Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
On 01 Mar 2002 11:45:36 -0800, Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 1015011936.2147.66.camel@raptor: On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 08:05, Jon S Berndt wrote: On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:15:14 -0800 (PST) Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will we need to do this with flaps, slats, spoilers, elevons, etc.? A left and right component for each one? :-( :-( Spoilers, yes. We must always be prepared for asymettric deflection of those. In the most general case, we'd need to model a whole array of them (more than 10) Flaps and slats, no. If those go out asymmetrically, you've got a big problem. (Slats are can actually be worse, as its usually not real apparent that you have a problem until you're really in trouble) ..for the RL WWII Me109, I'm told asymmetric slats were considered a feature by Luftwaffe brass and novice pilots, as the yawing this produced, helped spray out gun fire towards britts in hi-G combat manouvering. As pilot experience built, Me pilots tended to prefer a more precise mode of gun fire delivery, some had their Me's modified to symmetric slat deployment, the majority I believe transferred to the FW190's. ..to model these Me 109'ers, we need assymmetric slat deployment, triggered by each wings AOA. (Actually, the neutral point moving afaik.) Elevons, no. ..elevons combine elevator control with aileron control, on some delta wings. Support needed. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
David Megginson wrote: The only inconsistency left is gear position: JSBSim: /gear/gear[n]/position YASim: /gear/gear[n]/position-norm They both agree on using 1.0 for down and 0.0 for up, though, and that's good news. As soon as this last problem is fixed, I'll switch the animations over and we'll have smooth flap and gear movement. In fact, if the FDM people want to get really clever, they can have the gear retract and extend slightly out of sync so that they lock up or down about .5 sec apart. If I see it right, you could do that in the animation files also by having different factor falues, doesn't it? I still have a slight problem for the sound code, at this time the rumble sound is played only when the nose gear has weight on wheel. What would be the best solution, chaanging the code to check for more than one property or create a general gear-wow value in the property tree? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
--- Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Megginson wrote: The only inconsistency left is gear position: JSBSim: /gear/gear[n]/position YASim: /gear/gear[n]/position-norm They both agree on using 1.0 for down and 0.0 for up, though, and that's good news. As soon as this last problem is fixed, I'll switch the animations over and we'll have smooth flap and gear movement. In fact, if the FDM people want to get really clever, they can have the gear retract and extend slightly out of sync so that they lock up or down about .5 sec apart. Oops, missed that. I'll take care of it when I get home. If I see it right, you could do that in the animation files also by having different factor falues, doesn't it? I still have a slight problem for the sound code, at this time the rumble sound is played only when the nose gear has weight on wheel. What would be the best solution, chaanging the code to check for more than one property or create a general gear-wow value in the property tree? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
Erik Hofman writes: They both agree on using 1.0 for down and 0.0 for up, though, and that's good news. As soon as this last problem is fixed, I'll switch the animations over and we'll have smooth flap and gear movement. In fact, if the FDM people want to get really clever, they can have the gear retract and extend slightly out of sync so that they lock up or down about .5 sec apart. If I see it right, you could do that in the animation files also by having different factor falues, doesn't it? Probably, but then the sound wouldn't sync up. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:15:14 -0800 (PST) Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, Have a look at c172.xml, you will need to add a right aileron FCS component to c310.xml Are we going to need to do this with each aircraft model? :-( Will we need to do this with flaps, slats, spoilers, elevons, etc.? A left and right component for each one? :-( :-( Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
Will we need to do this with flaps, slats, spoilers, elevons, etc.? A left and right component for each one? :-( :-( Doesn't that make sense, considering that there are left right components on the real thing? g. -- I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
Will we need to do this with flaps, slats, spoilers, elevons, etc.? A left and right component for each one? Doesn't that make sense, considering that there are left right components on the real thing? And, don't you want to be able to try flying the aircraft with the left flap unmovable (because the cable broke) and the right one moving ? It's a popular failure mode on C172 ... Plus, it'll give better handling at low speeds. Around 40 knots, the airspeed changes of the wingtips in turns and while yawing is significant. The people doing turbulence will probably be a lot happier as well. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:54:48 -0800 (PST) Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, don't you want to be able to try flying the aircraft with the left flap unmovable (because the cable broke) and the right one moving ? It's a popular failure mode on C172 ... Malfunctions are a ways down the road. Plus, it'll give better handling at low speeds. Around 40 knots, the airspeed changes of the wingtips in turns and while yawing is significant. We are not modeling differences in aerodynamics, this is just for reporting positions. The people doing turbulence will probably be a lot happier as well. How so? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:39:04 -0800 Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zero. The FDM needs, somehow, to provide this information to the 3D model, no? Or are you expecting the 3D model code to figure it out on its own from the /control tree? Wasn't the point of moving to /surface-positions to put this intelligence into the FDM where it belongs? We've always been able to model this kind of stuff, aerodynamically and control system-wise. My only concern about all this was that we are being asked to provide extra information in a particular format (that we won't even use internally). Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:00:17 -0600 Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've always been able to model this kind of stuff, aerodynamically and control system-wise. My only concern about all this was that we are being asked to provide extra information in a particular format (that we won't even use internally). Let me add: ... in a particular format, for display purposes only. Now, I *really* like the idea of moving parts on the aircraft. I believe I even wondered aloud if this could be done in years past. I have accepted that we are going to have to supply normalized versions of moving-part positions to FlightGear, but I am still unconvinced that the FDM needs to provide it in that manner. However, we will - it's no big deal. That said, I don't even want to discuss that anymore. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
Erik Hofman wrote: David Megginson wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: If I see it right, you could do that in the animation files also by having different factor falues, doesn't it? Probably, but then the sound wouldn't sync up. I could change the pitch a bit (changing factor also). How does this work currently? It strikes me that the right way of doing sounds for these things would be to check the property value to see if it is changing and just loop the sound until it stops (maybe with a start and stop sound to get the spooling up/down whines of the flap motors right). Then you'd get transparent support for planes with radically different transition times (747 vs. 172). Would it help for the FDM to supply a moving flag in the property tree? This actually seems like it would be easier to do by comparing with a per-sound last value in the sound code, though. Andy -- Andrew J. RossNextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one. - Sting (misquoted) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Surface Positions (almost there)
Andy Ross writes: [on gear/flap sound] How does this work currently? It strikes me that the right way of doing sounds for these things would be to check the property value to see if it is changing and just loop the sound until it stops (maybe with a start and stop sound to get the spooling up/down whines of the flap motors right). Then you'd get transparent support for planes with radically different transition times (747 vs. 172). I haven't looked at the most recent mods to the sound manager, but I was just playing a fixed-length sound clip before. I agree that we should loop the sound instead, playing it as long as the gear position is changing and stoping it (with a clank sound?) when the movement stops. Would it help for the FDM to supply a moving flag in the property tree? I don't think that should be necessary. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
