I'm fixing the magnetic compass instrument to make its behaviour more
realistic. I'm starting with the northernly turning error, and found
a useful site that actually gives an equation:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node4.html
Here's the equation (radians for all angles):
Hc:
David Megginson wrote:
I'm fixing the magnetic compass instrument to make its behaviour more
realistic.
Oh, my god, no more nice flight sim The trouble already began
with the Beaver startup procedure ;-))
I imagine that the problem is fairly obvious to people with a basic
knowledge of
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:36:33 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Explaining in pictures is easier than dealing with single-line-
equations :-) We'll see,
Multiple, sequential equations are welcome as well. Anything, really ...
Thanks,
David
--
http://www.megginson.com/
David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:36:33 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Explaining in pictures is easier than dealing with single-line-
equations :-) We'll see,
Multiple, sequential equations are welcome as well. Anything, really ...
Could you go into detail
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:25:16 +0100
Boris Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:36:33 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Explaining in pictures is easier than dealing with single-line-
equations :-) We'll see,
Multiple,
Developers,
I am
planing on developing a HUD instrument to display a virtual outline of
the active runway on the HUD. Is there any developer(s) working on
this task? If not, can anyone tell me how I can get the aircraft's
velocity vector and runway vector in Cartesian coordinates.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron Wilson wrote:
Developers,
I am planing on developing a HUD instrument to display a
virtual outline of the active runway on the HUD. Is there any
developer(s) working on this task? If not, can anyone tell me how I
can get the aircraft's velocity vector and runway vector in
Curtis,
Thanks for the insight into the coordinate systems. I am planning
on accounting for a sloped runway via the runway vector. The cross product
of the aircraft's velocity vector with the runways vector (which should
point in the direction of the slope) will give you a vector to
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
it seem agpgart is still seeing the i810 and not the ATI card.
Did you already give the OpenSource drivers a try ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Boris Koenig wrote:
My first VERY simple *guess* would be that it might be because of an
imbalance in inertia of a compasses moving parts as soon as the pitch
changes accordingly.
It has to do with the fact that a whiskey compass has it's magentic
'detector' mountet parallel to the earth
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:25:16 +0100, Boris Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first VERY simple *guess* would be that it might be because of an
imbalance in inertia of a compasses moving parts as soon as the pitch
changes accordingly.
Other replies have pointed you to links explaining the
No.
How do I do so?
Ampere
On November 3, 2004 12:41 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
it seem agpgart is still seeing the i810 and not the ATI card.
Did you already give the OpenSource drivers a try ?
Martin.
___
Aaron Wilson wrote:
Curtis,
Thanks for the insight into the coordinate systems. I am
planning on accounting for a sloped runway via the runway vector. The
cross product of the aircraft's velocity vector with the runways vector
(which should point in the direction of the slope) will
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:17:34 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm fixing the magnetic compass instrument to make its behaviour more
realistic. I'm starting with the northernly turning error, and found
a useful site that actually gives an equation:
I've thought of a simpler way to approach this problem. Let's say
that I have a plane and the three Euler angles of rotation, phi,
theta, and psi (roll, pitch, and yaw). Given those three angles, I'd
like to determine which direction around the z axis is most directly
uphill and how steep the
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On November 3, 2004 12:41 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
it seem agpgart is still seeing the i810 and not the ATI card.
Did you already give the OpenSource drivers a try ?
No.
How do I do so?
Install XFree86 or better XOrg from your
Jon Stockill wrote:
Runways aren't just flat sloping planes though - the slope may not be
constant. Several runways have a hump in the middle, or a slope at just
one end.
I believe for the purpose of outlining the runway in order to get the
aircraft down in one piece it is absolutely
Martin Spott wrote:
Jon Stockill wrote:
Runways aren't just flat sloping planes though - the slope may not be
constant. Several runways have a hump in the middle, or a slope at just
one end.
I believe for the purpose of outlining the runway in order to get the
aircraft down in one piece
If you are referring the radeon driver, itI am using it at the moment and it
doesn't give me direct rendering either.
Ampere
On November 3, 2004 03:15 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
Install XFree86 or better XOrg from your favorite Linux distribution
and adjust your 'XF86Config' or 'xorg.conf'
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:17:50 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jon Stockill wrote:
Runways aren't just flat sloping planes though - the slope may not
be constant. Several runways have a hump in the middle, or a slope
at just one end.
I believe for the purpose of
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
If you are referring the radeon driver, itI am using it at the moment and it
doesn't give me direct rendering either.
I have to guess what you're meaning Could you post the Device
and the DRI section of your XF86Config ? Simply use cut 'n paste so I
don't have
Section Device
Identifier Generic Video Card
Driver radeon
EndSection
Section Monitor
Identifier SyncMaster
HorizSync 30-60
VertRefresh 56-75
Option DPMS
EndSection
Section Screen
Identifier
David Megginson wrote:
I've thought of a simpler way to approach this problem. Let's say
that I have a plane and the three Euler angles of rotation, phi,
theta, and psi (roll, pitch, and yaw). Given those three angles, I'd
like to determine which direction around the z axis is most directly
If I keep the radeon in the driver section, the config file isn't read at
all. Therefore, I changed it back to ati.
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:05:59 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've thought of a simpler way to approach this problem. Let's say
that I have a plane and the three Euler angles of rotation, phi,
theta, and psi (roll, pitch, and yaw). Given those three angles, I'd
like to determine
David Megginson wrote:
I've thought of a simpler way to approach this problem. Let's say
that I have a plane and the three Euler angles of rotation, phi,
theta, and psi (roll, pitch, and yaw). Given those three angles, I'd
like to determine which direction around the z axis is most directly
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:28:26 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're on the right track. I think you want to determine the
orientation of the aircraft body Z axis w.r.t. the local vertical
axis. That can tell you both the magnitude and direction of the most
vertical
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:04:05 -0500, Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A simple adaptation doesn't really work. Using the variables as you've
defined them, and taking theta to be positive for pitched up, write
Hc = atan2(a, b)
with
a = cos(phi)sin(Hm)cos(mu) -
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:47:37 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does arctan(-phi/theta) give you?
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:47:37 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After having scribbled for a LITTLE WHILE on the back of an envelope
;-) I am thinking that what you want is this:
-atan2(-phi,theta)
but I'll have to play a little bit more. I think this would give you
the angle about
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:19 -0600, Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After having scribbled for a LITTLE WHILE on the back of an envelope
;-) I am thinking that what you want is this:
-atan2(-phi,theta)
but I'll have to play a little bit more. I think this would give you
the angle
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:47:37 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all the work on that. I just tried it out, though, and it
gives strange behaviour with negative (left) roll angles, even when
pitch is close to 0. It's possible that I caused some confusion by
using theta
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:19 -0600
Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:47:37 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After having scribbled for a LITTLE WHILE on the back of an envelope
;-) I am thinking that what you want is this:
-atan2(-phi,theta)
Maybe I am
David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:02:19 -0600, Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After having scribbled for a LITTLE WHILE on the back of an envelope
;-) I am thinking that what you want is this:
-atan2(-phi,theta)
but I'll have to play a little bit more. I think this would give
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:17:24 -0600, Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I am missing what you are trying to do, but I just tried this in
Excel:
-atan2(theta,phi)
which gives this:
theta phi angle (from forward, positive clockwise)
45 0 0
45
Martin Spott wrote:
Jon Stockill wrote:
Runways aren't just flat sloping planes though - the slope may not be
constant. Several runways have a hump in the middle, or a slope at just
one end.
I believe for the purpose of outlining the runway in order to get the
aircraft down in one piece
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:19:09 -0500
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll check my algebra again,
Checked; I can't find a mistake. As a third check, I ran it through
Maple and got the same result. It appears to have the correct
limiting behavior for both pitch -- 0 and roll -- 0
More:
theta phi heading magnitude
45.00 0.000.0045.00
45.00 -45.00 45.0075.00
0.00 -45.00 90.0045.00
-45.00 -45.00 135.0075.00
-45.00 0.00 -180.0045.00
-45.00 45.00 -135.0075.00
0.00 45.00 -90.0045.00
45.00 45.00 -45.0075.00
45.00
David Megginson writes:
I've thought of a simpler way to approach this problem. Let's say
that I have a plane and the three Euler angles of rotation, phi,
theta, and psi (roll, pitch, and yaw). Given those three angles, I'd
like to determine which direction around the z axis is most
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:16:08 -0500, David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand, logically, why this is happening: flying west with a
magnetic dip of 71 and a bank of 20 to the south, I have an angle of
over 90 degrees to the magnetic flow. I think I even remember the
original
Oops.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:40:57 -0600, Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't know if my calculations helped any, but it sure was a fun
diversion for a little while ...
Since Jon accidentally went online with this, I'd like to thank him
for the work. It turned out that I didn't
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I periodically get asked about multiheaded video cards for
FlightGear. My standard answer is that I don't know for sure, but I
suspect they wouldn't work well for FlightGear. However, the
questions keep coming and I feel like I'm not able to give a really
good answer.
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:37:40 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I periodically get asked about multiheaded video cards for FlightGear.
My standard answer is that I don't know for sure, but I suspect they
wouldn't work well for FlightGear. However, the
44 matches
Mail list logo
