Erik wrote:
>This still might be useful if you can get all the moments and
>coefficients from it. Then you would be able to create a JSBSim
>configuration file from the model geometry.
The idea of using the gfx model you need to do anyone (or one of the
thousands or ten thousands you find on th
Curt wrote:
>If I've missunderstood something
>about plib/ssg I'd appreciate being corrected. If modeling is still
>done in blender/ac/multigen/whatever, then you need a conversion path to
>plib.
I think you guys are speaking "aside each other".
Curt wants to allow different modellers.
Ja
Norman Vine wrote:
>Erik Hofman writes:
>>
>> Norman Vine wrote:
>>
>> > If someone was to do this I would suggest exporting to
>> > the native .ssg binary format :-)
>>
>> If they could fix the .ssg endianness problem in the process I'm all for it.
Sounds good :-)
[...]
>Am I missing someth
Curt wrote:
>.ssg
>is extremely non portable, and would make it very difficult for people
>to edit the models with any non-plib based modelers, and I'm not aware
>of any plib-based modelers that are far enough along to be useful.
... as modelers, correct.
However, PPE is nice as a converter
Curt wrote:
>I believe the main issue is that whatever format we go with has to have
>a good plib/ssg loader for it.
Yes, if you standardise on one or two standard formats, the PLIB
loader will be important.
>In fact, it seems like all the plib loaders (except for the
>ad/ssg loaders) have
David wrote:
>As long as we're just doing textured and tinted
>meshes, with the more complex stuff (like animations) in external XML
>files, is there any good reason *not* to go with VRML, especially
>since we can compress the files on disk with gzip?
Do you completely hand edit the XML?
Do you p
FWIW, you might try the js_demo in the PLIB examples.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Is there a reason that models in the base package are not optimised by
calling "merge hierarchy nodes" and possibly by calling stripify and
then put into the base package in a file format like ssg that will
"keep" the optimisations?
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
Vivian wrote:
>Any chance of implementing the token?
Sorry, no.
Things have developed quite differently to how I hoped and so a) there
was not much 3D modelling or model conversion for the flightsim I work
on and b) I am currently down to almost no spare time :-(.
>Regards
>
>Vivian
Bye bye,
I have tweaked the AC loader in PLIB to ignore the lines with
"crease". Until now, there was a fatal error since it was an unknown
token. Such ac files can now be loaded int PPE and into FGFS, if FGFS
is compiled with the newest PLIB.
Also, I created a new PPE Windos binary from the current sourc
Hi Durk!
Great to hear of progress in this important area!
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Rick aked himself:
>(Or do I remember seeing film with the canopy open during the approach?)
Yes. It makes landing easier to open the canopy and look around the
big engine in front :).
>:) Nice job Vivian :)
Yes, indeed!
>Rick
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
__
>Spitfire Mk IIA
Ah - surprising!
Here is an email Rick "Fuelcock" sent me a short while ago. I
hope it helps. Sorry for the poor formating.
--- snip -
Rather than send you the GBE code , I will direct you to the site
where I got
it:
http://www.aeromech.usyd
>Also being able to fly through buildings isn't really such
>a problem,
BTW, I remember at LinuxTag, when we taxied the Cessna and by chance
sometimes came under the wing of the 747 of the scenery, then the
Cessna would try to "jump up" and the program would crash.
>m.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
_
On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:15:09 +0200, you wrote:
>I think we have three possible solutions from the FDM <-> Flightgear interface
>point of view.
>
>1. Have a callback function in FGInterface which is able to provide you a
>terrain level and a surface normal for a given lat/lon pair.
>
>2. On every
I did not see the original thread. What Spitfire version are you
speaking about?
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
LoL, friends of mine where ion there last weekend.
I don't think they know the picture, so I just sent them the link :-).
BTW, they now have a Concorde there as well.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.fl
BTW, I had a look for a X15 3D model a short while ago. There is a new
MSFS/CFS model, but it is not much better than the old one, so I don't
think it is worth it.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flight
David wrote:
>Wolfram Kuss wrote:
>
>> Are you serious ?? Did you ever try this? That would be completely
>> awesome!
>
>It works fairly well, and lets you preview the results in case you don't
>like them. Give it a spin.
Holy cow !! I wonder why no one else
David wrote:
>It's not a hard task. Blender has a face-reduction function built in that
>does a wonderful job simplifying models -- the only problem is that you lose
>the UV mappings, so you have to spend an hour or so remapping textures.
Are you serious ?? Did you ever try this? That would be
I says
"It usually takes a bit of experimentation to get the model positioned
correctly."
It might be a good idea to add that PPE has a custom function to
postion aircraft on runways. Things like 90 deg rotation because the
axis are different in the model than fgfs still have to be done
manually
Thank you!
Committed.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
I would be very interested to know how many polygons per second FGFS
is rendering. Do you have a ballpark number?
It might be nice to have several sections of the benchmark and in one
try to maximize poly count of the scene and minimize all else.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
__
Erik wrote:
>Just be very persistent, state clearly this patch is needed for AIX
>before a new stable release is scheduled.
Steve has committed them already.
>Erik
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.fl
>using CATIA V5.
This is a CAD program and not a modeller, so while you can use it, it
is not what CATIA was created for.
I guess that CATIA does things without polygons internally and uses
splines, solid objects, booleans etc instead. Probably it just creates
polygons from it ("tesselates/poly
Alex wrote:
>I have no idea whether I can make it.
It would be great if we could meet up again.
I think I will be at the european flightsim show again, but do not
know yet when it will be. AFAIK, it is the biggest flight sim trade
show in the world. Last year, it was in Birmingham on the 5th o
I agree that 3D is the way to go. Like David says, all the 3D polys in
the scene can of course be textured. We (BDG) use a resolution of
512x512 pixels for the textures of each of the main displays (art.
horizon, airspeed, VSI, boost gauge etc). The texture includes things
like the bezel, it would
I am probably WAY too late, but FWIW, you can buy a Bo105 plan here:
http://www.airpictorial.com/acatalog/Online_Shop_Germany_14.html
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flig
Do you use BMP textures?
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Hi
I do not think it's a problem with the normal.
Like someone else hinted, it might be the specular exponent.
Unfortunately, I do not rememebr a good value, but I think one of the
three numbers 1,3,10 should be good. So, if you try the three one
after the other, maybe with an ascii editor in your
Hi,
>They have mentioned FlightGear as a candidate simply for the reason that it
>can be modified and changed to do whatever we want it to do. No restrictions
>on functionality.
Yes, that's the advantage of open source. BTW, I have lately heard
people call Targetware and MSFS/CFS open source be
SUPERB!!
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Sorry that my email was not clear. The only thing I would implement (at
least in the short term) is that PLIB ignores this token. So, it would
hopefully be quite trivial to do; I do not have time for more right now
anyway.
However, like you also say, I do think this would also be a good thing.
It
Innis Cunningham wrote:
> FATAL: ac to gl: unrecognised token ' crease 45.'.
So, in the new AC3D version, they added a so called "token". This means
that the new version saves some additional info that the old version
does not. Since PLIB does not (yet ;-)) know about this, PLIB throws
the a
>just want FlightGear to have its planes :).
If you want me to, I can have a look whether there is a Harrier for
MSFS/CFS that we could technically use (then we would have to ask for
permission).
>Plenty of planes to last quite some time (no Spitfire yet for
>instance...).
I think there is no
>- 0.01f, /* DISTANCE_SLOP = One centimeter */
>+ 0.001f, /* DISTANCE_SLOP = One millimeter */
Done. Sorry it took so long, but when I wanted to do it I saw my last
Windos reinstall :-( had clobbered my WinCVS access to Sourceforge.
>Thanks,
>
>Jim
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
_
>On Monday 06 October 2003 11:26, Tim Kober wrote:
>> Hi members,
>>
>> I am a new to this list and have a tricky problem: is there a
>> workaround to convert or extract DEM-Information from .bgl-Files of
>> Microsoft or mesh data from Lagos .bgl.-files? A conversion to another
>> file format (rea
Curt wrote:
>This is another step towards making aircraft
>self contained in their own subdirectory. The end goals is to be able
>to install / remove / distribute aircraft that are entirely contained
>in their own subdirectory tree making things easier on everyone
>[hopefully]. :-)
Sounds good :
David wrote:
> > I plan on doing a flight in the UK in summer as well, probably with a
> > Tiger Moth. You can do this without any flying license.
>
>Really? In Canada, you need a license even for an ultralight or a
>glider.
I probably formulated that very badly - it is like the introductory
fli
Excellent answers already!
Dave, you did not say what you want to fly?
I plan on doing a flight in the UK in summer as well, probably with a
Tiger Moth. You can do this without any flying license. If you search
for "Tiger Moth" and lesson or similar words, you will find several
operators offering
>I haven't been able to find documentation on what is
>or is not supported in PLib I just tried several
>models and found out.
See the table at bottom of this page:
http://plib.sourceforge.net/ssg/non_class.html
>
>Erez
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightge
A very sad day indeed :-(. Our thoughts are with you, especially
relatives and those connected to the Shuttle.
Tony wrote:
>I find it a little hard to believe that a piece of insulation could have
>such an effect. Those tiles are designed to be impact tolerant and it
>seemed clear from the pres
I also compiled the CVS version with MSVC and got the ufo to work.
Thanks to Geoff for his posts, they helped.
Geoff asked:
>Metakit and zlib went smoothly ... although
>my WinZip 8 refuses to unzip the current cvs'ed
>gz files in src-libs! Do others have this
>problem?
Yes, same here.
Also, I
Christian wrote:
>Didn't someone use PPE for this?
Yes, that was me.
You click somewhere and then get the coordinates. Also, you can add an
object that is automatically rotated so that it points up (the up
direction is often not axis paralell) and then have dials so you can
rotate it further, es
Geoff wrote:
>I was getting lockups in some games and fgfs before making my memory
>timings a bit more conservative, though it had passed memtest86
>previously. Haven't had a lockup for weeks now.
Interesting. You are speaking about the timings of the main memory,
correct? Did the problems you h
>Yes that's right. Moving individual vertices would of course be ideal,
PLIB is AFAIK able to do that with a technique called tweening. There
is even an example of it, where a ball is tweened to a star and vice
versa.
>Best,
>
>Jim
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Great!
I tested the BGL loader only a bit. Most of the time it works *GREAT*.
I will post some screenshots once I have time. I would be good
to have some for the PLIB and FGFS websites.
However, I also got some crashes. From avsim.com, get eddt2k_v2.zip.
It says: "FATAL: [ssgLoadBGL] Op-code ou
FWIW, FYI:
http://www.therealcockpit.com/main/index.php
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>Yes, I've had this discussion as well. The sun should stop being a
>light source once it's, say, 15-30 deg below the horizon.
IMHO it should be possible to have different rendering parameters for
the aircraft than for the rest of the scenery, for example by having
it in its own tree. Then, yo
>Realistic night lighting would be great.
I know how MSFS nightlighting works (Its fairly trivial), so if we
could change the lighting parameters for the 3D model only (I guess we
do not want MSFS lighting for the rest), we could have night-lit
aircraft. Often, this looks really great, I experi
BTW, For a 3D 747 model, see also
http://wolfram.kuss.bei.t-online.de/FGFS1/FGFS1.htm
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Interesting.
I have looked into the EULA, but not yet the docu iteself.
The EULA says:
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights:
Software Product. You may install and use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on an
unlimited number of computers, including workstations, termina
>I'd suggest that we not cause a fatal
>error on models that are not shipped in the base package? Or possibly,
>just don't cause a fatal error when any model fails to load.
In PLIB's UL package there is a function
bool ulFileExists ( const char *fileName ) ;
So, it could be as easy as (pseudoc
Very interesting link!
I have to say I did nmot like the www.cs.unc.edu clouds very much, the
screenshots looked good, but the demo showed the problems.
Off course it may be the same for this paper, often clouds look better
in single screenshots than in a moving simulator, looking at them from
a
Andy Ross wrote:
>Wolfram Kuss wrote:
>> Andy Ross wrote:
>> > You could also experiment with turning off backface culling instead
>> > of rendering two quads for each direction. In principle, it should
>> > be faster. In practice, it's proba
Use billboarded trees, especially when they rotate around z only, very
careful. The funnniest sight I ever had in a flight sim was when
I flew directly over a forrest of billboarded trees and (in outside
view) looked straight down. You get concentric tree rings that move
along at the speed of the
Jim wrote:
>> I've been thinking about that: how about not at the top, but halfway?
>> Essentially, you'd have the XY, YZ, and XZ planes, one unit wide, all
>> intersecting at the origin. Is that clear?
Yes. You want to make the horizontal polygon at the largest extension
of the leaf canopy. Thi
Andy wrote:
>Also, that's an awfully small texture. While it's good to not waste
>space, this thing is tiny -- one eighth the size of a single panel
>instrument's face. IMHO, it would look much better at 128x256 or so,
>with no measurable loss of performance.
I agree. Some modders I know use o
Try:
a) export ASE or 3DS from 3DS Max 3 into flightgear (maybe look at it
in PPE, if it looks good in that, it should look good in FlightGear as
well).
b) export 3DS from 3DS Max 3 and use the newest gmax (version 1.1),
that should IIRC be able to read that.
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Matt.
>
B
Interesting link. Still, I tried the MakeMDl that comes with MSFS 2002
Pro some time ago without success. The *.MDL it writes is too
different, it is a new version. You might have luck with middleman,
which might enable you to "intercept" the *.x file that gmax gives to
MakeMDL. I did not try that
Jim wrote:
>Well I've been working on an interior for the U3-A for a while and have gotten
>to the point where it isn't too embarassing to reveal what it looks like.
>
>http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c310-cockpit-1.png
>http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/c310-cockpit-2.png
>
>The cockpit was made by
Jon wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:45:47 -0400
> "Paul Deppe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Windoze developers - What tool(s) are you guys using to
>>edit .rgb files?
>
>
>IIRC, won't Gimp for Win32 handle those?
Yes, it does.
>Jon
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
__
Jon wrote:
>When I was taking lessons some twenty
>years ago one thing the instructor did was to put a hood on me so I could
>only see the instruments. What he did next I am not quite sure, but he was
>trying to disorient me. Then he told me to level out and fly to a heading
>at an altitude. I sh
>The bigger problem, I suspect, will be main memory (or maybe disk
>bandwidth). An impostor scheme is going to be really tile hungry --
>constantly dragging tiles off of disk, rendering them into textures,
>and forgetting about them.
I know a sim that does what Norman suggest and it does not s
David wrote:
>Wolfram mentioned that GMAX-exported models don't work with PLIB
>anyway.
Yes, you can not load the gmax generated MDLs. You can try to use
Quake models as intermdediary file or maybe with Middleman
http://takeoff.to/landing
you could get an *.x file. I have not had time to try e
David wrote:
>I get confused about what MDL formats plib does and does not support.
We can import almost any MSFS *.MDL model - if it has not been
generated by gmax. I created a simply cylinder with gmax and tried to
import it into PLIB and failed. I also tried the one gmax generated
airplane I
No. You could *try* to use tempest to export it as quake model and
then convert that, but AFAIK no one has tried that yet.
If you create the airplane with FSDS, then it works.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
David wrote:
>Norman Vine writes:
>
> > Well the Mouse code certainly could but let's leave that alone
> > as I REALLY don't want the Mouse reading properties :-)
>
>Not read them, but set them. It wouldn't much matter if the mouse
>code called
>
> globals->get_current_view()->set_orientation_o
Norman wrote:
>>The resulting matrix, far from being view-only, in fact includes the
>>global orientation as well.
>
>Again the 'test_matrix' or something like it should probably become
>the ''resultant of all the user inputs on the view" note this had NO
>global orientation in it nor should i
David wrote:
>Wolfram Kuss writes:
>
> > The XML files get IMVHO more and more confusing.
>
>I think that it would be more accurate to say that FlightGear is
>getting more sophisticated -- there's more to learn if you want to
>customize things, but that's only
John wrote:
>set == set of components,
Ah! Ok, I should have realised that.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Sounds like a worth while (sp?) project!
The XML files get IMVHO more and more confusing.
Maybe lets do the big reorg that Dave speaks about first, with the
hope that things won't change often afterwards. When doing the python
scripts to generate the very very rudimentary plane xmls on my website
FWIW (probably not much):
I think you need the Mesa or OpenGL and glut *developer* package (is
that the word?). In the packet manager or somewhere there is a huge
list of things you can check and you should probably tell the SuSE
packet manager to install it for you. I do not think it is a path
pr
I have worked on the FGFS 3D models and model conversion.
Unfortunately, several problems cropped up, slowing me down, but I
fixed moth now. Everything is still a bit unclean (no identation in
XML files, offsets in two xml files etc), but it works on my computer
;-) and I want people to test it an
Michael wrote:
>If anyone has them, I'd like to get publicly released 3D models for:
>- Wright Flyer (I have one, but we have not yet got permission to give it out)
>- SGS 1-36
>- Pioneer UAV
>- Marchetti S-211
>- Learjet 24
>- Piper Cherokee
>
Wright flyer: You can use the one from www.flightsi
>Where can I get the 3D models with .3ds format? or how can I translate them to .3ds?
>Is there anyone convert the model of the Pioneer UAV into the JSBSim format?
I found that almost any conversion can be done with PPE and 3D
Exploration. Do you have a Pioneer UAV 3D model?
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
_
David wrote:
>No, it's a 1600x1200 LCD trying to do 1024x768. Unlike CRTs, LCDs
>have a fixed number of pixels, so they have to double or leave out
>individual pixels when changing resolutions. The picture is clearer
>in some ways when I change FLY! to 800x600, but now I've lost 75% of
>my reso
Jim wrote:
>Fly! is a 3D cockpit. I was talking about usability, and IMHO it is a more
>usable panel because of its inaccurate eye point when in use. Just as the
>panel disappears when you use the mouse scrolling and reappears with a click,
>it'd be easy enough to snap to an operational centere
I do not own Fly!, so I can not comment on it.
>It also appears that the
>perspective is not consistant with the exterior view angle. In some cases it
>makes sense to do this so that you can see the panel pretty much straight on
>(necessary to read the gauges) and be able to see the runway well.
Jim wrote:
>While this is nice to have for some limited purpose, it adds nothing to
>the realism of the simulator from the perspective of the person flying the
>sim.
I think more people use flight sims for fun or entertainment than for
serious uses. Including me, although I am a pilot.
But lets
I agree, full 3D is the way new sims work and FGFS should have that as
well and not implement now a feature that was state of the art some
years ago. It is easy to make the yoke optional. While modelling the
cockpit I would strive for realism and then let FGFS disable it if the
user wants. There m
Andy wrote:
>Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Noticed that the c310 has its wheels below pavement. Is it ok to
> > readjust the models for a recent change or is this a temporary? Or am
> > I the only one
>
>Which FDM? There are three (count 'em) descriptions of where the
>Cessna 310 wheels are relative t
Curt wrote:
> > Perhaps we need to do a separate pass for rendering the 3d model and
> > change the near clip plane just for that portion of the rendering.
Yes. That should be easy to do. BoB does it as well, they even have 3
or 4 different parts of the geometry that they render with 3 or 4
diff
There is a binary to ascii converter named btg2atg (atg = ascii terra
gear, btg = binary terra gear), but not vice versa, at least not that
I know of.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mail
I need a fairly current windows binary. If I understand David
correctly, then I can no longer set the pitch-offset and z-offset via
parameters to fgfs, so I have to create a (temporary) XML file.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMA
Curt asked:
>Is anyone still using this ancient file format?
Yes.
>Does anyone have any objections to ending support
>in flightgear for it?
Is it easy to create a atg2btg converter (I only have btg2atg) or does
someone write a btg importer/exporter to plib? If so, then it is
completely ok b
Until now I calculated the pitch-offset as fuselageAngle-5. This seems
to have changed to fuselageAngle, correct? The z-offset was calculated
until now by heightCoG-1.61. Is the "magic number" 1.61 still there?
bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel ma
What does the file "version" contain between official versions?
BTW, Norman, do you have a compiled exe of the current cvs
or do you plan to do one shortly?
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.o
Very nice and helpful, thanks. BTW, the rotation and translation of
the model can bee found via QHull (convex hull, see my homepage), but
that is a package you have to install first.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David wrote:
>For example, the
>program spent 2.95% of its time in ssgVtxTable::getNumVertices,
This simply calls getNum of the list, which simply returns a member
variable:
int getNum (void) { return total ; }
See ssg.h.
>David
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
_
David wrote:
>Wolfram Kuss writes:
>
> > What do you suggest that I do to the models on my homepage?
>
>If I recall correctly, the models on your page are already oriented
>correctly; if so, then they should continue to work fine. You don't
>need to write any XML u
What do you suggest that I do to the models on my homepage?
Is it somehow possible to create a model that works with the old and
the new FGFS version?
I fear you will tell me to use XML instead of Python?
Maybe use both and generate a XML on the fly by Python? Can I easily
find out what version o
Andy wrote:
>David Megginson wrote:
> > In JSBSim, we're just summing up the trim and elevator and clamping to
> > the elevator range -- I don't know if that's right, but it doesn't
> > seem to bother most people.
>
>That's exactly what YASim does, too.
Yes, Rowan's BoB and MA do the same.
By
These are the output names you may find in the current MDL loader:
"rudder", "elevator", "ailerons", "flaps", "gear", "spoilers",
"propeller"
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/list
Jon wrote:
>There is one in the works for JSBSim, at least
Ah - excellent news!
>Jon
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
David wrote:
>3. Concentrate on JSBSim and YASim for the FDM integration at first.
I still think sailing planes need a good weather database the most.
While JSBSim and YASim may be the best flight models we have
generally, AFAIK neither JSBSim nor YASim has a sailing plane (in the
works).
>All
Yes, see also:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/bruchversuch-i.mpg
There is also a text about this test somewhere (IIRC, in German).
One interesting thing was that they were glad the wing broke above the
legal requirement - but not much. If it had broken much above the
requirement, they would have h
[Excellent idea from Alex snipped]
>> Is there any reason to uninstall a plane? Not for me, but some user
>> (read "not developer")might have a reason.
Yes, there is. Keep in mind different people use a flightsim
completely different.
Some want to fly a plane as realistically as possible, mayb
John wrote:
> I'd like to do a reorg of the directory
>structure after the release.
Sounds good to me.
Bye bye,
Wolfram.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Interesting discussion.
Some time ago, a well known and very good hang gliding pilot, Mark
"Hollywood" Champlin (sp?), started flying rigid wings. To familiarize
himself with the different behaviour (it is almost impossible to spin
a HG), he did some "safety training". When recovering from a spin
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
