[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft issues: dg101g, Lightning
Continuing the list: DG-101G: I tried to do some soaring in the DG-101G. There seems to be something wrong with the plane's inertia. * To turbulence, it reacts much more violently than other planes. I thought a while ago that this may be due to a different implementation of turbulence in YaSim and JSBSim, but I'm not sure any more. Even a moderate magnitude of 0.2 leads to wild ups and downs from -4 m/s to + 4 m/s (the variomenter seems to react instantly, which is another thing which isn't very realistic). * The real giveaway is aerotow. I have to add that this is something I can fly and have done in real life, there's no way I am doing anything wrong. On the ground, when the dragger starts to pull and the rope comes under tension, the glider suddenly accelerates forward to ~180 km/h rises wildly and *overshoots* the dragger as if even the small force exerted by the rope could accelerate the glider tremendously (no intertia). In reality, it takes a lot of time to accelerate the glider under aerotow on the ground - for about 10 seconds someone needs to run with the glider to keep the wings level, for another 10 seconds or so the glider can do it on its own, then the glider lifts off the ground, finally the dragger lifts. It is quite physically impossible for the glider to overshoot the drag plane from above (and quite easy in the simulation), basically all you need to do is keep behind the dragger and try not to lift its tail too much, controlling speed is not an issue. In addition, I was unable to get any brake action either on the ground or in the air. The ground friction coefficients seem to be all wrong, the plane can roll for a kilometer after touchdown, but in reality once the tail comes down, that exerts quite a bit of drag and slows the plane down even if no brakes are applied to the wheel. Right now the only thing that does seem to work properly is gliding outside of thermals (probably the missing inertia factor cancels here, or the problem is with external forces only, but there are none?). English Electric Lightning: Nothing wrong with it, but if anyone would like to add a new splash screen picture, I have a nice series from the top of a ballistic arc at around 65.000 ft with nice aerial views of Nevada. Just let me know. * Thorsten -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft issues: dg101g, Lightning
Op 02-01-12 09:37, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi schreef: From a general flight dynamics standpoint: all issues point to a too low weight (including the breaking). Cheers, Eric Continuing the list: DG-101G: I tried to do some soaring in the DG-101G. There seems to be something wrong with the plane's inertia. * To turbulence, it reacts much more violently than other planes. I thought a while ago that this may be due to a different implementation of turbulence in YaSim and JSBSim, but I'm not sure any more. Even a moderate magnitude of 0.2 leads to wild ups and downs from -4 m/s to + 4 m/s (the variomenter seems to react instantly, which is another thing which isn't very realistic). * The real giveaway is aerotow. I have to add that this is something I can fly and have done in real life, there's no way I am doing anything wrong. On the ground, when the dragger starts to pull and the rope comes under tension, the glider suddenly accelerates forward to ~180 km/h rises wildly and *overshoots* the dragger as if even the small force exerted by the rope could accelerate the glider tremendously (no intertia). In reality, it takes a lot of time to accelerate the glider under aerotow on the ground - for about 10 seconds someone needs to run with the glider to keep the wings level, for another 10 seconds or so the glider can do it on its own, then the glider lifts off the ground, finally the dragger lifts. It is quite physically impossible for the glider to overshoot the drag plane from above (and quite easy in the simulation), basically all you need to do is keep behind the dragger and try not to lift its tail too much, controlling speed is not an issue. In addition, I was unable to get any brake action either on the ground or in the air. The ground friction coefficients seem to be all wrong, the plane can roll for a kilometer after touchdown, but in reality once the tail comes down, that exerts quite a bit of drag and slows the plane down even if no brakes are applied to the wheel. Right now the only thing that does seem to work properly is gliding outside of thermals (probably the missing inertia factor cancels here, or the problem is with external forces only, but there are none?). English Electric Lightning: Nothing wrong with it, but if anyone would like to add a new splash screen picture, I have a nice series from the top of a ballistic arc at around 65.000 ft with nice aerial views of Nevada. Just let me know. * Thorsten -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] How to compile Terragear-cs ?
Hi all,
(1) Yes Geoff, as you said : this is a compromise. And I thinks the good
compromise is to keep the same way as used in Brisa script. Many people are
accustomed with Brisa script and I want my script is very similar to Brisa
script in order to don't change accustomed of people. My script and Brisa
script need to be homogen.
Moreover, with this technique I have successfully debugged my script... so it
seem this technique give enough information if someone had a problem.
Thank you very much for your explanation : it's very usefull ! Now I understand
what is the set -e that I have copy/paste from Brisa script ;)
(2) About NO_OPENSCENEGRAPH_INTERFACE I'm sure to use SIMGEAR_HEADLESS
because the CMakeLists contains this :
Line 64 :
option(SIMGEAR_HEADLESS Set to ON to build SimGear without GUI/graphics
support OFF)
Line 116 :
if(SIMGEAR_HEADLESS)
message(STATUS headless mode)
set(NO_OPENSCENEGRAPH_INTERFACE 1)
And about TerraGear-CS the CMakeLists contains this :
Line 114 :
set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS ${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS} ${WARNING_FLAGS} ${MSVC_FLAGS}
-D_REENTRANT -DNO_OPENSCENEGRAPH_INTERFACE)
(3) Yes my script switch automatically on newconstruct branch in order to use
genapt850 ;)
Also I have a question about genapt850 : Airport (runway, taxiway, parking...)
are create by TaxiDraw, but have I need a special version of TaxiDraw to
generate an apt.dat in version 850 ? Or TaxiDraw version is not important ?
Cheers,
Clément
--
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual
desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure
costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] PostGIS update @ Landcover-DB
Martin Spott wrote: Shapefile download might/should be working again. Please test, particularly the assigned reference system, and report. If people don't think it's worth testing, then I might think it's not worth maintaining Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] PostGIS update @ Landcover-DB
Martin wrote: If people don't think it's worth testing, then I might think it's not worth maintaining I think it's worth going on vacation first :) Will testreport tomorrow. -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Local Weather 1.4
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM, thorsten.i.renk wrote: 4) Clouds now appear to be loaded in discrete lumps when they come into visual range rather than gradually be faded in via transparency which looks a bit ugly from high altitude - Stuart, is this intentional and a performance-related issue? I have verified that the corresponding tile is already loaded, so it's not something my part of the system does. With GIT pulled just before Xmas, I still see a hard-coded limit of ~20 km cloud visibility range which makes impossible for me to test layers appearance from above properly. This is very annoying, I hope the underlying problem is identified and fixed soon. The LoD is currently hardcoded to 20km, so if visibility 20km, it kicks in before the transparency effect. I have a good fix that takes into account the current visibility as part of the Impostors work, but that won't be available until after the release. In the meantime, I can increase the LoD range to (say) 40km. However, there will probably be some performance penalty. I've just committed to origin/next a better fix for the LoD range that adjusts based on the view distance, and also attempts to account for the possible size of the cloud itself. The clouds will now be rendered further out than before, so there will be an apparent perf hit, and users may need to use a shorter cloud visibility range than before. However, that is because the slide now has the correct effect on the LoD nodes, so I will claim that it was merely wrong before. * Let me know if you still see issues. -Stuart * Yes, that sounds _just_ like Apple's handling of the iPhone 4 antenna issues :) -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] PostGIS update @ Landcover-DB
I'm just now installing my 2TB NAS - I'll try to fill it up some this week ;) On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Gijs de Rooy gijsr...@hotmail.com wrote: Martin wrote: If people don't think it's worth testing, then I might think it's not worth maintaining I think it's worth going on vacation first :) Will testreport tomorrow. -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
