Hi,
Pilots are taught to think in terms of pressure on stick not displacement.
That is part of the reason that the F-16 is built the way it is.
Thats OK, I agree, with one small change:
pilots are not *taught* to think in terms in terms of pressure on stick.
It is the natural way of sensing the
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Personally, I would be in favor of using angles to describe the
positions of left/right aileron, elevator, rudder and nose/tail wheel.
Please, not for the wheels. Really.
It doesn't probably matter too much for 3d animation if your conversion
factor
Jim Wilson wrote:
This is just what was going through my mind when reading this discussion.
Jon's concern is quite valid, but there are problems. As I work through
these concepts in my mind, I can see that although the current method sounds
more complicated for the 3D animator, having to deal
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:47:03 -
Jim Wilson wrote:
It might be useful for someone to work through the values as that
would be
report for the various stages of deployment on a 747 flap system. As
Richard
message suggests here the detail required by the 3D modeler is
Chris Metzler wrote:
The first: In going from version 1.3 to 1.4, Melchior Franz
noted that there was no /velocities/vertical-speed-fpm
property to display, and changed the property referenced to
/velocities/vertical-speed-fps, which does exist. But the
display should show fpm; so a scale
Am Donnerstag 16 Dezember 2004 18:45 schrieb Christian Mayer:
...[other GUIs besides PUI
Well, I don't think that replacing PUI has a high priority.
Thats probably right.
I doesn't look that bad (but doesn't mirror the OS style). And it get's
drawn by OpenGL with a low overhead.
So we
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:22:17 +0100, Gordan wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Pilots are taught to think in terms of pressure on stick not
displacement. That is part of the reason that the F-16 is built the
way it is.
..this used to be the doctrine in at least the 1980'ies in the
* Thomas Frster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-17 10:20]:
So giving the user a choice is probably the best way to go, i.e. using a
QT-based one on Linux, a native Windows GUI on Windows, no GUI at all in a
real simulator setting.
IMHO, there would be just as much work involved in creating a
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Personally, I would be in favor of using angles to describe the
positions of left/right aileron, elevator, rudder and nose/tail wheel.
Please, not for the wheels. Really.
It doesn't probably matter too much for 3d animation if your
On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:22:17 +0100, Gordan wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Pilots are taught to think in terms of pressure on stick not
displacement. That is part of the reason that the F-16 is built the
way it is.
..this used to be the doctrine
Jon Berndt wrote:
(And If you don't believe me, start to work on the gear animations of
the Fokker-50 in degrees (0 - 90 degrees). If you manage to get that
working we could start talking again).
I think this illustrates the futility of trying to use a one-size-fits-all
animation
strategy. It
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value of, say, 0.5
really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when the total range is 0 to 60?
It should be, if the FDM does it's thing right.
Erik
Not so fast. Aero tables might be indexed for flaps based on angle. If the
flaps are
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It doesn't probably matter too much for 3d animation if your conversion
factor get's you close.
There is another thing, all doors, struts and support bars are animated
based on the gear extension. While the main gear extension might be
perfectly valid in degrees,
Jon Berndt wrote:
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value of, say, 0.5
really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when the total range is 0 to 60?
It should be, if the FDM does it's thing right.
Erik
Not so fast. Aero tables might be indexed for flaps based on angle. If the
Matthew Law writes:
Personally, I'd prefer to see a nice OpenGL based GUI like some of the
other simulators and, dare I say it, games. With this method you can
throw out native look and feel and just have a very nice looking
functional user interface that works on any platform with OpenGL
Jon Berndt wrote:
good chance
that you're not going to get exactly 30 degrees flaps. The actuator
mechnism probably
won't linearly extend the flaps due to the compound nature of the flap
mechanisms.
If that is the case the FDM should know about it more than anything else
IMHO.
Boy, do I enjoy a vigorous debate, especially when I am right. Unfortunately,
in this
case, I appears that I did not consider all the needs of the animation system.
Neither one
should have to be designed to make up for something the other doesn't do. So I
think the
best thing to do, as we've
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:32:04 -0600, Jon wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:22:17 +0100, Gordan wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Pilots are taught to think in terms of pressure on stick not
displacement. That is part
Jon Berndt writes:
Boy, do I enjoy a vigorous debate, especially when I am right. Unfortunately,
in this
case, I appears that I did not consider all the needs of the animation
system. Neither one
should have to be designed to make up for something the other doesn't do. So
I think the
Hi Jon,
output laterally, on the pedals, and front/back on the stick. I think that's
why the
control law diagrams I have seen use pilot stick force as the input unit. One
hundred
percent of the control law diagrams I have seen that include pilot inputs use
force.
Once more, do not make general
On Friday 17 December 2004 14:50, Norman Vine wrote:
Matthew Law writes:
Personally, I'd prefer to see a nice OpenGL based GUI like some of the
other simulators and, dare I say it, games. With this method you can
throw out native look and feel and just have a very nice looking
functional
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:26:26 +0100
Gordan Sikic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jon,
Once more, do not make general statements, based on a few examples.
Jon wrote:
One hundred percent of the control law diagrams ...
emphasisI have seen/emphasis
that include pilot inputs use force.
There are _many_
Jon Berndt wrote:
No, the FDM doesn't care about anything but commanded flap position - which will be taken
to actual position through the FCS, but with JSBSim actuator dynamics are not required to
be modeled. Commanded and actual positions are in degrees. As I said before, does 30
degrees flaps
Jon Berndt wrote:
Boy, do I enjoy a vigorous debate, especially when I am right. Unfortunately, in this
case, I appears that I did not consider all the needs of the animation system. Neither one
should have to be designed to make up for something the other doesn't do. So I think the
best thing to
Hi,
I may have posted this late last night, but seems to have been lost. If
a duplicate post, my apologies
Compiling the CVS pre-release
error in FGNozzle.cxx complaining about snprintf as implicit declaration
at line #74
Currently running 0.9.5
Did I miss something skipping over 0.9.6?
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Hi,
I may have posted this late last night, but seems to have been lost.
If a duplicate post, my apologies
Compiling the CVS pre-release
error in FGNozzle.cxx complaining about snprintf as implicit
declaration at line #74
Currently running 0.9.5
Did I miss something
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:07:47 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon, the problem is: how does the interface know how to normalize
the control surface positions? Where does it read the maximum limits
from? The FDM is really the only piece that is going to know this
information.
#include stdio.h
#if defined(WIN32) !defined(__CYGWIN__)
#define snprintf _snprintf
#endif
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John
Wojnaroski
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:33 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:05:04 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FDM may choose to carry along with that abstraction (which makes
sense) because you are concerned with getting the right performance
when the lever is in the 30 degree position. It all works out in the
end, but
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:49:56 -0600
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe Erik just synced the flightgear tree up with the latest JSBsim
cvs, so there could be some portability issue that has crept in. I
haven't had a chance to compile the latest cvs commits myself.
It's
I disagree. It is easy to say what is natural, but hard to show it. After
someone has been flying for a while it sure feels natural. But when I have
a new student I find that very often they over control the aircraft. I
can get them to quite down by convincing them to just use pressure.
Maybe
I just checked out the latest source from CVS and ran autogen.sh. Then
when trying to run configure I got the following error:
configure: error: cannot run /bin/sh ./config.sub
After upgrading to autoconf 1.59 there were some warnings when running
autogen.sh but at least configure works.
I'm
That was it.
The other modules explicitly call out the include directive and ifdef,
but they appear to be excluded in the JSBSim files ?
seems like something is missing/mis-set on my system , if others are
not having this problem. At any rate, adding it in for the complaining
files will work
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:35:24 -0800
John Wojnaroski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was it.
The other modules explicitly call out the include directive and
ifdef, but they appear to be excluded in the JSBSim files ?
seems like something is missing/mis-set on my system , if others are
not having
Hi,
back to main.cxx at line #759 in fgMainInit(...)
main.cxx:759: assuming on overloaded member function
Regards
John W
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Just wondering if the C172P is supposed to represent a specific model year?
I've come to the point of placing a landing light on the aircraft but the
location is different between early 172s; in the wing with a taxi light and
late 172Ps (early 80's) where it is located in the nose with no taxi
Dave Martin wrote:
Just wondering if the C172P is supposed to represent a specific model year?
I've come to the point of placing a landing light on the aircraft but the
location is different between early 172s; in the wing with a taxi light and
late 172Ps (early 80's) where it is located in the
On Thursday 16 December 2004 21:17, Jon S Berndt wrote:
[snip...]
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value of,
say, 0.5 really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when the
total range is 0 to 60?
Are you not assuming a linear transition here? It doesn't have
to be.
LeeE
On Thursday 16 December 2004 22:08, Gordan Sikic wrote:
[snip...]
(about F16)
AFAIK, it has nonmoving joystick, and force transducers, and
it is normal for that plane to ise output from the
transduced as a input.
The original HOTAS non-moving sticks in the development a/c were
changed to
Thomas Foerster wrote:
So giving the user a choice is probably the best way to go, i.e. using a
QT-based one on Linux, a native Windows GUI on Windows, no GUI at all in a
real simulator setting.
This is the same sort of idea I had been toying with. As a newbie to fg I felt
that one tool that
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Thursday 16 December 2004 21:17, Jon S Berndt wrote:
[snip...]
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value of,
say, 0.5 really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when the
total range is 0 to 60?
Are you not assuming a linear transition here?
I have built an application bundle of FlightGear for Mac OS X. It's a
rather large application because it includes everything such as the
base data, fgfs, etc. Compressed it's a total of 132 MB.
I have no place to host such large files so I've made it available via
BitTorrent. I've attached it to
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:51:56 -
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do FDMs handle Fowler flaps? i.e. the first part of the action
extends the flap rearwards without any rotation, acting only to
increase wing area, then for the rest of the action rotate downwards?
Easy enough to 3d
On Friday 17 December 2004 21:51, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Thursday 16 December 2004 21:17, Jon S Berndt wrote:
[snip...]
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value
of, say, 0.5 really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when
the total range is 0 to
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:38:33 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering if the C172P is supposed to represent a specific model year?
Totally up to you, but my 172P POH is for the 1981 model, for what
that's worth. I cannot even remember the light positions on the
planes I
Lee Elliott wrote
[snip...]
How do FDMs handle Fowler flaps? i.e. the first part of the
action extends the flap rearwards without any rotation, acting
only to increase wing area, then for the rest of the action
rotate downwards?
Easy enough to 3d model with a normalized input:
On Friday 17 Dec 2004 22:27, David Megginson wrote:
Totally up to you, but my 172P POH is for the 1981 model
As it happens I did a bit more research and discovered that the in-wing
(landing+taxi) lights were a factory option to the end of the P's production
run. So no clues there ;)
However,
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:59:35 -
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote
[snip...]
How do FDMs handle Fowler flaps? i.e. the first part of the
action extends the flap rearwards without any rotation, acting
only to increase wing area, then for the rest of the action
I hope this isn't too off topic ...
I am involved with a project where we are going to setup a multi-channel
visual system running flightgear. (3 PC's, 3 monitors.) We can budget
about $150-200 for the graphics cards, but the landscape has changed so
much since I last shopped I'm not sure
May I suggest looking out for GeForce FX5800Us.
Myself and a friend managed to pick an unused pair up a few months ago for
very little money and they are quite frankly 'storming' cards.
They have a 500Mhz GPU and 1000Mhz (DDR) memory on 128bit bus and manage to
keep up with the higher-spec
Arthur,
Considering the problems some people have been having in running the Mac
version, have you added instructions to the .dmg file? I was able to host the
previous version (0.9.6) on my .mac account, but it was less than 125 MB (which
is my limit).
Jonathan Polley
On Friday,
It's a single application in a disk image. No instructions included. I
figured anyone downloading FlightGear would know what to do with it.
By the way Curt, it's done uploading.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:50:23 -0600, Jonathan Polley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arthur,
Considering the problems
That is not necessarily the case. I have had a heck of a time
explaining to users how to get the application to run.
On Dec 17, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Arthur Wiebe wrote:
It's a single application in a disk image. No instructions included. I
figured anyone downloading FlightGear would know what to
lol, How many different ways can you explain to somebody how to double
click an icon.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:07:26 -0600, Jonathan Polley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is not necessarily the case. I have had a heck of a time
explaining to users how to get the application to run.
On Dec 17,
I agree. That first time was not at all clear.
It would be great to include some instructions as well, or many people just
won't get it.
-- Adam
From: Jonathan Polley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:07:26 -0600
To:
Ok. I'll include instructions in the next version.
Right now I'm trying to get fgrun going on Mac OS X and maybe include
that in the next version as well if it's good.
So far fgrun doesn't look like it's going to work.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:13:13 -0800, Adam Dershowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curt,
Given the budget and assuming the prices over this side of the pond
aren't too different to you, I'd go for something like this:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69123E0A
I like Gainward cards. They usually use better quality, slightly faster
RAM which allows them to be clocked up a little
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:55:26 -0500, Arthur wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have built an application bundle of FlightGear for Mac OS X. It's a
rather large application because it includes everything such as the
base data, fgfs, etc. Compressed it's a total of 132 MB.
I have no place
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:13:59 +, Dave wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
May I suggest looking out for GeForce FX5800Us.
Myself and a friend managed to pick an unused pair up a few months ago
for very little money and they are quite frankly 'storming' cards.
They have a 500Mhz GPU
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:43:04 +0100, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:55:26 -0500, Arthur wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have built an application bundle of FlightGear for Mac OS X. It's a
rather large application because it includes everything such as the
On Saturday 18 Dec 2004 00:46, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..these are Nvidia clones, which chip?
They are not clones, in fact they are Nvidia produced PCBs (the only card they
ever contracted for self manufacture.
The only components the OEMs were allowed to alter were the back-planes and
coolers
On December 17, 2004 06:28 am, Matthew Law wrote:
Personally, I'd prefer to see a nice OpenGL based GUI like some of the
other simulators and, dare I say it, games. With this method you can
throw out native look and feel and just have a very nice looking
functional user interface that works
Would you mind repeating your original intention?
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Would you mind repeating your original intention, Jon?
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Would you mind repeating your original intention, Jon?
Ampere
I started out with the question: Can anyone recommend a good digital
camcorder? and it
went downhill from there.
;-)
Here was my original question: I'd like to remove the code that normalizes
angular
measurement, but I am told
Double-clicking the icon isn't the problem. In many cases, getting the
.fgfsrc file properly installed was the problem. For my next release,
I was going to include a python script that would set up the file and
modify the default resource file. Many Mac users that subscribe to the
Users
Curtis L. Olson writes:
I am involved with a project where we are going to setup a multi-channel
visual system running flightgear. (3 PC's, 3 monitors.) We can budget
about $150-200 for the graphics cards, but the landscape has changed so
much since I last shopped I'm not sure what to
On Saturday, 18 December 2004 04:32, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I agree. If there is room for improvement with the current GUI, then we
should continue to use it.
This is a big issue for me at the moment.
It is VERY hard to do anything to the FG menu system without stepping on a
least three
68 matches
Mail list logo
