Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: bo105 - Always turning right?
On 8 Jan 2005 at 20:23, Melchior FRANZ wrote: In which case it would bank, but is there an elastic 'hinge' as in the Westland Lynx? Or is there some other mechanism? It does AFAIK bank, and the blades take some force, too. See here for more info: FWIW from what I recall (more than 25 yrs ago), the BO105 had a distinctly different construction of the rotorhead with what I would call now a stiff rotorhead system as compared to the then usual designs. The few times I then flew in the thing, makes me recall it banked less than the conventional types. and my experiences don't go beyond Sikorsky's 58, 61, Bell 212's, the Alouette-III and the BO105 :-) Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On 16 Oct 2004 at 11:28, Andreas wrote: So, are you saying that all planes that behave in an odd way are actually modelled correctly? Can this be said about version 0.9.6, for example? If not, then the point is to move those planes that are still work in progress to somewhere else, like the --verbose thing I mentioned earlier. The 737 model, for example, clearly states that it's a beta version. I don't know regarding what, if the fdm or the panel (which doesn't work very well, for example). Andreas, I recently had a discussion here about odd behaviour of several planes, including the 172 1981 model which still is about the only one that I can enjoy in my FGFS. People mentioned the torque effects, and I got it about under control, but despite that it's still the only decently behaving plane in my setup. I thought I had a messed up setup, which was done by running one installer over another one, then upgrading the fgfs.exe file to the latest one, but when I did it as it should have been done, there was no difference at all. I kept my mouth shut but now I see I'm not the only 1. It cud be handy to have all alpha and beta models in a separate dir, with a big sign Experimental! Operate at own risk... As for the panels: I've been using Fly since day 1, even bought Fly2! later. Maybe the fdm's aren't the best, at least panels work like they should work. Also AP's work like they should work; if there is someone who claims flight NWA052 is done purely by hand from Frankfurt to destination this person lies. A 737 cud be a nice one to do some trips with in FG, but a working AP would be even nicer. As long as that isn't the case, I'd suggest to move the bird into the experimental dir. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] GPS DISREGARD LAST EMAIL
On 27 Sep 2004 at 18:45, Borgnine wrote: Sorry, the GPS is working now. Very strange.. Perhaps it takes a few runs to warm up? : ) Again sorry.. Lucky You! Mine appearently don't warm up, after somany tries, browsing internal properties etc, the field where I put my airport in first, then clicking another box will simply empty the first box again, no matter whether I use caps or not. Oh well, so much for the GPS, I got maps of most areas I wanna fly in so I can find my way around (and yes, I'm a very happy radio-navigator the-old-style). What bothers me much more (and in fact was the first reason I started writing/reading here) is that all of the available planes in FG, except for the 2 Cessna 172 1981 models won't fly decently. I think I tried em all by now, except for UFO's and some types which only shud differ from other types because of the manufacturers name. The Dakota won't listen to the throttle at all, except for idling, so there is no flying at all. The Piper Warrior will fly and do a lot of stuff OK, but here the clock runs about 4 times as fast as normal and there's no way of changing that. Which means on finals you overshoot even a 11,000 ft runway pretty easy. I tried the Soko. Flies nicely, but when I tried a 180-degree turn to get onto finals, 3000 AGL and doing roughly 210 IAS, it went straight into the earth listening to no input at all. A 30-40 degree bank shudn't do that, shud it? The Wright flyer. OK, it can be get to 25ft, then I try to level out (I seem to recall that Wright never reached that altitude on his first try) and next the thing dives into the ground, no matter what I do. Tried it 3 times, then gave up. The Piper Cub. Sheesh, if there's one easy going plane, it's the Cub. Going up was no problem. Trying to keep it straight and level at 1000' was the problem. It wants to go everywhere I don't want to have it going. Like an invisible elephant pulling on the yoke. The flight ended (U guessed it already...) nose down on (in) the ground. The only decent flying things here are those specific 1981 model Cessna's and I luv to hop around in those, mainly because I still luv FG's scenery. But for the longer trips I wud like to see a hi performance or twin engined one which flies decently here. When I read others (or look at screen shots on the FG site) it looks like this is a problem right here, and not in FG. But what? Once more my FG history: 1. Installed the Windoze 0.9.5a stuff, which left me with a proggy that got stuck once the flying window appeared. It simply quit time after time. 2. I then tried the 0.9.4 installer (uninstalled the previous 1 first), which ran OK (tho' with the same probs I'm experiencing now). 3. I then simply ran the 0.9.5a installer over the old one, and I had a working 0.9.5a. 4. I then replaced the 0.9.5a exe with the 0.9.6 one, changed the version file and that's where I am now. My stick appears calibrated, shows zero on all axis on the HUD when centered and I can fly the 172's OK with it. Anyone with a clue? Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] GPS DISREGARD LAST EMAIL
On 28 Sep 2004 at 13:14, Erik Hofman wrote: You are aware of the fact that you need the base package matching the binary, don't you? If they don't match then don't expect too much help in solving the problems. Erm, yes and no like I said: running the 0.9.5a installer file appearently refused to install some needed files. The DOS box upon program launch told me file missing but disappeared too quick for me to check out WHICH file. The 0.9.4 installer did a good job, at least it gave me a running program. Now there raise two questions: can I run the 0.9.4 installer again and next change the fgfs.exe for the 0.9.6 one or does 0.9.6 require 0.9.5 to be installed previously? If so, I need to fetch a 0.9.5 installer which does a good job first. The one I got from the FG site didn't do a good job, and I've tried twice... (and let me make it clear that didn't do a good job resulted in a failing program. Nothing during installation told me something went wrong). Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] GPS DISREGARD LAST EMAIL
On 28 Sep 2004 at 15:40, Frederic Bouvier wrote: I don't know when 0.9.6 will be out ( is it ready ? ) but here are some guidelines if you want a proper system : 1. get the 0.9.6-pre1 base package at : ftp://ftp.flightgear.org/pub/fgfs/Shared/fgfs-base-0.9.6-pre1.tar.bz2 2. get the Win32 0.9.5 binaries at : ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Win32/fgfs-0.9.5-win32.zip 3. get the Win32 0.9.6-pre1 executable at : ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Win32/fgfs-0.9.6-pre1-win32.zip Decompress 1. 2. and 3. ( in that order ) somewhere in order to reflect your current flightgear tree. Then you will have all files in sync. If you try to run the 0.9.6 executable with the 0.9.5, or worse 0.9.4, base package, you are likely to encouter missing features that are solely in the base package. Fred, this is NOT what the main page on FG tells us. It tells us: Download the self extracting/installing fgsetup-0.9.5a.exe. (77 Mb) After downloading the fgsetup-0.9.5.exe file, launch it and follow the on screen instructions to complete the installation. The installer will create start menu entries, install documentation, optionally install a desktop icon, and also will provide a well behaved uninstaller. and this resulted in a failing program to run. To Boris: You might call this a silly way of expressing myself, but I call this an installer which won't do a good job. I cud also call it a wrecky installer. Back to Fred. I followed your instructions. I extracted the whole bunch to D:/FlightGear, so my original installation onto C:/whatever/FlightGear would remain intact. After running fgrun.exe I found that all airports for the scenery stuff I have downloaded for the first try, which is on C: were listed too (and I didn't install them to the D: partition yet). I double checked, I did run D:/FlightGear/fgrun.exe.oh well. Tried the Piper J3: DOS box telling me something wrong with a nasal file? OK, that's different from my earlier tries, I will look into it. Then tried a KSFO flight (merely a t/o, circuit and landing) with the 172 (1981 model again) which had no probs at all. That's all I cud check until now, I will dig deeper into it tomorrow sometime I hope. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] GPS DISREGARD LAST EMAIL
On 28 Sep 2004 at 22:45, Boris Koenig wrote: Sorry, Louis: no offense intended - I was only asking WHERE exactly something failed, I didn't mean to say you were using any silly expression - and obviously something was really broken, so you're phrasing was probably somewhat right, in that regard I would agree that the installer didn't do a 'good job' - but my first impression was indeed that you were mixing various packages ... and this would provoke errors, I think. No problemo. The thing is that the original installer I used never mentioned a failure or problem, but when trying to run fgrun it would end into a failing fgfs. The startup screen (with the several screenshots) would come up and disappear after some time. This *could* be because of your environment variable ($FG_ROOT) still pointing to the old location - you can verify this by running a simple set in the console (cmd.exe) and look what it says - to make sure that it points to the proper place you can simply overwrite that variable manually by running set FG_ROOT = D:\FlightGear\data ... But to make this a permanent change you should modify the FG_ROOT variable within the control panel or whereever you set it. I figured this could be the cause. Will check later on when I got more time. Another thing which rises is: there is of course no start menu entry add scenery now... how do I go about this? Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] GPS DISREGARD LAST EMAIL
On 28 Sep 2004 at 22:57, Frederic Bouvier wrote: You know, there is a tab in fgrun ( granted you must hit prev on the first screen ) where you can choose the path of your program, data and scenery. It is likely that you still use old data and program until you change the path. There is no magic. Fred, I surely wish I knew how I could change that :-) Still, I can always delete the old stuff, reinstall everything to the original location and see what happens then. Does FG write to Windows registry? If not, there shud be no problem at all. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] 9.6-pre1 minor bugs
On 25 Sep 2004 at 11:14, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote: On Saturday 25 September 2004 02:05 am, Petri Lipponen wrote: There's a problem with the artificial horizon (I previously incorrectly called it attitude indicator, shame on me). When you roll the plane to over 90 degrees bank, the artificial horizon jumps an extra 30 degrees or so. Upon returning to level flight, the artificial horizon shows a 30 degree (or so) bank. This is actually a feature. I beleave it's called tumbling. If you wait a couple of minutes you will se that the horizon erects itself. All this is done to make it look more realistic. I've noticed this too, but happening in another way: sometimes, just suddenly the Cessna pops up sharply, going into a stall, then plunges down and may settle back on ALT hold after a minute or so. This also sometimes causes the artificial horizon to hang at roughly 30 degs off. This will not correct after a few minutes, but it may correct on the next occasion it happens. This whole scenario may happen just spontaneously, but also sometimes when shifting view to mainly behind my back modes... Actually, I always hold my breath when I'm trying to look back It looks like it's more bound to happen in scenery with much stuff around, also when night lighting is dense in the area. OTOH, I just seen it happen with vis set to default (16,000m), no structures around and a flat earth, simply flying straight and level at 2500 AGL around 125 kts... and it also happened in 0.9.5. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Control problem with FlightGear 0.9.5
Well, after upgrading to 0.9.6 I have found the following: when taking off in the 172, I still need to manipulate the stick too much to my appreciation, then I can engage the AP on HDG and VS or ALT. The same as in 0.9.5, but whilst doing a tour around Frisco (nice scenery in the default stuff, this is exactly why I appreciate FG so much) I also discovered lotsa turbulence in the mountains area. Went back to KSFO and did some new settings on the environment: turned wind to only 1 kt at ground level, no turbulence and took off once more. Same stuff, then to the AP for HDG and ALT and flew towards San Jose. Somewhere over the bay I turned the AP off and much to my amazement the plane flew straight and level without me touching any control. Operating the stick would do exactly what I'm experiencing with Fly or Propilat, i.e. an a/c which is easy to handle (this was in speed ranges between 85 and 120 kts). Appearently also the cursor arrow keys have some effect and joystick handling is dead easy. So I engaged the AP for APP to rwy28R which it did perfectly, only needed to flare manually before the final touchdown. What I also haven't seen sofar is the odd behaviour whilst flying on AP (HDG and ALT) at irregular times the Cessna would pull up steeply, go into a stall, dive out of it again and catching up again on AP (without any manual interruption). Flew from Amsterdam to Orly yesterday (still on 0.9.5 then) and that happened about 8 times... So is it the new version? At least now I'm starting to really enjoy FG, gotta check out the other birds too for their behaviour. Louis (who is glad he upgraded first thing to 0.9.6) ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-users] Control problem with FlightGear 0.9.5
On 12 Sep 2004 at 8:51, Jon Berndt wrote: In the case of the JSBSim C172, we approximate the modeling of P-factor (which tends to yaw and slightly roll the aircraft left), we model gyroscopic effects, torque on the airframe from the prop beating against the air. We do not yet model the slipstream effects of the propwash on the aerosurfaces. We have had pilots tell us that the left yaw/roll at takeoff is modeled very well, and some (usually newbies) tell us it is surprising. The fact is, the effect is real, and those of us who have flown an aircraft like a c172 can tell you they have experienced it. Some simulators (perhaps MSFS, X-Plane, whatever) may model the effect differently, either more or less completely. I don't know. The *magnitude* of the effect may be overstated. Or understated. It depends on who you ask. So, the question can be raised: what are you basing your comparison on? I missed part of the earlier conversation. Are you a pilot of small aircraft? Are you comparing with other sims? Or, would you simply like the effect to be gone? The P-factor effect can be mitigated by reducing the P_FACTOR setting in the config file to a smaller number , say 5 instead of 10. Jon, as I explained earlier, I started simming (and I'm no real pilot) somewhere 15, 16 years ago. Sublogic's FS-II. You may know this one had very little to do with real life flying but I think it was the best of what one could get at the time. This even was true for the later MS Flightsim, which I tried with version 5. From the late 90's I went onto ProPilot and Fly, I believe Fly was the first one I experienced, which could model torque effects. It was switchable however and on lotsa occasions I simply don't switch it on. Now since I started with FG, I experienced lotsa control problems (on most a/c btw) which made it almost impossible to fly decently around. Part of those were the yaw and torque effects built in, but I'm still convinced it wasn't that alone. I did some tests with the similar a/c in Fly, also a 172 model with torque effects switched on and it was completely different. I don't have pedals here, not even a decent yoke, so I fly either from the keyboard or from the flightstick I have, which suits me fine most of the time. Flying FG from the keyboard is impossible, flying it from the stick is OK as soon as the plane has stabilized after some time. When I take off, I need all efforts on the stick to get it decently up at a decent rate, decent climb speed and straight heading. Therefore I usually engage AP after t/o, which gives me time to handle radio's, nav's etc. Once stable (even when still climbing) I can easily turn off the AP again now (that's what I found with the new version, I never tried it with 0.9.5) and fly it on the stick. No problem with that. I still don't know what causes it to go bezerk straight after I got airborne and the fact that once I get at say 1000' AGL, around cruisespeed, I can switch the AP off and fly it with 1 finger, so to speak, makes it even more stupid. Anyway, it starts to get interesting again. I was getting to the point where I thought just trash this junk, it's no fun and I still have PP and Fly and I'm glad I didn't. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On 16 Oct 2004 at 14:05, Andreas wrote: I'm not claiming to be a real pilot: I'm not. I can accept this kind of behaviour for the c172 since I've never even been in one. If pilots say this is the way it behaves, I accept it. Neither am I. I don't have probs with a/c simulating torque effects or don't fly perfectly straight when you don't coounteract. I do have probs with relatively simple a/c which require you to frantically operate your stick, pedals or whatever you try to control it with and dive nose down after a few secs. Even a sim should be some fun. As for now, the 172 1981 model is the only 1 I can enjoy, good enough coz it's mainly the scenery I keep FG for (yes folks, a free sim beats Fly and a lot of others just on scenery). What I don't want to keep doing is asking myself this question: wow, is this really so? Or is this one of those planes whose model is still being worked on?. Same here. I agree about the panels. I don't mind having 3D cockpits, just give me working instruments. Exactly Now, I'm perfectly happy with the c172. It's great flying and learning. I just whish there were more good aircrafts like this one. But this is a free project, and people have a life. You know, Fly was a commercial project. Lotsa people been spending lotsa time to develop improved versions of existing a/c in Fly or add completely new ones: the J3, Texan, C130, several versions of the 747 and many more have been made available for Fly for free, including completely new designed panels (some of em were based on FlightSimulator ones tho') and except for a MD82 beta I tried, none of em had real probs when they were released. The big problem is that FG now is one of the few choices one has when trying flightsimming, with Fly and Propilot being discontinued. In order to keep new users (who might be taking their very first steps into flightsimming) I think it would be very wise to limit the base package to the a/c which are foolproof and work more or less the way they should, including NAV's and AP, and make the 'beta and alpha planes available to them who are willing to crash every 5 mins. That's my 5 cents on it. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
