JSBSim model. > > > > > > ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the > > > numbers for aero qualities that I > > >was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was > > > amiss. Also, at the time I > > >believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought > > > they were. Now we have a > > >turbocharged piston engine model. > > > > You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model > > though - we haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start > > on a P51 or Spitfire (or any other model) give me a heads up > > and I'll test/refine/debug the turbo/supercharging stuff in > > tandem with what you're doing. > > We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more > along the lines of 3D modeling and enhancing > animation/rendering code if I hadn't spent so much time > working on something I know hardly anything about (flight > modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work > that folks have done with the FDM code. > > Is there any chance someone out there is interested in > focusing on improving the flight model definitions for the 3D > art that we already have? > > Best, > > Jim Heh! - I'd guess I'm already spending about 70-80% of my FG time on flight behaviour stuff and about 20-30% on modelling & texturing. It's a varying figure because sometimes I'll combine a flight test with looking at large scale geological features:) All my fdms are in a state of flux and are constantly being worked on but I wouldn't have any problem with other people working on them too. However, if someone were to change a value, that I knew to be correct, to a value that was incorrect, say the wing incidence for example, then I think the fdms would have to fork. I can't see how using an incorrect value for something can produce something that's accurate and instead I would put more effort into finding what's wrong in the guesswork stuff. The idea of forking fdms wouldn't bother me at all though - in fact I would welcome it and I think it would be interesting to compare different fdms for the same a/c. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I > *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check) I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some ASIs do have a circular sliderule (or similar) around the edge to calculate true airspeed, but all ASIs necessarily show indicated airspeed because that's what has the most aerodynamic significance for the plane (i.e. it's going to rotate, climb, approach, stall, etc. at the same indicated airspeeds at 10,000 ft density altitude and at sea level, even though the true airspeeds are significantly different). What is the density altitude is the TAS for the Beech 1900 specified at? 25,000 ft? If so, then divide by about 1.5 to find out what number you should see on the ASI. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote: > We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the > lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't > spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about > (flight modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work that > folks have done with the FDM code. > > Is there any chance someone out there is interested in focusing on > improving the flight model definitions for the 3D art that we already have? > > Best, > > Jim If you mean working with the figures in the definition files then yes, I'm having a fiddle here and there (mainly B1900D at the mo to get it flyable). Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Dave Martin wrote: > >Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure > >compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected > > GS of 270kts. > > > >Am I understanding that correctly? > > Yes, you have to input true airspeed into the cruise section, not > indicated airspeed. At high altitudes there is a significant > difference. :-) > > Curt. Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check) Cheers Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:57, David Megginson wrote: > You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to > like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package. You should try helping clueless windows users to install scenery files in the IRC channel sometime. A lot of them need help to extract, copy and paste. I'd say yes if FG had an automated way of installing aircraft but till then I don't like the idea too much. It's just an extra step that can potentially cause more hassles and confusion. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
David Luff said: > > On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: > > >> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. > >Setting up > >> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was > >claiming > >> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. > > > > ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero > >qualities that I > >was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at > >the time I > >believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we > >have a > >turbocharged piston engine model. > > You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model though - we > haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start on a P51 or Spitfire (or > any other model) give me a heads up and I'll test/refine/debug the > turbo/supercharging stuff in tandem with what you're doing. > We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about (flight modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work that folks have done with the FDM code. Is there any chance someone out there is interested in focusing on improving the flight model definitions for the 3D art that we already have? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Dave Martin wrote: Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected GS of 270kts. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, you have to input true airspeed into the cruise section, not indicated airspeed. At high altitudes there is a significant difference. :-) 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] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:45, Jim Wilson wrote: > Dave Martin said: > > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: > > > Dave Martin said: > > > > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: > > > > getting an aircraft working > > > > > > > > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part > > > > > that the basic formulas don't cover). > > > > > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is > > > > indistinguishable from magic" - Sir Arthur C Clarke. > > > > > > Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some > > > magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original > > > intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I > > > started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. > > > Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with > > > geometric specifications, a couple software patch > > > submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The > > > "tweaks" were really comprimises that ended up producing > > > something that was sort of close to performance > > > specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Jim > > > > Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D > > FDM. > > > > The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the > > numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the > > *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right > > thing to aim for. > > The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high > end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough > drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It > seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much > (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. > > Best, > > Jim I've hit that lift/drag issue on just about all the a/c I've done. The degree varies but I mostly put it down to me not being any sort of aerodynamicist. Sometimes I wish for a more dynamic standalone solver so I could tweak the settings and see the results straight away. The gui would be massive though, and I'm not sure how the results could be visualised - a bunch of converging curves perhaps... LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to > > > > non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS > > > > have been done by people who want to ensure that their > > > > work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to > > > > make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial > > > > organisations. Some people also like to include > > > > non-violence conditions. > > > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free > > > source code license gives the author more control over his > > > code, also for commercial or military use. > > > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free > > > to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or > > > Trolltech with Qt. > > > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not > > always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit > > for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it > > (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten > > on the bum). > > .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression It's not just FUD. If you fail to foresee all the possible ways that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, can specifically permit something that you don't want. It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have accepted conditions in a licence. I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific licence. > > > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need > > for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work > > (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). > > I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to > > fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me > > to give it to you. > > ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:) But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at all. It's just a permission to use. > > > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set > > fire to it, I won't give it to you. > > ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your > license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, > have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper > plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can > circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your > ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording > your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) :) One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with your automobile. If a friend offers to let you use their automobile do you demand a licence before accepting? Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you manage to interpret the licence you demanded? > > > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even > > though I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the > > > > GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the > > > > lack of control over the work once released under the > > > > license, I can't > > > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under > > > the GPL. > > > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no > > control over what anyone else does with what I've released > > under the GPL. > > ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ > work. Yep. > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that > > > > control. > > > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to > > > > buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other > > > payware licenses, this depends on the license's "small > > > print" language. > > > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied > > > > to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and > > > > people can no longer do what they want. > > > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been > > > given by the original authors, "before you jumped in." > > > Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it > > > as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be > > > thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do > > >
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't > > force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to > > do... > > I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a > strawman to argue against. The only suggestion I've seen is using the > flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer. > I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a > carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better. > Yes, this is exactly, what i meant. People can use unfree licenses, but when doing this, it should not be advertised on the main flightgear.org website, at least not for free and not in a way that the visiter gets confused. They should look after their own way to do the advertisement. The flightgear.org website should not be misused for such none free addons. And when those people who want to distribute their none free addons really want some advertisement on the flightgear.org website, then they should pay for this. But the point is, the flightgear.org website shouldn't do this advertisement for free or near the other GPL'd addons. It should be clear for a visiter that such thing is an advertisement and not a part of the page. So a simple link would not be okay. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:01, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the > > beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust > > numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the > > last round Andy made some code changes, but I got stuck with solver > > issues when trying to crank up a little more power. Also I did not > > mention that there are some subtle problems that affect handling the > > aircraft during takeoffs that come into play when you start "tweaking". > > I vaguely remember a further problem with Yasim in connection with engine > > power, but it'll require getting my head back into it before I know for > > sure. > > > > Best, > > > > Jim > > I'm dealing with such problems in getting the b1900d to perform in the > cruise. > > Unfortunately, while it handles well in the circuit, the cruise speed is > stuck at 200kts @ 20,000ft (70 below POH) :-/ > > Dave Martin > Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected GS of 270kts. Am I understanding that correctly? Thanks Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the > beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers > (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round > Andy made some code changes, but I got stuck with solver issues when trying > to crank up a little more power. Also I did not mention that there are > some subtle problems that affect handling the aircraft during takeoffs that > come into play when you start "tweaking". I vaguely remember a further > problem with Yasim in connection with engine power, but it'll require > getting my head back into it before I know for sure. > > Best, > > Jim I'm dealing with such problems in getting the b1900d to perform in the cruise. Unfortunately, while it handles well in the circuit, the cruise speed is stuck at 200kts @ 20,000ft (70 below POH) :-/ Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: >> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. >Setting up >> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was >claiming >> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. > > ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero >qualities that I >was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at >the time I >believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we >have a >turbocharged piston engine model. You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model though - we haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start on a P51 or Spitfire (or any other model) give me a heads up and I'll test/refine/debug the turbo/supercharging stuff in tandem with what you're doing. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
"Curtis L. Olson" said: > > > >The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, > >(e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior > >at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide > >too > >much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. > > > > > > Jim, > > I think this is more a factor of getting the right actual power output > from the engine. If the engine output is too low, you are going to get > up with a "slick" model that glides forever. If the engine output is > too high you are going to end up with a "draggy" model that slows down > too quickly. I remember you struggling with trying to model the complex > p51 engine gearing correctly in yasim and maybe that never came out > right and you ended up with a severely under powered model. > > If that is the case, yasim will reduce drag and make your wing lift > better so that you can still hit the performance numbers. > > For the Citation-II I felt like Yasim did a pretty good job. I haven't > really hit the validation end of it hard, but I was getting plausible > performance throughout the envelope. > > I think the big trick is to get the engine power output in the right > ball park, then everything else starts falling into place much better. > Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round Andy made some code changes, but I got stuck with solver issues when trying to crank up a little more power. Also I did not mention that there are some subtle problems that affect handling the aircraft during takeoffs that come into play when you start "tweaking". I vaguely remember a further problem with Yasim in connection with engine power, but it'll require getting my head back into it before I know for sure. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:40 -, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic > flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as > an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory > and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Actually, I'd say that the two are roughly equal in realism: JSBSim can use real, measured flight coefficients when they exist (most of the time we have to make them up right now), but it is stuck at a high level of abstraction because it can apply its calculations only to the aircraft as a whole; YASim cannot use real coefficients, but since it handles each lifting surface separately, it works at a lower level of abstraction can handle various asymmetric situations much more believably (for example, JSBSim can model a stalled plane, but YASim can model a stalled *wing* with the other wing not stalled). After working a lot on and flown a lot with both models, I find the handling of the YASim pa28-161 more realistic than the handling of the c172p, though they're both good. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: Dave Martin said: On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The "tweaks" were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right thing to aim for. The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. Jim, I think this is more a factor of getting the right actual power output from the engine. If the engine output is too low, you are going to get up with a "slick" model that glides forever. If the engine output is too high you are going to end up with a "draggy" model that slows down too quickly. I remember you struggling with trying to model the complex p51 engine gearing correctly in yasim and maybe that never came out right and you ended up with a severely under powered model. If that is the case, yasim will reduce drag and make your wing lift better so that you can still hit the performance numbers. For the Citation-II I felt like Yasim did a pretty good job. I haven't really hit the validation end of it hard, but I was getting plausible performance throughout the envelope. I think the big trick is to get the engine power output in the right ball park, then everything else starts falling into place much better. 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] Aircraft included in base package
> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up > the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming > at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for aero qualities that I was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was amiss. Also, at the time I believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought they were. Now we have a turbocharged piston engine model. It's still something I want to return to, but priorities changed - some in response to address the changes needed to build a better P-51D. I apologize for my premature statements - I didn't know at the time that I would run into the hurdles that I encountered late in the process. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Dave Martin said: > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: > > Dave Martin said: > > > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: > > > getting an aircraft working > > > > > > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic > > > > formulas don't cover). > > > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - > > > Sir Arthur C Clarke. > > > > Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting > > up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was > > claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim > > model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with > > geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an > > endless number of tweaks. The "tweaks" were really comprimises that ended > > up producing something that was sort of close to performance > > specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. > > > > Best, > > > > Jim > > Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. > > The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but > the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I > hope is the right thing to aim for. > The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance, (e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide too much (excessive lift/insufficient drag) when cutting the power. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote: > Dave Martin said: > > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: > > getting an aircraft working > > > > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic > > > formulas don't cover). > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - > > Sir Arthur C Clarke. > > Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting > up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was > claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim > model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with > geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an > endless number of tweaks. The "tweaks" were really comprimises that ended > up producing something that was sort of close to performance > specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. > > Best, > > Jim Thats litterally what I've just been doing with the B1900D FDM. The numbers in the FDM file don't all match up to the numbers in the POH but the FDM does now match with the *performance* figures in the POH - Which I hope is the right thing to aim for. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Dave Martin said: > On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: > getting an aircraft working > > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas > > don't cover). > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Sir > Arthur C Clarke. > Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model. Doing the yasim model was a juggling act that started with geometric specifications, a couple software patch submissions, and then an endless number of tweaks. The "tweaks" were really comprimises that ended up producing something that was sort of close to performance specifications, but not really accurate in any respect. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd > > > aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by > > > people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as > > > in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work > > > isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people > > > also like to include non-violence conditions. > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free source > > code license gives the author more control over his code, also > > for commercial or military use. > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to > > use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with > > Qt. > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not always > wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting > you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever > actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum). .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a > licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except > of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). I could make > a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't > need a licence. All you will need is for me to give it to you. ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire > to it, I won't give it to you. ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though > I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL > > > gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of > > > control over the work once released under the license, I > > > can't > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the > > GPL. > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control > over what anyone else does with what I've released under the > GPL. ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ work. > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy > > > anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware > > licenses, this depends on the license's "small print" > > language. > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to > > > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people > > > can no longer do what they want. > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given > > by the original authors, "before you jumped in." Your own > > code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned > > well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally > > too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people > > will tell you "Riiight, I'll consider it if you can > > convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3." ;-) > > The problem I see with it is when people say that something > _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one > fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or > 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but > if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the > person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the > realm of compulsion. ..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad people to skim off the good stuff _and_ change author credits _and_ hide it as closed source _and_ charge for it. ..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say "should GPL" and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it happen. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightge
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > > Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please > > continue to do so. :-) > > > > Curt. > > I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to > consume their offspring. ..maybe Curt has naughty kids? ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote: getting an aircraft working > is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas > don't cover). > > Best, > > Jim "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Sir Arthur C Clarke. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
David Megginson said: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is > > very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about > > including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things > > that can be done with FG aircraft. I think before we go with only 1 > > aircraft in the base package, we should really spiff up the C-172 > > externals and internals. Suspention animation, shadows, lights, and a > > much better 3d cockpit. If we go with only one aircraft, it should be > > really nice all around, and show off what we can do in FG. > > That sounds reasonable. For my own part, I'll see if I have time to > do more work on the Cherokee/Warrior, which would be a reasonable > alternative starter plane (as would any other trainer, such as the > Cessna 150/152, Beech Musketeer, or even Diamond Katana, if anyone is > interested in building one of those). The J3 Cub is probably the most > famous trainer in history, but the tailwheel ground handling is too > hard for most new users to manage. > Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is > very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about > including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things > that can be done with FG aircraft. I think before we go with only 1 > aircraft in the base package, we should really spiff up the C-172 > externals and internals. Suspention animation, shadows, lights, and a > much better 3d cockpit. If we go with only one aircraft, it should be > really nice all around, and show off what we can do in FG. That sounds reasonable. For my own part, I'll see if I have time to do more work on the Cherokee/Warrior, which would be a reasonable alternative starter plane (as would any other trainer, such as the Cessna 150/152, Beech Musketeer, or even Diamond Katana, if anyone is interested in building one of those). The J3 Cub is probably the most famous trainer in history, but the tailwheel ground handling is too hard for most new users to manage. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On January 19, 2005 06:00 pm, Enrique Vaamonde wrote: > It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c > download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc. > It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho. May be we should just use their layout and options when displaying downloads: http://www.airliners.net Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
David Megginson wrote: You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package. In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO. It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings, etc., we could have it looking quite nice. A few minutes after taking off from there and flying in a straight line, a new user will pass over KSFO, which will be more exciting to look at from the air, and then San Francisco, adding a nice sense of discovery. David, I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things that can be done with FG aircraft. I think before we go with only 1 aircraft in the base package, we should really spiff up the C-172 externals and internals. Suspention animation, shadows, lights, and a much better 3d cockpit. If we go with only one aircraft, it should be really nice all around, and show off what we can do in FG. 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] Aircraft included in base package
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:57:13 -0500 David Megginson wrote: > > In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about > changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO. > It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings, > etc., we could have it looking quite nice. A few minutes after taking > off from there and flying in a straight line, a new user will pass > over KSFO, which will be more exciting to look at from the air, and > then San Francisco, adding a nice sense of discovery. I agree with this, except I might suggest KSQL instead of KPAO, for three minor reasons. One is that we have a set of new user docs, designed to teach the basics of flight and flying the circuit in the c172, that come with the release; they presume that you started at KSQL. The second is that KSQL is closer to KSFO, and the Oracle buildings and Dunbarton bridge are very nearby, so there's quicker aesthetic gratification. Finally, KSQL and KPAO both need work as far as their taxiway layouts are concerned; but KSQL's will come from TaxiDrawers more quickly because KPAO's main apron area is circular and enclosed by a circular taxiway. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp5wcIvQw7ld.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 01:57, David Megginson wrote: > In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about > changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO. > It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings, > etc., we could have it looking quite nice. A few minutes after taking > off from there and flying in a straight line, a new user will pass > over KSFO, which will be more exciting to look at from the air, and > then San Francisco, adding a nice sense of discovery. > > > All the best, > > > David Sounds like a great idea :-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:53:33 -0500, Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to see a golden age or WWII multi engine, but I guess the DC3 isn't > ready for prime time yet. I'm also *cough* working on a B29, but I haven't > touched it in months. I was in the middle of getting a Yasim config working, > after which I intended to put it out as an dev release. You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package. In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO. It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings, etc., we could have it looking quite nice. A few minutes after taking off from there and flying in a straight line, a new user will pass over KSFO, which will be more exciting to look at from the air, and then San Francisco, adding a nice sense of discovery. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft included in base package
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up, but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download page, there's no need to include every aircraft in the base distribution. I went through our list and tried to come up with a variety of aircraft that represents some of the major aircraft types as well as includes examples from many of our major aircraft designers. Here's the list I came up with. It's still probably too long. If you suggest a different aircraft, you have to tell me why it's better than two aircraft on my list so I can reduce the size of my list. So here's what I have ... 737 - large commercial jet. Reasonably well done. Flies pretty well. Nice 2d panel with some simple glass elements. A-10 - A gorgeous external 3d model by Lee with nice flight dynamics and really well done gear animation. bo105 - I could say a lot of nice things, but why bother, it's our only helicopter so it has to be included anyway. c172, c172-le, c172p, c172r, c172x - I don't have the energy to sort out the dependencies so throw it all in. c310, c310u3a - light twin, again I think there are cross dependencies so just include them both for now. dhc2 - Our only sea plane, a cool aircraft, nicely done 3d cockpit, flies well. f16 - A nicely done high performance military jet. j3cub - Another nicely done aircraft, simple, easy to fly. Hunter - A classic/early jet. Well done. 3d cockpit, european representation. p51d - A classic WWII fighter ... also well done. Full 3d cockpit. ufo - handy for debugging. wrightFlyer1903 - First successful powered flyer. So what did I miss and why should I replace something on my list with it? Regards, Curt. I'd like to see a golden age or WWII multi engine, but I guess the DC3 isn't ready for prime time yet. I'm also *cough* working on a B29, but I haven't touched it in months. I was in the middle of getting a Yasim config working, after which I intended to put it out as an dev release. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
I have a few suggestions to improve the current aircraft download page: It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc. It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho. The other suggestion is that to make it easier for people to grab every aircraft available for download, an additional tarball could be created, which would include all the aircrafts for the current release. That would allow the base package to be clear of all aircrafts but the 172, while speeding things up for those who still want every a/c. Last suggestion would be to figure out a way to download aircrafts on demand from inside fg, kind of like the script that does the same for the scenery files. cheers, -E Curtis L. Olson wrote: Durk Talsma wrote: Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page? Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities... Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those pages are currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft download page. Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:20:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you > charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as > GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat. Sure -- that's no problem. We're just talking about not giving them free advertising on flightgear.org, not about trying to ban them. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please > continue to do so. :-) > > Curt. I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume their offspring. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
Paul Surgeon wrote: On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote: As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy. There is still place for non-GPL addons. There are guys who code addons for flightsimulators for a living and will not release their products under GPL otherwise someone can just copy it as much as they like and they don't get a cent in return. Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat. It takes months of work with a team of 5 or 6 people to create one top notch aircraft like what Phoenix Software Simulations put out. GPL is not the "be all" and "end all" when it comes to software licensing although it is a nice license. Interestingly, this thread started out as a debate over linking or not linking to external aircraft sites which might distribute "non-free" aircraft. I take a view that is similar to Debian. For the core FG distribution, everything needs to be GPL compatible. But recognizing that some people might prefer to release/distribute their work under other licensing terms (which they have every freedom to do) I have no problem linking to those sites. Are we to remove all links to all sites that aren't fully 100% gpl compatible? Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please continue to do so. :-) 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: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote: > As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote > for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend > to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy. There is still place for non-GPL addons. There are guys who code addons for flightsimulators for a living and will not release their products under GPL otherwise someone can just copy it as much as they like and they don't get a cent in return. Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat. It takes months of work with a team of 5 or 6 people to create one top notch aircraft like what Phoenix Software Simulations put out. GPL is not the "be all" and "end all" when it comes to software licensing although it is a nice license. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
Jim Wilson said: > David Megginson said: > > > use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by > > Ralph Nader supporters"). > > > > That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he > uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will > come up when someone googles "wiccans for ralph nader". > Hmmm...I think I hear an echo... (mailer trouble). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
David Megginson said: > use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by > Ralph Nader supporters"). > Thats it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if Ralph uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will come up when someone googles "wiccans for ralph nader". Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
David Megginson said: > use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by > Ralph Nader supporters"). > That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will come up when someone googles "wiccans for ralph nader". Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:18 + Dave Martin wrote: > > I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is > often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating > Author's name. > > > one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. > > Copyright (C) name of author > > I was always under the impression that was the notice to remain intact? Yes, that's exactly right. But a lot of packages these days go out with a file with a name like CREDITS that lists who did what. For example, the FlightGear source distribution comes with a file called "Thanks" that lists various people and what they've contributed. That file is fair game under the GPL; if someone redistributing FG wanted to edit it to say different things about who did what, the GPL does not restrict that. Of course, their new claims would be flatly contradicted by the original; and if they're continuing to obey the GPL, then their redistribution should contain or point to the original where people can see the truth about the credits. But most people won't go and look. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpcXHWRz5L72.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't > force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to > do... I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a strawman to argue against. The only suggestion I've seen is using the flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer. I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better. As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 + > > Dave Martin wrote: > > The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced > > their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial > > use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed > > Just for clarification, you have to be careful about that last bit. > The GPL allows this because you copyright your creation and you write > a copyright notice in your name. The GPL requires that all the copies > come with a copyright notice. However, things like "CREDITS" files > and so forth are not protected under the GPL; the GPL does not require > that credit not be removed, apart from protecting the copyright notice. > In fact, the GPL prevents such a restriction from being placed on a work > released under it. That fact was at the heart of the conflict over the > new XFree86 license; most Linux distributions have dumped XFree86 over > its subsequent incompatibility with the GPL. > > -c I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating Author's name. > one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. > Copyright (C) name of author I was always under the impression that was the notice to remain intact? Cheers Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500 David Megginson wrote: > > Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of > the sounds: that violates the GPL. Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright notice. No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanying CREDITS or THANKS or README file. > The redistributors either have > to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any > README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it -- > that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff > for free, Yes, and this is the protection against monkey business like I mention above. However, lots of recipients won't realize or discover they can do this, even if a copy of the GPL and directions to the original content come with the redistribution. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp4LV2isSt9Z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 + Dave Martin wrote: > > The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced > their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial > use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed Just for clarification, you have to be careful about that last bit. The GPL allows this because you copyright your creation and you write a copyright notice in your name. The GPL requires that all the copies come with a copyright notice. However, things like "CREDITS" files and so forth are not protected under the GPL; the GPL does not require that credit not be removed, apart from protecting the copyright notice. In fact, the GPL prevents such a restriction from being placed on a work released under it. That fact was at the heart of the conflict over the new XFree86 license; most Linux distributions have dumped XFree86 over its subsequent incompatibility with the GPL. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpHLfFFDbENV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote: > The redistributors either have > to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any > README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it -- > that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff > for free, so unless they're adding some other kind of value, they're > not going to make any money. > > > All the best, > > > David Thats a good example. If someone were to stick *all* of FG onto CD / DVDs and sell it, there is added value in terms of the bandwidth saved (What is FG now? 12GB or more inc scenery?) Of course, anyone doing so would need to make clear that FG is GPL software and freely available on-line. This is rather like the Open-Office.org resellers guidline policy. Whether it would even be profitable or wothwhile to do such a thing is another matter; it must surely be a shrinking market with the uptake of broadband. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think the user community will stomp out that kind of
> > > thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks
> > > very newbie and shareware-ish.
> >
> > Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
> > stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish.
>
> Vanity licensing clauses. Outside of little shareware
> communities, the world pretty much wants some kind of standard
> open source license or public domain, or it shrugs and moves
> on -- it gets way too hard to keep track when n packages end
> up with n different kinds of licenses ("OK, lets see: package
> #1023 is for non-violent use only, package #56 is for use only
> by Wiccans and those who agree not to persecute them, package
> #337 is banned for use in Israel, package #5529 is banned for
> use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use
> only by Ralph Nader supporters").
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David
"Wiccans" :)
While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
do...
...even when they're being daft.
LeeE
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the authors released their work as GPL those "low lifes" wouldn't even > > have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have > > then? > > The authors would have no recourse then. Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of the sounds: that violates the GPL.The redistributors either have to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it -- that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff for free, so unless they're adding some other kind of value, they're not going to make any money. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd > > aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by > > people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as > > in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work > > isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people > > also like to include non-violence conditions. > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > places, I still don't see how any other open or free source > code license gives the author more control over his code, also > for commercial or military use. > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to > use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with > Qt. You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum). If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me to give it to you. But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire to it, I won't give it to you. I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL > > gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of > > control over the work once released under the license, I > > can't > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the > GPL. I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control over what anyone else does with what I've released under the GPL. > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that control. > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to buy > > anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware > licenses, this depends on the license's "small print" > language. > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to > > everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people > > can no longer do what they want. > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given > by the original authors, "before you jumped in." Your own > code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned > well pleases. Other peoples code can be thrown in legally > too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people > will tell you "Riiight, I'll consider it if you can > convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3." ;-) The problem I see with it is when people say that something _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the realm of compulsion. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote: > If the authors released their work as GPL those "low lifes" wouldn't even > have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have > then? > > Paul > The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed and the source of the work and any modifications to it is also made freely available. It is the Authors choice to use this licence. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free > contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them > onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit. > > This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and > the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for > what they freely gave to the community. > > Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed > to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their > underhanded business. > > If the authors released their work as GPL those "low lifes" wouldn't even have > to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? I think you might be a bit confused: GPL works *are* copyrighted, and the copyright holder can still sue someone for removing credit or for violating the license in any other way. In the cases you mentioned, the people could just as easily have gone to court if the sounds had been GPL'd or LGPL'd. Personally, I'm a lawyer's son, so I know how unprofitable suing usually is (except for the lawyers); as a result, I sometimes prefer to abandon copyright claims altogether and simply make my work Public Domain, as I did with SAX. The GPL does not allow you to stop someone else for charging to redistribute your work, but it does require that person to let everyone else know where the work originally came from (i.e. where they can get the same thing for free). Many companies actually make a business out of the GPL by dual-licensing their own work -- release for free under GPL (which imposes certain restrictions on commercial use), then sell a commercially-licensed version of the same stuff without the GPL requirements. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
Paul Surgeon wrote: On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote: The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of time making, so that they could give it away to people for free, is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need to recompense the person who actually did the work. The GPL specifically allows this. LeeE This is a big issue with MSFS addons. For instance there are people who spend MONTHS filtering and editing sound recordings of aircraft to produce a sound package for a single aircraft. They do it for free and for the community. Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit. This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for what they freely gave to the community. Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their underhanded business. If the authors released their work as GPL those "low lifes" wouldn't even have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Maybe it's time to create a "FlightGear Aircraft License" ? Steven ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
