Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 15:51 -0700, Hal V. Engel wrote: * 5: FDM models out of normal flight envelope characterisics IE. stalls, spins and compressibility/transonic effects (if the aircraft can reach transonic speeds). Darn, I did go to great lengths to develop a flight computer to prevent these conditions for the F-16.. :-) Erik -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Stuart wrote On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:19 AM, I wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote: I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that get scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is easy to use and for less advanced models should only take perhaps 5 minutes to do. More advanced models take a little more effort but the system is clearly not burdensomeness for aircraft authors to implement. The real issue is to get a consensus with in the aircraft author community to use a standardized rating system like this and I don't think this has happened yet. Once there is wide spread agreement on something like this it should fall into place fairly quickly. One thing that might be stalling this is that there is currently no published description of the proposed system (I will call it Stuart's system) available other than searching this email list and a few things on the forum. At one point Stuart said he would create a document that covers his system but this has not happened yet and the only way to find it is to search the archives and even then the information is spread over a number of emails. Making things even more confusing there is a wiki page on this subject http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status which does not cover Stuart's system but rahter a totally differnt system. In fact the system proposed on the wiki is more complex and has no details on how the ratings would be made unlike Stuart's system. The details on how to rate various things is one of the key aspects of Stuart's system along with it's relative simplicity. Perhaps we can get the wiki page so that it reflects Stuart's system? Thanks for the poke. I completely forgot to write this up. I'll try to do this today, though it needs a proper name. This is done. I've gone ahead and replaced the article completely with the rating system described in December. Now I'm off to rate all the aircraft I maintain! Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points remain: There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none existed on the original. The use of shaders etc. may or may not enhance the realism of the model and in some cases could be used inappropriately. This is a subjective assessment, and perhaps could be removed from the points system. Livery support is not necessarily an enhancement - it is not appropriate for all models. I'm not clear if you are awarding points for underwing stores and the like. We have additional features such as co-pilot/RIO over MP, Wingmen, Formation Control, Tutorials, Aircraft Specific Help, Contrails, Vapour Trails, and there are probably some I missed. And finally - the points system could award a high status to a poor model - there are no points awarded for the accuracy or the fidelity of the 3d model. E.G there is at least one model with afterburners modelled where none existed. Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so good that the framerate means that it can only be used on high-end systems or away from detailed airports. This limitation should be noted somewhere. Let's hope that this tool can help to bring some order out of the current chaos. Vivian -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:57:18 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1306393038.2534.1.camel@Raptor: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 15:51 -0700, Hal V. Engel wrote: * 5: FDM models out of normal flight envelope characterisics IE. stalls, spins and compressibility/transonic effects (if the aircraft can reach transonic speeds). Darn, I did go to great lengths to develop a flight computer ..can it crash|bluescreen|departure like the real one did in a few cases? to prevent these conditions for the F-16.. :-) ..a _very_ small number of men survived because they were able to get at least one of their hands off the stick or throttle and onto that black and yellow ejection handle. _Hard_ to do in a F-16 going low and fast into a tumble. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 10:52 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:57:18 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1306393038.2534.1.camel@Raptor: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 15:51 -0700, Hal V. Engel wrote: * 5: FDM models out of normal flight envelope characterisics IE. stalls, spins and compressibility/transonic effects (if the aircraft can reach transonic speeds). Darn, I did go to great lengths to develop a flight computer ..can it crash|bluescreen|departure like the real one did in a few cases? Neh that was the F-22 :-) to prevent these conditions for the F-16.. :-) ..a _very_ small number of men survived because they were able to get at least one of their hands off the stick or throttle and onto that black and yellow ejection handle. _Hard_ to do in a F-16 going low and fast into a tumble. For those who didn't know, the F-16 has angle of attack and G limiters to always be able to control the aircraft. This sometimes works against the pilot but in most cases it saves some lives. Erik -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Thu, 26 May 2011 12:40:46 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1306406446.1743.1.camel@Raptor: On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 10:52 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:57:18 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1306393038.2534.1.camel@Raptor: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 15:51 -0700, Hal V. Engel wrote: * 5: FDM models out of normal flight envelope characterisics IE. stalls, spins and compressibility/transonic effects (if the aircraft can reach transonic speeds). Darn, I did go to great lengths to develop a flight computer ..can it crash|bluescreen|departure like the real one did in a few cases? Neh that was the F-22 :-) ..we (RNoAF) lost a few F-16's in the late 1980ies thru 1990ies, at least one fatal departure and one that got out in time. ..another 2 has been downed by canopy bird strikes, tough but un-notable birds up here. ;o) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon ..googling, I also found these reports on NASA's AFTI F-16 experiment: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87955main_H-1206.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87970main_H-1213.pdf http://www.csl.sri.com/users/rushby/anomalies.html http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~tamas/files/CEP05KevBal_web.pdf to prevent these conditions for the F-16.. :-) ..a _very_ small number of men survived because they were able to get at least one of their hands off the stick or throttle and onto that black and yellow ejection handle. _Hard_ to do in a F-16 going low and fast into a tumble. For those who didn't know, the F-16 has angle of attack and G limiters to always be able to control the aircraft. This sometimes works against the pilot but in most cases it saves some lives. ..the F-16 is statically unstable and needs to be flown by computers which 1; slaps it around to keep the plane inside its flight envelope, and 2; responds to the pilot's stick etc input on where do we want to go today. Crash those flight control computers, and wild ride gets a new meaning. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote: I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that get scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is easy to use and for less advanced models should only take perhaps 5 minutes to do. More advanced models take a little more effort but the system is clearly not burdensomeness for aircraft authors to implement. The real issue is to get a consensus with in the aircraft author community to use a standardized rating system like this and I don't think this has happened yet. Once there is wide spread agreement on something like this it should fall into place fairly quickly. One thing that might be stalling this is that there is currently no published description of the proposed system (I will call it Stuart's system) available other than searching this email list and a few things on the forum. At one point Stuart said he would create a document that covers his system but this has not happened yet and the only way to find it is to search the archives and even then the information is spread over a number of emails. Making things even more confusing there is a wiki page on this subject http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status which does not cover Stuart's system but rahter a totally differnt system. In fact the system proposed on the wiki is more complex and has no details on how the ratings would be made unlike Stuart's system. The details on how to rate various things is one of the key aspects of Stuart's system along with it's relative simplicity. Perhaps we can get the wiki page so that it reflects Stuart's system? Thanks for the poke. I completely forgot to write this up. I'll try to do this today, though it needs a proper name. -Stuart -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:19 AM, I wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote: I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that get scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is easy to use and for less advanced models should only take perhaps 5 minutes to do. More advanced models take a little more effort but the system is clearly not burdensomeness for aircraft authors to implement. The real issue is to get a consensus with in the aircraft author community to use a standardized rating system like this and I don't think this has happened yet. Once there is wide spread agreement on something like this it should fall into place fairly quickly. One thing that might be stalling this is that there is currently no published description of the proposed system (I will call it Stuart's system) available other than searching this email list and a few things on the forum. At one point Stuart said he would create a document that covers his system but this has not happened yet and the only way to find it is to search the archives and even then the information is spread over a number of emails. Making things even more confusing there is a wiki page on this subject http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status which does not cover Stuart's system but rahter a totally differnt system. In fact the system proposed on the wiki is more complex and has no details on how the ratings would be made unlike Stuart's system. The details on how to rate various things is one of the key aspects of Stuart's system along with it's relative simplicity. Perhaps we can get the wiki page so that it reflects Stuart's system? Thanks for the poke. I completely forgot to write this up. I'll try to do this today, though it needs a proper name. This is done. I've gone ahead and replaced the article completely with the rating system described in December. Now I'm off to rate all the aircraft I maintain! -Stuart -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Le 25/05/2011 22:28, Stuart Buchanan a écrit : This is done. I've gone ahead and replaced the article completely with the rating system described in December. Now I'm off to rate all the aircraft I maintain! -Stuart Hehe, nice to see that a rating system may have a chance to be established. This one will not help the few gems I work on - poor FDM for the f-14b, but not much chance to have the material to make a better one. - so much work to achieve with these complicated avionics systems to reach the top marks... But I'm happy to see how simple and objective the rating system is. I support the idea, completely, and I applaud with the four hands. Alexis -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Hello, Thanks for the poke. I completely forgot to write this up. I'll try to do this today, though it needs a proper name. This is done. I've gone ahead and replaced the article completely with the rating system described in December. Now I'm off to rate all the aircraft I maintain! -Stuart Many thanks Stuart! Finally we have a good, easy and more or less objective rating system! Many thanks to you and all others, who have been involved in the discussion and developing ideas about. There is a small proposal from me for the System-section about autopilot - some aircraft doesn't have a autopilot in real life. So maybe we should mention it in any way like ... if real one has one And at least one wish: It would be great if the Aircraft Download page will have something like a search function or sorting function. But no idea if it is possible. Cheers Heiko -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 01:28:39 PM Stuart Buchanan wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:19 AM, I wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote: I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that get scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is easy to use and for less advanced models should only take perhaps 5 minutes to do. More advanced models take a little more effort but the system is clearly not burdensomeness for aircraft authors to implement. The real issue is to get a consensus with in the aircraft author community to use a standardized rating system like this and I don't think this has happened yet. Once there is wide spread agreement on something like this it should fall into place fairly quickly. One thing that might be stalling this is that there is currently no published description of the proposed system (I will call it Stuart's system) available other than searching this email list and a few things on the forum. At one point Stuart said he would create a document that covers his system but this has not happened yet and the only way to find it is to search the archives and even then the information is spread over a number of emails. Making things even more confusing there is a wiki page on this subject http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status which does not cover Stuart's system but rahter a totally differnt system. In fact the system proposed on the wiki is more complex and has no details on how the ratings would be made unlike Stuart's system. The details on how to rate various things is one of the key aspects of Stuart's system along with it's relative simplicity. Perhaps we can get the wiki page so that it reflects Stuart's system? Thanks for the poke. I completely forgot to write this up. I'll try to do this today, though it needs a proper name. This is done. I've gone ahead and replaced the article completely with the rating system described in December. Now I'm off to rate all the aircraft I maintain! -Stuart Thank you. This is a good starting place and more detail can be added if there is any confusion on how to use the system. I think it should be extremely difficult to get a 5 in any catigory and in any area where we have examples of models that have gone well beyond what is needed to score a 5 I think we need to set the bar higher. I would like to suggest that the FDM catigory be changed slightly to reflect what we now know can be achived with our FDMs. Flight Dynamics Model 0: None, or using FDM from other aircraft 1: JSBSim Aeromatic or YASim geometric model used without tuning. Flaps modeled. 2: FDM tuned for cruise and climb configurations 3: FDM matches PoH in 90% of configurations 4: FDM very closely matches PoH and most known test data. This includes fuel consumption, glide performance, stall speeds, time to altitude and other performance charaterisics 5: FDM models out of normal flight envelope characterisics IE. stalls, spins and compressibility/transonic effects (if the aircraft can reach transonic speeds). Hal -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Monday, May 23, 2011 04:18:46 PM Pierre Mueller wrote: Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not be truly production quality. In fact looking at the list of production aircraft from my installation I would say that some of these are not true production quality. In addition the --min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them). FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft screen. Thanks, I didn't see the little box under the list yet. But it is a bit hard to browse through this big list to find the more attractive aircraft Getting the list by the good ol DOS-box was a bit easier- still a big list as you said... Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For example, the p51d (81.1 meg - use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete yet.Using --min-status=production should include the IAR80 in it's list but not the p51d-jsbsim (which has a status of early production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information). Thanks for the hint There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production, production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears that only a few of the models are actually using this system. Hal So whats so difficult to use this rating system? Regards P.M. I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took all of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that get scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is easy to use and for less advanced models should only take perhaps 5 minutes to do. More advanced models take a little more effort but the system is clearly not burdensomeness for aircraft authors to implement. The real issue is to get a consensus with in the aircraft author community to use a standardized rating system like this and I don't think this has happened yet. Once there is wide spread agreement on something like this it should fall into place fairly quickly. One thing that might be stalling this is that there is currently no published description of the proposed system (I will call it Stuart's system) available other than searching this email list and a few things on the forum. At one point Stuart said he would create a document that covers his system but this has not happened yet and the only way to find it is to search the archives and even then the information is spread over a number of emails. Making things even more confusing there is a wiki page on this subject http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status which does not cover Stuart's system but rahter a totally differnt system. In fact the system proposed on the wiki is more complex and has no details on how the ratings would be made unlike Stuart's system. The details on how to rate various things is one of the key aspects of Stuart's system along with it's relative simplicity. Perhaps we can get the wiki page so that it reflects Stuart's system? Hal -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not be truly production quality. In fact looking at the list of production aircraft from my installation I would say that some of these are not true production quality. In addition the --min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them). FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft screen. Thanks, I didn't see the little box under the list yet. But it is a bit hard to browse through this big list to find the more attractive aircraft Getting the list by the good ol DOS-box was a bit easier- still a big list as you said... Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For example, the p51d (81.1 meg - use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete yet.Using --min-status=production should include the IAR80 in it's list but not the p51d-jsbsim (which has a status of early production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information). Thanks for the hint There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production, production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears that only a few of the models are actually using this system. Hal So whats so difficult to use this rating system? Regards P.M. -- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Le 20/05/2011 23:47, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a écrit : Message: 16 Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:15:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 11 To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: alpine.lfd.2.00.1105200615040.4...@grumble.deltasoft.com Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Fri, 20 May 2011, Heiko Schulz wrote: Emmanuel, and all here involved or not, TAKE. THIS. OFF. LINE. g. I'm sorry. My answers were made in private to avoid contamination of the devel list. I also replaced the FDM was missing in these people.But it seems they do not want to understand. And as I have no time to waste on that kind of fruitless talks, know that all this time, I also added an airplane in FG, started two other planes (Nakajima B5N Kate and Aichi D3A Val) and improved R44. My goal is to give pleasure the greatest number and not to satisfy the ego of one or two people. Regards. Emmanuel -- BARANGER Emmanuel http://helijah.free.fr -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Hello, I'm new to FlightGear but I'm using mostly OpenSource software since a whole while. I stumbled in here on the list when I was searching for some problems I had with GIT and FlightGear. Luckily I could solve it- thanks to the mails here on list and the wiki. :-) Thanks for a simulator with great possibilities! Quote: Emmanuel, and all here involved or not, TAKE. THIS. OFF. LINE. I have followed this ugly discussion. This words by Mr. Buckle are clear enough. But I hope I may allowed to add some random thoughts here though ?! Quote: I'm sorry. My answers were made in private to avoid contamination of the devel list. I also replaced the FDM was missing in these people.But it seems they do not want to understand. It wasn't good that later in this discussion a private communication had been brought into public by Mr. Schulz- it made the mess not look better. I'm not sure if this was made on purpose, or accidently. At least it looks to me as several mails sent to the list by Mr. Baranger was originally meant to be private as well, but landed here in public. Wanted or not Even when private Emails lands in public accidently- it let escalate such conflicts on both sides. Uh Oh This can happen in the heat of the battle. My advice: check that your Email browser uses the right email address and not automatically added the wrong one. It happened to me as well once time on another list. Awkward And of course: Google Translate and other machine translators should be not used in communications between people. They are maybe good for books and articles- but not for communications between each other! If there is the chance that someone other can translate it - use it. So much about this from me about. I hope this conflicts doesn't happening much often Quote: , I also added an airplane in FG, started two other planes (Nakajima B5N Kate and Aichi D3A Val) and improved R44. My goal is to give pleasure the greatest number and not to satisfy the ego of one or two people. So there is a serious competition with getting the biggest number of aircraft into FlightGear in a short time? I am surprised about this statement by Mr. Baranger, but I'm carefull... seems like Google Translate behind again. I tried MSFS, but someone told me that FlightGear is much more realistic, and even tries to be most realistic simulator in OpenSource and in general. At least the introduction at flightgear.org says it. So I came here because I hoped to get qualitity than useless quantity. Well, my short review: About 300-400 aircraft but about 75% seems to be not finished, are not really flyable or actually uses wrong Flight Model (fdm called, right?) copied from other aircraft. And all this ones I meant are made by just one man. (on the other side the 25% are already really nice: SenecaII, F-14, A-10 A-6E, 777-200, TwinOtter, Spitfire, Bf109, Pilatus Porter, EC130, S76cgood, realistic aircraft needs time to develope ) I am not long enough using FlightGear and never contributed yet, but I would like to say: Sorry, but you can count me to those 1-2 people with this ego as well! I hoped I hope that there are enough serious aircraft developer there who satisfy the ego those 1-2 people like me. I like FlightGear, as the report from the LinuxTag shows, the possibilities to use FlightGear seems to be great! I hope it wasn't the wrong place to come up with a short review Kind Regards P.M. -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:22:23 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message 557074.13714...@web29803.mail.ird.yahoo.com: ... but I'm carefull... seems like Google Translate behind again. ..looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o) I tried MSFS, but someone told me that FlightGear is much more realistic, and even tries to be most realistic simulator in OpenSource and in general. At least the introduction at flightgear.org says it. So I came here because I hoped to get qualitity than useless quantity. Well, my short review: About 300-400 aircraft but about 75% seems to be not finished, ..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g. git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0 for both SG and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o) http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear are not really flyable or actually uses wrong Flight Model (fdm called, right?) copied from other aircraft. And all this ones I meant are made by just one man. (on the other side the 25% are already really nice: SenecaII, F-14, A-10 A-6E, 777-200, TwinOtter, Spitfire, Bf109, Pilatus Porter, EC130, S76cgood, realistic aircraft needs time to develope ) ..yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o) Welcome aboard. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
Hello, ...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o) I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate without Google translate. But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really meaning. I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are really all developed further and being usuable later? In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as discussed here, wanted by those 1-2 person aren't a pleasure. Maybe a misunderstood. ..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g. git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0 for both SG and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o) http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear Thanks, I will take a look! ...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o) Welcome aboard. I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in developement. So if there is a release they will be add to the Download page, am I right? I expected a far smaller number of aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess, which will hardly be usuable. As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity... *blush* How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more realistic? So thanks for the welcome P.M. P.S. I just noticed that this mail maybe fits more to the users-list, I'm sorry! -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:04:33 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message
379675.56250...@web29801.mail.ird.yahoo.com:
Hello,
...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o)
I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate
without Google translate.
But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really
meaning.
I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another
aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much
pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are
really all developed further and being usuable later?
In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as
discussed here, wanted by those 1-2 person aren't a pleasure.
Maybe a misunderstood.
..the whole conflict is a product of misunderstandings.
Best cure is write in your own language if you need
translation programs to read or write in the English
language more than once a week.
..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into
the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g.
git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0 for both SG
and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o)
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear
Thanks, I will take a look!
...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o)
Welcome aboard.
I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the
developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in
developement.
..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
So if there is a release they will be add to the
Download page, am I right?
..if somebody puts it there, yes. ;o)
I expected a far smaller number of
aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all
aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that
high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess,
which will hardly be usuable.
..define useable, newbie, then consider
the developer bait context. ;o)
As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity...
*blush*
How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which
aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more
realistic?
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
So thanks for the welcome
P.M.
P.S. I just noticed that this mail maybe fits more to the users-list,
I'm sorry!
..hush, we're fishing. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...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.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
I meant stable-versions.
When I use builds from the Hudson server I do get a snapshot. So things can be
broken, not run or completly buggy and not work as expected.
I take v2.0.0 as an example: a freezed developement status and is meant as
stable version, so should work without any major bugs ( it does for me here on
win32! :-)).
..define useable, newbie, then consider
the developer bait context. ;o)
Useable- at least the standard six instruments are available and working for
aircraft flying VFR; (as an example on the DA42 they aren't working, or the
Fouga Magister is missing the Artificial Horizon...)
- aircraft with IFR certification should have the necessary instruments and
avionics working (as an example not like the 737-230, B52F, Caravelle ...)
- a reasonable fdm ( as an example the ME262 has a poor roll rate for a
fighter,
the Caravelle seems to be underpowerd, lot others seems not well balanced and
tends to oscillate...)
I tried a random cross-section of each each type of aircraft. Please don't mind
it, maybe I'm a bit spoiled. And yes, as mentioned there are aircraft which
can
even could compete with Payware aircraft made for X-Plane like the IAR80,
B1900d, FW190, SenecaII, Hansajet
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
I see, Thanks!
Kind Regards
P.M.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:04:33 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message
379675.56250...@web29801.mail.ird.yahoo.com:
Hello,
...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o)
I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate
without Google translate.
But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really
meaning.
I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another
aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much
pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are
really all developed further and being usuable later?
In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as
discussed here, wanted by those 1-2 person aren't a pleasure.
Maybe a misunderstood.
..the whole conflict is a product of misunderstandings.
Best cure is write in your own language if you need
translation programs to read or write in the English
language more than once a week.
..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into
the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g.
git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0 for both SG
and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o)
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear
Thanks, I will take a look!
...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o)
Welcome aboard.
I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the
developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in
developement.
..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
So if there is a release they will be add to the
Download page, am I right?
..if somebody puts it there, yes. ;o)
I expected a far smaller number of
aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all
aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that
high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess,
which will hardly be usuable.
..define useable, newbie, then consider
the developer bait context. ;o)
As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity...
*blush*
How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which
aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more
realistic?
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been tagged as
production quality it may miss some aircraft that are actually of very high
quality and some of the listed aircraft may not be truly production quality.
In fact looking at the list of production aircraft from my installation I
would say that some of these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT install as
it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how much
space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the bigger the
aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all have
very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although I don't think
that any of the authors consider them to be complete yet.Using --min-
status=production should include the IAR80 in it's list but not the p51d-
jsbsim (which has a status of early production) or the MiG-15 (which has no
status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue of helping
users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long standing and
significant issue. There was a rating system that was proposed here that would
have made it simple for aircraft authors to produce a consistent and verifiable
status for their aircraft. The system set a very high bar for the higher
status ratings. Status ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early
production, production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.Taking the
p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an idea how well
developed a model under this system needs to be to get a production or
advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears that only a few of the
models are actually using this system.
Hal
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:31:17 -0700, Hal wrote in message
201105211431.19074.hven...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been
tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are
actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not
be truly production quality. In fact looking at the list of
production aircraft from my installation I would say that some of
these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT
install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
..browsing the list archive, I see mention of argument order
mattering, i.e. fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
being different to fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft,
has this changed?
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft
screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how
much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the
bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For
example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all
have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although
I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete
yet.Using --min- status=production should include the IAR80 in
it's list but not the p51d- jsbsim (which has a status of early
production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue
of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long
standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was
proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to
produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The
system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status
ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production,
production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.
Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an
idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get
a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears
that only a few of the models are actually using this system.
Hal
..it's also a matter of opinion, some developers are _very_
critical of and demanding on their own work, which is good
for FG release quality but bad for those lofty plans of
release schedules, is why I advocate having the release
dictator play with git until (s)he finds git commit
combinations (s)he likes, and release those on the spot.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...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.
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 04:24:38 PM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:31:17 -0700, Hal wrote in message
201105211431.19074.hven...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..try fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
..--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}
Allows you to define a minimum status level
(=development status) for all listed aircraft
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been
tagged as production quality it may miss some aircraft that are
actually of very high quality and some of the listed aircraft may not
be truly production quality. In fact looking at the list of
production aircraft from my installation I would say that some of
these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT
install as it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
..browsing the list archive, I see mention of argument order
mattering, i.e. fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
being different to fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft,
has this changed?
I used
fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production
which did not work. So as a test I tried
fgfs --min-status=production --show-aircraft
and that worked and it produced a list of 15 production aircraft. This did
not include the IAR80 perhaps because it sets statusproduction/status in
IAR80-base.xml rather than in IAR80-set.xml?
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft
screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how
much space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the
bigger the aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For
example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all
have very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although
I don't think that any of the authors consider them to be complete
yet.Using --min- status=production should include the IAR80 in
it's list but not the p51d- jsbsim (which has a status of early
production) or the MiG-15 (which has no status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue
of helping users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long
standing and significant issue. There was a rating system that was
proposed here that would have made it simple for aircraft authors to
produce a consistent and verifiable status for their aircraft. The
system set a very high bar for the higher status ratings. Status
ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early production,
production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p.
Taking the p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an
idea how well developed a model under this system needs to be to get
a production or advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears
that only a few of the models are actually using this system.
Hal
..it's also a matter of opinion, some developers are _very_
critical of and demanding on their own work, which is good
for FG release quality but bad for those lofty plans of
release schedules, is why I advocate having the release
dictator play with git until (s)he finds git commit
combinations (s)he likes, and release those on the spot.
I think a better plan is to have a defined release schedule that includes
things like feature freeze dates and use of branches for the releases. Not
too hard to do once things are setup and it injects some disipline into the
process. But it does take some effort to get this type of thing going as well
as someone willing to be a strong release manager.
But the issue here is not really a release management issue but more of a
documentation issue. Besides those aircraft authors/developers who are very
critical of thier own work are not the ones who have held up the release
schedule nor are they the ones who are causing the issue with poor
quality/incomplete aircraft models.
Hal
--
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
