David Culp wrote:
Nope, didn't help.
It seems like the problem starts when all flightplan objects reach their
destination.
I'm not getting segfaults here, but I do see that the AI objects are not
binding to properties properly. When I have one sailboat and two
airplanes
running I see
Hi Jim
The other day you were saying about Jon do a
JSBSIM fdm well there is one over at JSBSIM but
I have done a separate one that will drop into
FG if you are interested.If not no problems.
Cheers
Innis
_
Personalise your phone with
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
David Culp wrote:
Nope, didn't help.
It seems like the problem starts when all flightplan objects reach
their
destination.
I'm not getting segfaults here, but I do see that the AI objects are not
binding to properties properly. When I have one sailboat
-Original Message-
Jim Wilson wrote:
Andy Ross said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
It'd be great if someone else could look at the P51D fdm.
I'm lost.
Flight dynamics is neither my area of expertise or interest. The
only reason I did it in the first place is I had a 3D
model
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
try this patch :
No, it is not so simple. begin() is a special case where we can't do --
Try the one below
I am a bit noisy today, sorry. It isn't easy to debug by doing one test
every 15 min. The patch below should make it. The iterator needed to be
Hi Jim
The other day you were saying about Jon do a
JSBSIM fdm well there is one over at JSBSIM but
I have done a separate one that will drop into
FG if you are interested.If not no problems.
I was doing one ... still have it in-work. Kept running into things I wanted to fix and
add in the
Hi Jon
Jon Berndt writes
I was doing one ... still have it in-work. Kept running into things I
wanted to fix and
add in the code and getting distracted. I was using DATCOM to help with
aero tables. Now
we are close to having aero tables generated with DATCOM+ directly (thanks
to Bill
Yes I know I downloaded it and used it. Didn't know about the monitoring
file you were outputing from it, ended up with a 400meg file, good thing
I had it on the big drive(LOL).
Oops! :-) I really ought to turn these off by default. In fact, the OUTPUT section is
destined to be removed from
Hi Jon
Jon Berndt writes
What I am most curious about is how easy it was to take off.
Yes pretty good it comes up on to the front wheels after about
200 meters and lifts off at about 120mph with no flap.Dont know
if they used flap on these A/C on t/o. I guess someone here will know.
It is
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Performance: max = 437mph at combat emergency power at 25000ft,
413mph at 15000ft, 395mph at 5000ft, cruising speed 362mph,
climb rate 3475 ft/min. Service ceiling 41,900ft.
How much is combat emergency power? The trick is getting the actual
numbers right, is it possible
On Wed, 19 May 2004 07:06:04 -0700
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Performance: max = 437mph at combat emergency power at 25000ft,
413mph at 15000ft, 395mph at 5000ft, cruising speed 362mph,
climb rate 3475 ft/min. Service ceiling 41,900ft.
I just ordered a copy of the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Andy Ross
Sent: 19 May 2004 15:06
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim prop changes
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Performance: max = 437mph at combat emergency
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Please do. It will be interesting to see what kind of relationship
there is between F-15D numbers and P-51D numbers, and how you relate
the two ...
Heh, oops. :)
For folks who didn't get the joke in my typo: the manual I ordered is
a post-war one for the North American
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 19:09, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Andy has once posted a method to create instrument scales using Perl to
output PostScript commands. While I like Perl, I'm not good at PS, so I
tried an alternate approach: MetaPost.
MetaPost is a spin-off of MetaFont, which was designed to
I went out of town for a coulple of weeks and looking through my list of
emails i dont think a recieved a response to the question below. I would
like the cesna to be able to follow a set of waypoints but due to the new
autopilot this no longer seems to be a possiblity.
Any thoughts on how i
This is the response I receieved from Reg Urschler on the question about the
top speed of the P51-D. (His is the name that is painted on the cockpit
bubble's rim of our P51-D 3D model).
Unfortunately this doesn't really answer the question, but actually I think
that the link I posted yesterday
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 19:09, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Andy has once posted a method to create instrument scales using Perl to
output PostScript commands. While I like Perl, I'm not good at PS, so I
tried an alternate approach: MetaPost.
MetaPost is a spin-off of MetaFont,
Andy Ross said:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Performance: max = 437mph at combat emergency power at 25000ft,
413mph at 15000ft, 395mph at 5000ft, cruising speed 362mph,
climb rate 3475 ft/min. Service ceiling 41,900ft.
How much is combat emergency power? The trick is getting the actual
Melchior FRANZ said:
Andy has once posted a method to create instrument scales using Perl to
output PostScript commands. While I like Perl, I'm not good at PS, so I
tried an alternate approach: MetaPost.
MetaPost is a spin-off of MetaFont, which was designed to create the fonts
for TeX. Is
Just change the autopilot back to the generic version in the *-set.xml file.
This was answered within the last couple of weeks but maybe it was someone
else asking the same question.
Best,
Jim
Seamus Thomas Carroll said:
I went out of town for a coulple of weeks and looking through my list
Coming back to the (default) JSBSim Cessna 172p after spending a couple of
months flying the YASim pa28-161, I find the 172 extremely slippery, far too
much for a trainer. While the Cherokee tends to feel more stable in flight
than a 172 (i.e. it has more roll, pitch, and yaw damping), the 172
Coming back to the (default) JSBSim Cessna 172p after spending a couple of
months flying the YASim pa28-161, I find the 172 extremely slippery, far too
much for a trainer. While the Cherokee tends to feel more stable in flight
than a 172 (i.e. it has more roll, pitch, and yaw damping), the
For comparison:
I've made a patched-up file that allows the 172p to handle much more
realistically, but I'm not willing to upload it to CVS yet, because I'm not
sure that I've done the right thing. To keep the 172 from wallowing, I
increased the roll damping coefficient (Clp) from -0.484 to
The Navion has
Clp = -0.410
Cmq = -9.960
Cnr = -0.125
...
Given these numbers I'd suspect that if there is a problem, perhaps we need to review
our
MoI's.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
24 matches
Mail list logo
