On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote:
> The redistributors either have
> to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
> README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
> that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think the user community will stomp out that kind of
> > > thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks
> > > very newbie and shareware-i
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the authors released their work as GPL those "low lifes" wouldn't even
> > have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
> > then?
>
> The authors would have no recourse then.
Note tha
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
> > aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
> > people who want to ensure
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> If the authors released their work as GPL those "low lifes" wouldn't even
> have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
> then?
>
> Paul
>
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free
> contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them
> onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.
>
> This has happened se
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else f
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing
> > pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very
> > newbie and shareware-ish.
> Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
> st
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100
Oliver C. wrote:
>
> Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for
> FlightGear that are not free.
>
> Here's the reason why:
> Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear
> website could lead to a common behavi
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
> The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
> how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
> time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
> is then used by someone else for their own pr
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
> aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
> people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
> free beer) but also wa
Chris Metzler wrote:
> > p51d - A classic WWII fighter ... also well done. Full 3d cockpit.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what remains to be done with the Spitfire? If
> it's in production, are there any reasons to favor it over the P-51,
> or vice versa?
>
Nothing major remains to be done, alt
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 19:41, David Megginson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
> > aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
> > people who want to ensure
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
> aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
> people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
> free beer) but also want to mak
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:21, Oliver C. wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > Durk Talsma wrote:
> > >Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out
> > > there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss.
> > > Would it be an idea to add a link
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100, Oliver wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts
> and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website.
..amen!
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...wi
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>
> 737 - large commercial jet. Reasonably well done. Flies pretty well.
> Nice 2d panel with some simple glass elements.
I like the 737 -- I've probably spent as much time with it as I have
with the c172. I'm sure it's giving me bad hab
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Durk Talsma wrote:
> >Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
> >made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
> >these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
> >
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities.
"Jim Wilson" wrote:
> [...] It would be very nice to have a civilian c310 (maybe
> we should just repaint the u3a and call it a c310b?).
To my knowledge there _is_ a civilian C310, at least there used to be
one - no idea if it's still present,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just sel
"Curtis L. Olson" said:
> Christian Mayer wrote:
>
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >the web page is comming along nicely!
> >
> >There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
> >normal sized picture should open.
> >
> >It also would
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:07:22 -, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also I think I would have considered cutting the c310, even though it
> is the only light twin. The u3a cockpit was my very first 3D project and it
> really isn't too spiffy. It would be very nice to have a civilian c310
"Curtis L. Olson" said:
> I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up,
> but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must
> be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download
> page, there's no need to include every aircraft
David Megginson wrote:
> I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
Quoting Curt:
> > bo105 - I could say a lot of nice things, but why bother, it's our
> > only helicopter so it has to be included anyway.
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who it
David Megginson wrote:
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
Good point.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c496
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:02:20 +0100, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that we have an aircraft download page I think that should be all
> that gets included.
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
All the best,
David
--
http://www.megginson.com/
___
David Megginson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
c172, c172-le, c172p, c172r, c172x - I don't have the energy to sort out
the dependencies so throw it all in.
We should try to sort them out and include just the C172p by default
-- in any case,
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the web page is comming along nicely!
>
> There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
> normal sized picture should open.
>
> It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
> pl
> > c172, c172-le, c172p, c172r, c172x - I don't have the energy to sort
> > out the dependencies so throw it all in.
The C-172X is purely a development model It should definitely NOT be released.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-deve
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> c172, c172-le, c172p, c172r, c172x - I don't have the energy to sort out
> the dependencies so throw it all in.
We should try to sort them out and include just the C172p by default
-- in any case, you should be able
I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up,
but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must
be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download
page, there's no need to include every aircraft in the base distribution.
I wen
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the web page is comming along nicely!
>
> There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
> normal sized picture should open.
>
> It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
> pl
Christian Mayer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the web page is comming along nicely!
There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
normal sized picture should open.
It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
plane as
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the web page is comming along nicely!
>
> There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
> normal sized picture should open.
>
> It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
> pl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the web page is comming along nicely!
There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
normal sized picture should open.
It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
plane as well.
CU,
Christi
Josh Babcock wrote:
... snip ...
> >
> > The downside would be that an installer/un-installer would become
> > a necessity.
>
> Not necessarily. At run time, FG could look for info in each aircraft's
> set
> file that names objects available for export and their paths relative to
> the set
>
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Monday 22 November 2004 22:43, Boris Koenig wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable.
If I did get everything right, the major problem is that
aircraft rely on instruments and other devices that reside in
abitrary locations within t
Here are my suggestions:
In the aircraft's directory (meaning directory such as
$FG_ROOT/data/Aircraft/MD11/), there should be a directory named "textures"
where all the textures for that aircraft reside. This should allow the
aircraft's home directroy to stay organized as more liveries are ad
I think the suggestions are getting more complicated than Curt had envisioned.
I think a hierarchy such as that which Curt mentioned makes a lot of sense.
Beyond that,
Dave Culp and I discussed at one point how nice it would be if one could simply
grab an
aircraft tar file that contained everyth
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 00:06, Boris Koenig wrote:
> Lee Elliott wrote:
> > The downside would be that an installer/un-installer would
> > become a necessity.
>
> I think that issue was discussed some time ago on the user
> list ?
>
> Probably, it would already be sufficient to simply package
>
Lee Elliott wrote:
The downside would be that an installer/un-installer would become
a necessity.
I think that issue was discussed some time ago on the user list ?
Probably, it would already be sufficient to simply package aircraft
folders as tar archives in order to simplify installation ?
If I a
On Monday 22 November 2004 22:43, Boris Koenig wrote:
> Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable.
>
> If I did get everything right, the major problem is that
> aircraft rely on instruments and other devices that reside in
> abitrary locations within the $F
Giles Robertson wrote:
That's much neater than what I suggested. How many of these variables do
we need so that the directory for the a/c does not have to be a
subdirectory of $FG_ROOT?
I haven't yet really looked into aircraft design/development, so
I cannot really comment on the paths that are fr
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think step #1 needs to be making aircraft relocatable.
If I did get everything right, the major problem is that aircraft
rely on instruments and other devices that reside in abitrary locations
within the $FG_ROOT directory structure.
As a workaround it might really be alrea
tGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft directory structure
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to
> stuff as "../../../Instruments/hsi.xml" etc. If we move an aircraft
one
> directory level de
Giles Robertson wrote:
Two points:
1) Relative vs. Absolute links. Relative links makes it tricky, to say
the least, to shift a/c around (though I think I have a relative -->
absolute python function kicking around somewhere; it's not hard). I can
recall some dislike of absolute links. In some ways
untars an update - bingo, he has two versions of the 737
--- keeping track of this over time could be difficult)
It's your two cents now.
Giles Robertson
-Original Message-
From: Curtis L. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 November 2004 21:30
To: FlightGear developers disc
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:29:36 -0600
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
I don't think we need to kill ourselves trying to be overly
flexible. I think it's worth having a central repository of commonly
used items (engines, instruments, etc.) An aircraft could refer t
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
However, as things stand right now. We have oodles of references to
stuff as "../../../Instruments/hsi.xml" etc. If we move an aircraft one
directory level deeper (or more) all those relative references break. :-(
Well, this is then about relative paths, it could probably
Jon S Berndt wrote:
From a JSBSim FDM point of view, I've been giving this some thought
with respect to standalone JSBSim, as well. There ought to be more
flexibility in this system. We have aircraft, engines, control
systems, etc. files. Some of them we might tend to want to be
interchangeable
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:02:09 -0600
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How hard would it be to allow aircraft to live in an arbitrary
structure underneath data/Aircraft?
From a JSBSim FDM point of view, I've been giving this some thought
with respect to standalone JSBSim, as well. There
How hard would it be to allow aircraft to live in an arbitrary structure
underneath data/Aircraft?
Right now, I believe that because of the way we've set up the relative
path handling of properties and associated files, all aircraft must live
side by side in data/Aircraft with no ability to cre
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote:
> ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Misc_maf/carrier
>
> (Many thanks to Martin Spott for the webspace!)
This is not _my_ webspace, I'm simply the guy who is being left alone
with the job to maintain the university FTP-Server ;-)
Finally this leaves the decision up t
Hi,
I have now the FDM side of an aircraft carrier set up.
The implementation uses a local cache of the scene graph to do intersection
tests. This can then be done per gear/hook/lauchbar.
Also the required aircraft carrier hardware will show up in this cache and can
provide the required inform
David Megginson wrote:
David Culp wrote:
The effect looks very exaggerated, probably because it happens too
quickly.
On the contrary -- we interpolate smoothly between layers, I think, so
the wind changes fairly gradually. Real wind shear can be much more
dramatic.
Right ... but since we ofte
David Culp wrote:
The effect looks very exaggerated, probably because it happens too quickly.
On the contrary -- we interpolate smoothly between layers, I think, so the
wind changes fairly gradually. Real wind shear can be much more dramatic.
All the best,
David
_
Andy Ross wrote:
David Culp wrote:
> There have been reports of "rudder kick" when climbing through
> atmosphere layers, which might be the same problem you're
> seeing. I don't think it was ever resolved though.
I didn't think it was a bug. That's just wind shear, isn't it?
I always wondered wh
> There have been reports of "rudder kick" when climbing through
> > atmosphere layers, which might be the same problem you're
> > seeing. I don't think it was ever resolved though.
>
> I didn't think it was a bug. That's just wind shear, isn't it?
The effect looks very exaggerated, probabl
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
I have been lurking on this list for a while but now I have something to
report.
Fly just about any JSBsim or Yasim model (not UFO or UINC) get the plane
level, straight and stable with or without the AP.
AFAI can tell it happens on all JSB and YASIM models t
David Culp wrote:
> There have been reports of "rudder kick" when climbing through
> atmosphere layers, which might be the same problem you're
> seeing. I don't think it was ever resolved though.
I didn't think it was a bug. That's just wind shear, isn't it?
Andy
_
Ed Sirett wrote:
I have been lurking on this list for a while but now I have something to
report.
Fly just about any JSBsim or Yasim model (not UFO or UINC) get the plane
level, straight and stable with or without the AP.
AFAI can tell it happens on all JSB and YASIM models that you can get
airbo
Ed Sirett wrote:
I have been lurking on this list for a while but now I have something to
report.
Fly just about any JSBsim or Yasim model (not UFO or UINC) get the plane
level, straight and stable with or without the AP.
AFAI can tell it happens on all JSB and YASIM models that you can get
airbo
> I have been lurking on this list for a while but now I have something to
> report.
>
> Fly just about any JSBsim or Yasim model (not UFO or UINC) get the plane
> level, straight and stable with or without the AP.
> AFAI can tell it happens on all JSB and YASIM models that you can get
> airborne.
I have been lurking on this list for a while but now I have something to
report.
Fly just about any JSBsim or Yasim model (not UFO or UINC) get the plane
level, straight and stable with or without the AP.
AFAI can tell it happens on all JSB and YASIM models that you can get
airborne.
Now press
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote:
Hi,
For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various
aircraft, please take a look at:
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm
For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10.
Excellent source of
Realsoft3D V4.5 (Linux beta) A lot of people think that it has a steep
learning curve but personally I find it both logical and consistent.
http://www.realsoft.com
I then export the geometry in .OBJ format (using a free plug-in) for import
into AC3D for texturing (textures are done in the Gimp
Lee,
Just curious: what program do you use to model the aircrafts.
Regards,
Ampere
On April 19, 2004 08:02 pm, Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various
> > aircraft, please take a
On Monday 19 April 2004 14:52, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various
> aircraft, please take a look at:
> http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm
>
> For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10.
>
> Erik
>
Excellent source
Hi,
For everyone interested in photos revealing a lot of detail of various
aircraft, please take a look at:
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/walk.htm
For Lee Elliot, it also contains 13 sections for the A-10.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[E
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:32:37 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Let me re-phrase that. At the moment the jet heat plumes are only eye
> candy. There is no underlying physics. If or when we get around to the
..I like the when. ;-)
> thermodynamics etc., we can model heat plu
Arnt Karlsen said
> >
> >
> > Richard Keech
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote:
> > >
> > > > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet
> > > > engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has.
> > >
> > > The Hunter in FlightGear d
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:19:13 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Richard Keech
> >
> > On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote:
> >
> > > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet
> > > engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Comb
Richard Keech
>
> On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote:
>
> > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet
> > engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has.
>
> The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat
> blur. However, it terminat
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote:
> An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet engines
> along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has.
The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat blur.
However, it terminates suddenly a couple of aircraft len
Andy Ross said:
> Gene Buckle wrote:
> > Andy Ross wrote:
> > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...]
> >
> > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge
> > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for
> > it.
>
> It's all eye candy, no meat.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:06:27 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfram Kuss) wrote:
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.
The one we have now doesn't seem too bad, but the skins n
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
> Gene Buckle wrote:
> > Andy Ross wrote:
> > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...]
> >
> > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge
> > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for
> > it.
>
> It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft,
Gene Buckle wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...]
>
> I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge
> following that's been making new aircraft and other things for
> it.
It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits
> There was an otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game
> released about a year ago that did contrails really well. You
> could finish a dogfight and look up to see bright, looping
> contrail traces of the fight in the sky.
>
I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge followin
Andy Ross wrote:
- no jetstream visible
I assume this means contrails? (The "jet stream" normally refers
to the strong west winds above the tropopause in the middle
latitudes of the northern hemisphere).
... which is often, roughly, the boundary between cold air from the pole and
warm air from t
Ilja Moderau wrote:
> - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound
> - no cockpit light at night visible
These two are relatively easy. The "outside" sound handling will
probably require some code, but nothing difficult.
> - no jetstream visible
I assume this means contra
> > > The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_
> > > circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for
> > > the F-16.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :)
>
> You can see the leading edge slats responding t
Ilja Moderau wrote:
I read in the Aircraft Todo Lists of some Aircrafts:
- no jetstream visible
- engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound
- no cockpit light at night visible
- engines can't be turned off
Are such things possible in FlightGear?
Jetstream can be kludged
Jon Berndt wrote:
Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here
was the g-limiter ...
No, it was the pilot. :-(
Eh, yes, you're right.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman
> > You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying
> to fulfill
> > the pilot's wish here:
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg
> >
> > You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is
the
> > highest lift configuration the F-16 has in thi
I read in the Aircraft Todo Lists of some Aircrafts:
- no jetstream visible
- engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound
- no cockpit light at night visible
- engines can't be turned off
Are such things possible in FlightGear?
-
Jon Berndt wrote:
The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_
circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for
the F-16.
Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :)
You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying
> > The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_
> > circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for
> > the F-16.
> >
>
> Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :)
You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS tryin
> Gene Buckle wrote:
>
> > I have a hard time with the computer controlled flap thing. :) I know
> > that with every jet I've studied, you can manually select the trailing
> > edge flap position. This does not hold true for the leading edge flap
> > though (on those jets that have them).
>
>
> Th
Gene Buckle wrote:
I have a hard time with the computer controlled flap thing. :) I know
that with every jet I've studied, you can manually select the trailing
edge flap position. This does not hold true for the leading edge flap
though (on those jets that have them).
The FC adjusts the flap s
> > +++
> > > Outside:
> > > - flaps are in wrong position by default after starting flightgear
> > > - flaps can't be triggered
> >
> > This is because flaps are flight computer controlled for the F-16. I
> > suspect that about every (military) aircraft designed after the F-16
> > does
On Sunday 11 April 2004 09:52, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> I've added a few
> comments to the entries for the Hunter and Seahawk.
Thanks a lot.
Best Regards,
Oliver C.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman
On Sunday 11 April 2004 08:33, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed the just updated Aircraft Todo List at:
> http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Aircraft%20Todo%20List&wikiid=2418&wpi
>d=142747
>
Thanks, for having a look on the todo-list.
I also sent this todo-list to the flightgear-mai
Erik Hofman wrote
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed the just updated Aircraft Todo List at:
> http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Aircraft%20Todo%20List&wi
> kiid=2418&wpid=142747
>
> There are a couple of issues for the F-16 which I want to
> address here:
>
> >
> ++
Hi,
I just noticed the just updated Aircraft Todo List at:
http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?doc=Aircraft%20Todo%20List&wikiid=2418&wpid=142747
There are a couple of issues for the F-16 which I want to address here:
+
f16
Looking closely at the output of --show-aircraft, it appears
that some aircraft are not having a description, and as such,
do not appear in the fgrun aircraft viewer, making them
unavailable for fgrun users. These aircraft are :
* a10-yasim
* a10cl-yasim
* a10fl-yasim
* a10wl-yasim
* an225-
"Curtis L. Olson" said:
> Lee Elliott would like to change some of the directory names for his
> designs in CVS. CVS isn't really set up to handle this sort of thing
> cleanly. I can rename the directory in CVS and a "cvs update -d" will
> pull the new information, but will also choke on tryi
Lee Elliott would like to change some of the directory names for his
designs in CVS. CVS isn't really set up to handle this sort of thing
cleanly. I can rename the directory in CVS and a "cvs update -d" will
pull the new information, but will also choke on trying to find the old
directory nam
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 13:35, Jon Berndt wrote:
> For JSBSim some of us are thinking of release notes for each aircraft
> flight model we have available. This would describe notes on the flight
> model, sources, mention the 3D model (or lack of one), and flight hints,
> etc. (P-Factor, what's m
101 - 200 of 338 matches
Mail list logo
