On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is
very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about
including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things
that
David Megginson said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is
very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about
including multiple aircraft is you can see some
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas
don't cover).
Best,
Jim
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir
Arthur C Clarke.
Dave Martin
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas
don't cover).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir
Arthur C Clarke.
Ok
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
Any sufficiently
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming
at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model.
... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for
Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:40 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic
flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as
an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2
Curtis L. Olson said:
The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance,
(e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior
at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide
too
much (excessive lift/insufficient
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic.
Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was
claiming
at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model.
... which I did. I
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the
beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers
(I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round
Andy made some code
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:01, Dave Martin wrote:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the
beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust
numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part
David Luff said:
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic.
Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was
claiming
at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:57, David Megginson wrote:
You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to
like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package.
You should try helping clueless windows users to install scenery files in the
IRC channel sometime. A lot
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure
compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected
GS of 270kts.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Yes, you have to
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote:
We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the
lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't
spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about
(flight modeling). This isn't to
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I
*think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check)
I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some
ASIs do have a
On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote:
David Luff said:
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack
some magic.
Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S.
Berdnt was
claiming
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 20:10, David Megginson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI
because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check)
I'd be pretty incredibly
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 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:
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
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 its
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 in
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
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
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
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, although,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
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
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:53:33 -0500, Josh Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to see a golden age or WWII multi engine, but I guess the DC3 isn't
ready for prime time yet. I'm also *cough* working on a B29, but I haven't
touched it in months. I was in the middle of getting a Yasim
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 01:57, David Megginson wrote:
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings,
etc., we could have it looking quite
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:57:13 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more in proportion with the C-172, and with a few buildings,
etc., we could have it looking
David Megginson wrote:
You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to
like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package.
In combination with this change, I'd like us to start thinking about
changing the starting airport to Palo Alto (KPAO) rather than KSFO.
It's more
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
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 to
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
