-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bernie Bright
Sent: 27 July 2004 05:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
Sent: 26 July
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Megginson
Sent: 26 July 2004 23:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Hi All
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate
a stabilizer trim system in flightgear.If this is not the
case then maybe some kind soul could point me to
the said property.
If there is infact no such property currently, is there
some kind soul who could
Matthew Law wrote
Sent: 26 July 2004 23:41
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose
power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Pitot head icing
It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ...
Erik
(Is that already implemented?)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tiago Gusmão wrote:
meanwhile while using tcp.xml, i noticed that using a line separator of
newline actually printed the word newline (this doesn't happen in var
separator), it doesn't bother me much, just reporting
Odd, both cases are handled the same. Maybe your utility to check for
the
Erik Hofman wrote:
Sent: 27 July 2004 08:37
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Pitot head icing
It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head
icing at first ...
Erik
(Is that already
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mastered the Spitfire yet?
Yes. It's a marvelous aircraft to fly!
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Erik Hofman replied
Sent: 27 July 2004 09:29
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Mastered the Spitfire yet?
Yes. It's a marvelous aircraft to fly!
Good. It'll be better when the engine problems are
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Matthew Law wrote
If carb heating is on enrich the
mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions are actually
aircraft and engine specific, I think
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really
resembling all the various aircraft
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really
resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly ... didn't know
that so far, would definitely recommend to create some kind of summary
for each aircraft and place it as a textfile into each
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I don't think that's intrinsically very difficult to simulate right now.
When certain conditions are met, if carb heating is off, weaken the mixture
over time (until the engine stops?). If carb heating is on enrich the
mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions
There are missing elses (generic.cxx), meaning code could run
line_separator= line_sep_string;
even after one of the ifs was true.
addind the elses fixes it.
if ( line_sep_string == newline )
line_separator = '\n';
else if ( line_sep_string == tab )
Hi Eric
Erik Hofman writes
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Hi All
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate
a stabilizer trim system in flightgear.If this is not the
case then maybe some kind soul could point me to
the said property.
If there is infact no such property currently, is there
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate
a stabilizer trim system in flightgear.If this is not the
case then maybe some kind soul could point me to
the said property.
I think the last time this came up the consensus was that the current
elevator-trim property could be used for
David Megginson wrote:
I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put
users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a
clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is
likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like
David Megginson wrote:
I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put
users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a
clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is
likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like
some coworkers and I have been trying to compile the
latest FlightGear Build (0.9.5pre2). Unfortunately, we
don't seem to be able to download the OpenAl source
code from CVS. After downloading the SDK from
Creative's website, we have not been able to build the
samples they provided. Has anyone had
Matthew Law wrote:
I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all?
Yes -- we report it, and I'm pretty sure that we use it in density altitude
calculations (so that it affects both true airspeed and engine performance).
We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in
power
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Megginson
Sent: 27 July 2004 12:39
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I don't think that's intrinsically
Matthew Law wrote
Sent: 27 July 2004 11:55
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on
really resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly
Tiago Gusmão wrote:
There are missing elses (generic.cxx), meaning code could run
line_separator= line_sep_string;
even after one of the ifs was true.
You are completely correct on this. Thanks for the catch.
A fix is in CVS.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel
David Megginson wrote:
Matthew Law wrote:
I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all?
Yes -- we report it, and I'm pretty sure that we use it in density
altitude calculations (so that it affects both true airspeed and engine
performance).
METAR reported humidity is also used.
Erik
David mentioned:
Carb icing is common on humid days in certain Continental engines such as
the one in the Cessna 150 and the old (pre-1967) 172, but it is very rare in
engines like the Lycoming O-320 (used in the Warrior and post-1967 Cessna
172's). The warnings in the later 172 POH's
Alex Perry wrote:
That's a point. Once the engine stutters/quits due to carb ice,
you have to make it take a while for the ice to go away again.
... and it takes quite a while ...
Once the engine quits, it's too late for carb heat, isn't it? If it's only
a partial blockage, we can simulate the
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not
be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank
not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem
solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our
sim.
Vivian Meazza wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not
be terminal though
That's not an uncommon occurrence on low-wing planes, from what I
hear: when Cessna pilots rent low-wing planes, you sometimes get
Andy Ross wrote:
Granted, I haven't had time to test any of this. But I guess I'm
having trouble understanding exactly what your complaint is: trying
to draw fuel from an empty tank *should* kill an engine.
OK, try this: I'm flying on the left tank in my Warrior and not switching.
The tank goes
David Megginson wrote:
OK, try this: I'm flying on the left tank in my Warrior and not
switching.
The tank goes dry and the engine stops. I switch to the right tank,
and as
long as the prop is still windmilling, the engine springs to life
again in a
few seconds.
Is that the way things will
Innis Cunningham wrote:
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate a stabilizer
trim system in flightgear. If this is not the case then maybe some
kind soul could point me to the said property.
What's wrong with /controls/flight/elevator-trim?
Stabilizer trim is an FDM
On Monday 26 July 2004 22:48, Jon Stockill wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Has anyone tried this delightful model under 0.9.5-pre2 recently? I get
YASim failing to converge.
Confirmed - same problem here.
Confirmed here too.
I had already started work on updates for the Swift and when I just
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 08:37, Erik Hofman wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Pitot head icing
It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ...
Erik
(Is that already implemented?)
Perhaps I should look into it for the Swift;)
LeeE
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 20:22, Andy Ross wrote:
[snip]
FWIW: You can map controls to the incidence value of an htsab object
in YASim to make this work, although all the current aircraft simply
add the elevator trim to the tail's flap deflection. The results are
indistinguishable.
Andy
David Megginson wrote:
Alex Perry wrote:
That's a point. Once the engine stutters/quits due to carb ice,
you have to make it take a while for the ice to go away again.
... and it takes quite a while ...
Once the engine quits, it's too late for carb heat, isn't it? If it's
only a partial
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled with
the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a good solution.
Finally,
Matthew Law wrote:
I can't see the harm of a temporary and slight decrease in
power compared to what could go wrong if I didn't use it...
Fair enough. You have to weight it against the risk of forgetting to shut
it off in an overshoot, giving you reduced climb power and a tiny
possibility of
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 22:46, David Megginson wrote:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled with
the YASim files a lot in the
From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alex Perry wrote:
That's a point. Once the engine stutters/quits due to carb ice,
you have to make it take a while for the ice to go away again.
... and it takes quite a while ...
Once the engine quits, it's too late for carb heat, isn't it?
Not if
David Megginson wrote:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled
with the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a good
David Megginson said:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled with
the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:09:24 +0100, Matthew wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-)
..you have a kit started? Which diesel?
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Jim Wilson wrote:
Have I had this backwards all along? I knew of the incidence angle
on the hstab, but always thought that positive values meant the
leading edge was higher than with a negative incidence angle
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about the Y
axis, which in
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:38:43 -0400, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When there is no actual carb ice, carb heat makes the intake air
hotter, and thus thinner, so the mixture also becomes richer (more
fuel, less air), but in this case not usually rich enough to stop the
engine.
Vivian Meazza wrote:
plib.ssgAux has a particle system that can simulate smoke.
Attach one
to an animation object and there you have it. Any takers?
Someone (David Megginson?) mentioned the particle system when the subject of
smoke was brought up some time ago.
It may have been me but
Andy Ross wrote:
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about the Y
axis, which in YASim's coordinate system points out the left wingtip.
So a positive incidence points down. Unless there's a sign bug (or
three, or five...) in there somewhere.
A positive incidence points down?? So
Andy Ross said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Have I had this backwards all along? I knew of the incidence angle
on the hstab, but always thought that positive values meant the
leading edge was higher than with a negative incidence angle
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about
Thanks Guys
I guess the answer is there is no stabilizer trim property.
Andy Ross writes
Innis Cunningham wrote:
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate a stabilizer
trim system in flightgear. If this is not the case then maybe some
kind soul could point me to the said property.
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 18:36, Innis Cunningham wrote:
Thanks Guys
I guess the answer is there is no stabilizer trim property.
Andy Ross writes
Innis Cunningham wrote:
As far as I can tell there is no property to simulate a stabilizer
trim system in flightgear. If this is not the
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
What's wrong with /controls/flight/elevator-trim?
Because stab trim and elevator trim are not the same. It is like
saying a piston engine and a jet engine are the same. They are in the
fact that they both provide thrust to the aircraft.It is how
Andy Ross writes
So I'll ask again: what is it you want to do that cannot be done with
the existing control property?
I guess that the current elevator trim property does trim the aircraft
in pitch.
But if the stabilizer trim and the elevator trim use the same property
then applying trim will
David Megginson said:
Andy Ross wrote:
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about the Y
axis, which in YASim's coordinate system points out the left wingtip.
So a positive incidence points down. Unless there's a sign bug (or
three, or five...) in there somewhere.
A
Hi. It appears that in initialization, if an airport and heading are
specified on the command line, a runway is immediately chosen based
upon the heading, and latitude/longitude is set to that runway's
threshhold. This is sensible if the user is starting *at* the airport;
but if the user is
52 matches
Mail list logo
