Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On June 20, 2005 12:23 am, Andy Ross wrote: Definitely a Harrier -- any of the original generation (Gr.3, AV-8A, Sea Harrier FRS.1, the AV-8B has a much more complicated set of avionics and isn't nearly as interesting for a pilot). I assume you are going to code the entire Flight Control Computer in Nasal for Josh? =p Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On June 19, 2005 07:50 pm, Josh Babcock wrote: Eventually I will probably do the last two no matter what. Along with the B-29 they form the lineage of the Boeing 7X7 line, so I consider all three to be very important aircraft. Perhaps you should do some commercial airliners of the Boeing 7x7 lineage? Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On June 20, 2005 02:05 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On June 19, 2005 07:50 pm, Josh Babcock wrote: Eventually I will probably do the last two no matter what. Along with the B-29 they form the lineage of the Boeing 7X7 line, so I consider all three to be very important aircraft. Perhaps you should do some commercial airliners of the Boeing 7x7 lineage? Ampere After some thought, I think it will be benificial to FlightGear as a whole if you can do some touch ups to the current aircrafts before starting a new project. At the moment, there are way too many aircrafts that are only half finished, which includes my own. To be more specific, these aircrafts are in desperate need of a 3D cockpit. If you can raise the status of some of these aircrafts to early-production level, then they can be burnt onto CD's and sold, thus becoming another source of funding for FlightGear. Just off the topic of my head, the candidates for an update are: 737, 747, AN-225, the fokkers, MD-11, and the TU-154. I haven't checked other airliners, but I highly doubt that they are anywhere closed to being done either. Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On June 20, 2005 12:23 am, Andy Ross wrote: Definitely a Harrier -- any of the original generation (Gr.3, AV-8A, Sea Harrier FRS.1, the AV-8B has a much more complicated set of avionics and isn't nearly as interesting for a pilot). I assume you are going to code the entire Flight Control Computer in Nasal for Josh? =p With the earlier models there is no flight computer - that's what makes them interesting. Jon ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Andy Ross Josh Babcock: What would everybody out there like to see? If I could pick anything: Definitely a Harrier -- any of the original generation (Gr.3, AV-8A, Sea Harrier FRS.1, the AV-8B has a much more complicated set of avionics and isn't nearly as interesting for a pilot). The FDM model is a ton of fun, and is just dying for some glitz. It's in the Hurricane/Seahawk/Hunter lineage, so I've looked at it briefly. I haven't researched it in any detail, so I haven't got any really good data on which to model it yet. It's at/near the bottom of my TODO list. (FRS1 of course :-) ) Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Integrating Scenery and additional Plane Models
On Monday 20 June 2005 04:04, ron richings wrote: I am very new to flightgear. I have downloaded and run the basic program under Windows XP, but even after reading the FAQ info, I just don’t get how to make use of the 110 Mb of Scenery data, or the additional airplane models that I have downloaded. Can someone give me advice on this in very simple, non-computerese, language. Ron Richings Extract scenery, using winzip or similar, to C:\Program Files\FlightGear\Scenery\Terrain, and aircraft to C:\Program Files\FlightGear\Aircraft Change the paths if you installed elsewhere Jargon-free enough for you? :) -- Laurie Bradshaw ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On June 20, 2005 02:05 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: On June 19, 2005 07:50 pm, Josh Babcock wrote: Eventually I will probably do the last two no matter what. Along with the B-29 they form the lineage of the Boeing 7X7 line, so I consider all three to be very important aircraft. Perhaps you should do some commercial airliners of the Boeing 7x7 lineage? Ampere After some thought, I think it will be benificial to FlightGear as a whole if you can do some touch ups to the current aircrafts before starting a new project. At the moment, there are way too many aircrafts that are only half finished, which includes my own. To be more specific, these aircrafts are in desperate need of a 3D cockpit. If you can raise the status of some of these aircrafts to early-production level, then they can be burnt onto CD's and sold, thus becoming another source of funding for FlightGear. Just off the topic of my head, the candidates for an update are: 737, 747, AN-225, the fokkers, MD-11, and the TU-154. I haven't checked other airliners, but I highly doubt that they are anywhere closed to being done either. Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Hmm, At various points I have thought about redoing the Harrier model or adding more detail to the Skyhawk. I thought the Harrier FDM was pretty complete, no? I've always been partial to Fokkers too. I'll have to look into those. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Joystick setup
On Saturday 18 June 2005 23:14, Kristin wrote: Perhaps I misspoke my version of Linux it is from http://slax.linux-live.org/download.php V5.05 I think the kernel is 2.6.11.7. May 2005 release. Sorry, assumed (wrongly) that slax was an abbreviation. Problem with live cd's is if they don't automagically support your hardware, you're going to have to configure it every boot (or modify the cd before burning). If you let me know what hardware you have, I can tell you any caveats I know about specific to it. eg. you probably need to load the module for your soundcards gameport _before_ loading the module for the joystick, but I'd need to know what soundcard you have (if any, maybe the gameport is on the motherboard?) to tell you which module to load. Is there a JStest for windows? It seems modprobe does not detect my gameport joystick in Linux. I never was very well versed in Linux even though I used a version called Linx about 10 years ago while at the USPS as a tech on the mail sorting machines built by Martin Marrieta. Not per se (at least as far as I know - short of setting up cygwin), but if I remember rightly, there is a joystick test gui buried in the control panel somewhere. Linux has come a long way since 10 years ago, but legacy hardware still tends to require manual configuration; I'm not having a go, I was using an ancient 2 button gameport joystick for years, until I fell across my current one on ebay for £9 (inc. pp :). The CH Joystick I have has a trigger, three buttons, and a small hat four way switch, additonaly it has trimmers for r-l and for-back and a third that works as a throttle on my early version of MS- flight. You need to know how the os you're using sees them; whether they're axis or buttons, and what number the os has assigned them (not necessarily the same as labelled on the stick) I know most of the FG forum is Linux oriented but I would like to stick with win 98 as I have some other hardware issues with switching OS's (mouse from ps2 to ser port, modem does not work etc...) I also have little or no $$$ to spend. My CH stick was $2 at a thrift store, can't afford to go to Walmart and spring $$ for a USB one. So I need to get this one working. I probably do not need a full blown joystick file just some information as to how to modify one of the files already existing. Perhaps add the lines for added buttons from a 2 or 3 button gameport stick already in the distribution for windows. Once you've worked out how the os you're using sees your joystick (name, button axis numbers), you can simply copy an existing joystick xml, open it in a text editor, change the name/name tag to match your joystick, and configure the buttons and axis as required (copy and paste from existing files, change the button/axis numbers to suit). Once you're happy with it, make sure to add a js-named include=Input/Joysticks/CH/name_of_your.xml/ to joysticks.xml in the flightgear root. -- Laurie Bradshaw ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] building the cvs version
Hi, I tried to build the cvs version of flightgear-0.9, but I got some errors from the linker and I don't know what to do or rather how to interpret the error messages. The file with the error log inside: http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0026053/errors The commands I used to get to the cvs version came from here: http://seneca.flightgear.org/flightgear/cvs/anoncvs.html Maybe somebody is able to give me a hint. Thanks. Regards bernhard ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: Joystick setup
* Laurie Bradshaw -- Monday 20 June 2005 13:59: Once you've worked out how the os you're using sees your joystick (name, button axis numbers), you can simply copy an existing joystick xml, open it in a text editor, change the name/name tag to match your joystick, and configure the buttons and axis as required (copy and paste from existing files, change the button/axis numbers to suit). Exactly, whereby the name can be obtained by running js_demo(.exe). However ... Once you're happy with it, make sure to add a js-named include=Input/Joysticks/CH/name_of_your.xml/ to joysticks.xml in the flightgear root. ... this isn't necessary/possible in the upcoming v0.9.9 (or cvs/head). Here saving the file somewhere in $FG_ROOT/Input/Joysticks/ is enough for fgfs to pick it up. Consider to submit configs for which we don't have a driver yet. Also, there's no default js on a fixed position in the next version. Rather: the joystick driver with namedefault/name is used as default. (Could be changed if this turns out to be problematic for some reason. But nobody complained yet. :-) m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: building the cvs version
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Monday 20 June 2005 14:16: I tried to build the cvs version of flightgear-0.9, but I got some errors from the linker You also have to use SimGear and the base package from CVS/HEAD! Using plib cvs/head is sometimes required, but currently the last stable version should be enough. m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] Re: building the cvs version
Melchior * [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Monday 20 June 2005 14:16: I tried to build the cvs version of flightgear-0.9, but I got some errors from the linker You also have to use SimGear and the base package from CVS/HEAD! Using plib cvs/head is sometimes required, but currently the last stable version should be enough. and OpenAL Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
How do you get the demo working? I've edited the preferences.xml file and uncommented the scenario section where Nimitz, sailboat, tanker, thunderstorm etc, and nothing shows up. Is there something else I'm missing? Are absolute or relative paths required, or does FG know to look in in the AI directory? Here's the relevant (I Think) portion of my preferences.xml file: ai enabled type="bool" true/enabled !--- Demo Mode: Comment to disable -- scenarionimitz_demo.xml/scenario scenarioaircraft_demo.xml/scenario scenariothunderstorm_demo/scenario scenarioship_demo/scenario /ai Thanks, JB Melchior FRANZ wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sunday 19 June 2005 20:24: I'm still falling through the uss-nimitz. I tried it with seahawk and hunter (of course with extended hook). Maybe my landing procedure is not good enough? Which aircraft do you use for landing on aircraft carriers? Hmm ... did 0.9.8 really support that already? I'd try with the cvs version, where it definitely does. m. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: Re: building the cvs version
You also have to use SimGear and the base package from CVS/HEAD! Using plib cvs/head is sometimes required, but currently the last stable version should be enough. What is the base package? Maybe I forgot something important? I have simgear from cvs (cvs.simgear.org), plib-1.8.4 and openal-20040817 installed. The compile process finishes clearly. I think, the error messages are telling me, that only the linking of the simgear-libs does fail, because on all files with SG-functions inside, a linker error is reported. But I don't know, if my interpretation of the error messages is right. error messages: http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0026053/error Regards bernhard PS: the stable version of flightgear builds without any errors ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: Re: building the cvs version
You also have to use SimGear and the base package from CVS/HEAD! Using plib cvs/head is sometimes required, but currently the last stable version should be enough. Sorry, the link in the last mail was not valid. What is the base package? Maybe I forgot something important? I have simgear from cvs (cvs.simgear.org), plib-1.8.4 and openal-20040817 installed. The compile process finishes clearly. I think, the error messages are telling me, that only the linking of the simgear-libs does fail, because on all files with SG-functions inside, a linker error is reported. But I don't know, if my interpretation of the error messages is right. error messages: http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0026053/errors Regards bernhard PS: the stable version of flightgear builds without any errors ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] Re: Re: building the cvs version
What is the base package? Maybe I forgot something important? The base package is where the files loaded at runtime (airport data, aircraft, scenery, textures, etc) is stored. It's necessary to get fgfs to start. If you are using fgfs from CVS, it is advisable, if not mandatory, to use the CVS version of the base package. In the directory containing the folder source, issue this command, as one line: cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9 co data This, however, will not solve your SimGear linking problems, and so is not necessary yet (as you must link SimGear correctly before running - or even compiling - fgfs). Giles Robertson ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 05:26, Andy Ross wrote: Josh Babcock wrote: I'm not sure how well YASim and JSBsim do transonics and supersonics. I think you could do a V-tail in JSBsim though. Not sure though. YASim doesn't currently have good support for high supersonic aircraft; both the engine models and the aerodynamics would need a few hacks. You can do a V tail, though. Give the hstab a big dihedral, and add a split input to model the rudder control hookups. Andy To Josh: have a look at the YF-23 for V-tail stuff. Regarding authentic panels cockpits - I'd be delighted if anyone wants to do real ones for any of the a/c I've done. I guess I'm more interested in the flight characteristics of various aircraft than actually flying them. I'd be very interested to see a B-36 and a B-47 - they're both in the 'very-unlikely-to-ever-happen' section of the list of a/c I'd like to do. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Well, conveniently I love realistic FDMs, but do not consider generating them fun. Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Also, feel absolutely free to develop a B-29 YASim config. The existing one does not even pretend to be realistic. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On Monday 20 Jun 2005 20:34, Josh Babcock wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 05:26, Andy Ross wrote: Josh Babcock wrote: I'm not sure how well YASim and JSBsim do transonics and supersonics. I think you could do a V-tail in JSBsim though. Not sure though. YASim doesn't currently have good support for high supersonic aircraft; both the engine models and the aerodynamics would need a few hacks. You can do a V tail, though. Give the hstab a big dihedral, and add a split input to model the rudder control hookups. Andy To Josh: have a look at the YF-23 for V-tail stuff. Regarding authentic panels cockpits - I'd be delighted if anyone wants to do real ones for any of the a/c I've done. I guess I'm more interested in the flight characteristics of various aircraft than actually flying them. I'd be very interested to see a B-36 and a B-47 - they're both in the 'very-unlikely-to-ever-happen' section of the list of a/c I'd like to do. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Well, conveniently I love realistic FDMs, but do not consider generating them fun. I rather enjoy working on the fdm configs and it can be frustrating at times but it's also very rewarding when it comes together. Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Ah - an easy question ;) All of them:))) There are some specific things I want to sort out on some of them and complete overhauls on others. Don't have the time though and I want to keep my modelling skills up (one of those use it or loose skills imo) so that means doing new a/c (next prob a MiG-15 then an SU-27K) Also, feel absolutely free to develop a B-29 YASim config. The existing one does not even pretend to be realistic. Josh My approach to doing a YASim fdm config is to work from the 3d model when getting all your geometry data. This may not mean that the numbers are 100% accurate but they will be consistent with each other and in practice I think that the degree of variation from reality is less significant than the inaccuracies imposed by the constraints in YASim. This isn't intended as a knock at YASim at all - I like it a lot - but consider the Handly Page Victor, which had cresent shaped wimgs, for example, or the rounded wing tips on the B-29 for that matter. What you can do in YASim though is to tune it so that you can get close to the correct effect. Once I've done the geometry I plug in any hard factual data I've got e.g. wing incidence, dihedral etc. The rest is semi-educated guess-work and tuning 'till it seems to work right. I'll certainly have a look at the B-29 when you release it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: This isn't intended as a knock at YASim at all - I like it a lot - but consider the Handly Page Victor, which had cresent shaped wimgs, for example, or the rounded wing tips on the B-29 for that matter. If you really want to get fancy, you can simulate funny surfaces piecewise using extra vstab objects. But in practice, that's very unlikely to be useful. YASim isn't a fluid dynamics simulator, which is basically required for turning details like wing planform or airfoil shapes into actual performance data. And in practice that kind of shape data needs to be far (!) more accurate than a typical 3D model polygon mesh. If you have the software and the micro-detailed mesh, then that's clearly the way to go. But for interactive flight simulation, it's just a non-starter. In principle (modulo bugs and configuration glitches, obviously) a well-configured YASim model generates aerodynamic results that are about as good as you can get without access to the original design plans or test data. Andy ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On Monday 20 Jun 2005 21:17, Andy Ross wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: This isn't intended as a knock at YASim at all - I like it a lot - but consider the Handly Page Victor, which had cresent shaped wimgs, for example, or the rounded wing tips on the B-29 for that matter. If you really want to get fancy, you can simulate funny surfaces piecewise using extra vstab objects. But in practice, that's very unlikely to be useful. YASim isn't a fluid dynamics simulator, which is basically required for turning details like wing planform or airfoil shapes into actual performance data. And in practice that kind of shape data needs to be far (!) more accurate than a typical 3D model polygon mesh. If you have the software and the micro-detailed mesh, then that's clearly the way to go. But for interactive flight simulation, it's just a non-starter. In principle (modulo bugs and configuration glitches, obviously) a well-configured YASim model generates aerodynamic results that are about as good as you can get without access to the original design plans or test data. Andy mstabs are probably better for wings;) Actually, I did the Canberra wing using both a wing object and an mstab object. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Rudder only moves left
On Monday 20 Jun 2005 21:26, Kristin wrote: Now my question is, in the directions it says rudder controls on keypad(numlock on) are 0/,. As far as I am aware, the defaults on the numeric keypad are the bottom left (0,ins) key and the bottom right (enter) key for rudder left and right respectively. Works here, anyway. Of course, controlling the rudder with the keypad while using a joystick is not the easiest thing or most natural thing to do anyway, which is why I'm currently building myself some pedals! Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Re: the nimitz_demo HOW??
ai enabled type=bool true/enabled !--- Demo Mode: Comment to disable -- scenarionimitz_demo.xml/scenario scenarioaircraft_demo.xml/scenario scenariothunderstorm_demo/scenario scenarioship_demo/scenario /ai You can only run one AI scenario at a time. You can, however, combine bits from other scenarios into one scenario file. The file for your scenario must be in the directory data/Data/AI. You don't include the extension. For example: ai enabled type=bool true/enabled scenarionimitz_demo/scenario /ai Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Andy Ross Lee Elliott wrote: This isn't intended as a knock at YASim at all - I like it a lot - but consider the Handly Page Victor, which had cresent shaped wimgs, for example, or the rounded wing tips on the B-29 for that matter. If you really want to get fancy, you can simulate funny surfaces piecewise using extra vstab objects. But in practice, that's very unlikely to be useful. YASim isn't a fluid dynamics simulator, which is basically required for turning details like wing planform or airfoil shapes into actual performance data. And in practice that kind of shape data needs to be far (!) more accurate than a typical 3D model polygon mesh. If you have the software and the micro-detailed mesh, then that's clearly the way to go. But for interactive flight simulation, it's just a non-starter. In principle (modulo bugs and configuration glitches, obviously) a well-configured YASim model generates aerodynamic results that are about as good as you can get without access to the original design plans or test data. I would second that, and add that where test data is available, it's surprising how close you can get with YASim. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 20:34, Josh Babcock wrote: Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Ah - an easy question ;) All of them:))) No seriously, I'm pretty bad picking what I want to do. How about this: Canberra (how come it's not in CVS?) or TSR-2. You pick, I do the 3-D cockpit and any stray bells and whistles I can think of. They both have plenty of data out there including manuals available on CD. I'm still gonna do the B-47, I love that plane. Just not now, you guys are right, completing existing planes should be the priority. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
Lee Elliott wrote: I'll certainly have a look at the B-29 when you release it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Have a look now, it should be in CVS, yes Gerard? There is a file NOTES that has some collected notes about the aircraft. There is plenty of data on the web too. I also have a reprint of the original pilot's manual, but there is not too much data there. If you are interested I can collect all the flight related data out of the manual and put it into NOTES and mail it to you. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Rudder only moves left
AJ, Thanks the enter key works, don't really need it now though as I just found a $5 MS Sidwinder 3D pro Stick at the local thrift store. Downloading the drivers now, already had it working w/o new drivers but this driver is supposed to program the buttons. Hope I can map some to keystroke input. Any suggestions as to a good aircraft to learn FG on? I also downloaded what I thought was the scenery for my area w130n40 but do not see Lampson Field (1O2) or Sutter Lakeside hospital helipad (CL69) in the list. FAA Identifier: 1O2 Lat/Long: 38-59-26.2000N / 122-54-02.6000W 38-59.436667N / 122-54.04W 38.9906111 / -122.9007222 (estimated) Elevation: 1379 ft. / 420 m (estimated) Variation: 16E (1990) From city: 3 miles S of LAKEPORT, CA Zip code: 95453 Did I download the wrong grid? Thanks for the help. Kristin __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On June 20, 2005 04:17 pm, Andy Ross wrote: YASim isn't a fluid dynamics simulator, which is basically required for turning details like wing planform or airfoil shapes into actual performance data. And in practice that kind of shape data needs to be far (!) more accurate than a typical 3D model polygon mesh. If you have the software and the micro-detailed mesh, then that's clearly the way to go. But for interactive flight simulation, it's just a non-starter. Can't the contour be extrapolated using existing vertices? Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
