Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..well, all good jokes can't come up with a potential like the
> http://gpgpu.org; your average recent GPU chews code 6 times
> faster than your average CPU. So, we can use part of the GPU
> to show pretty pictures, and the remainder, say "half", to say,
> triple FG framerate
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:05:26 +0100, Steven wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On January 1
On January 13, 2005 09:27 am, Christian Mayer wrote:
> The general wing geometry (i.e. the stuff you get from an 3-view) is one
> thing.
I don't use 3-view.
> The the real profile of the wing is crucial here - and it's
> AFAIK kept as an trade secret.
That depends on how old the plane is:
http:
On January 13, 2005 02:12 pm, Lee Elliott wrote:
> Any particular reason you think the problem is just due to
> laziness?
No no, I was just trying to say that individual model can be made to be
"watertight" if anyone decide to put one through those aerodynamic programs,
and he/she will have to cl
On Thursday 13 January 2005 14:27, Christian Mayer wrote:
> Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb:
> > On January 12, 2005 06:07 pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
> >>I see more problems with the correct shape of the wings. The
> >> models won't get it right and using just some NACA profiles
> >> won't work with th
On Thursday 13 January 2005 12:28, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines?
> >
> > Why not? It makes sense.
> >
> > As a classmate
On Thursday 13 January 2005 02:22, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> On January 12, 2005 04:10 pm, Wolfram Kuss wrote:
> > However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would
> > guess that far in excess of 90% of models are not. For
> > example, each edge needs to have two neighbour faces.
>
>
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:05:26 +0100, Steven wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
Andy Ross writes
I'm not saying this stuff is impossible; people have been designing
aircraft using CFD models for almost 20 years, and CPU cycles have
never been cheaper. But it's a lot more work than just feeding
c172.ac into a program and getting a working FDM configuration out the
other side
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steven Beeckman schrieb:
> Are there any decent books about those Navier-Stokes equations and how
> to implement them in C or java?
One description of Navier Stokes are at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations
there are also many many
Wolfram Kuss wrote:
> However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would
> guess that far in excess of 90% of models are not. For example,
> each edge needs to have two neighbour faces.
It's even worse than that. Real world aircraft performance is
sensitive to all sorts of details that a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb:
> On January 12, 2005 06:07 pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
>
>>I see more problems with the correct shape of the wings. The models
>>won't get it right and using just some NACA profiles won't work with the
>>higly optimized pr
Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On January 13, 2005 08:37 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> > I was referring to Graphics processing units.
> >
> > Am I missing something here? :-\
> >
> > Ampere
> Nevermind. I got confused again.
>
And I responded before I read this mail :/
Citeren "Ampere K. Hardraade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines
On January 13, 2005 08:37 am, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> I was referring to Graphics processing units.
>
> Am I missing something here? :-\
>
> Ampere
Nevermind. I got confused again.
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flight
On January 13, 2005 07:28 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines?
> >
> > Why not? It makes sense.
> >
> > As a classmate of mi
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:30:23 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..these guys use GPU's as math engines?
> Why not? It makes sense.
>
> As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip for matrix
> manipulations.
On January 12, 2005 08:18 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..these guys use GPU's as math engines?
Why not? It makes sense.
As a classmate of mine pointed out: the GPU is just a chip for matrix
manipulations.
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Fligh
On January 12, 2005 06:07 pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
> I see more problems with the correct shape of the wings. The models
> won't get it right and using just some NACA profiles won't work with the
> higly optimized profiles of modern aircrafts (like those from Airbus).
I am pretty confident that m
On January 12, 2005 04:10 pm, Wolfram Kuss wrote:
> However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would guess that
> far in excess of 90% of models are not. For example, each edge needs
> to have two neighbour faces.
The models can be made to be "watertight". People just need to get off th
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:06:12 +0100, Oliver wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In a german news page (http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2005/7690.html)
> i found an article about a software called OpenFOAM which was put
> under the GPL license a few days ago and can do the following:
>
> "The O
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:01:59 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Mayer wrote:
>
> > Nowadays you can solve navier stokes in real time in your graphics
> > hardware...
>
> as long as you don't need your graphics hardware for other
> purposes I think - like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wolfram Kuss schrieb:
> 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 gf
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:10:47 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfram Kuss) wrote:
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 nee
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
Christian Mayer wrote:
> Nowadays you can solve navier stokes in real time in your graphics
> hardware...
as long as you don't need your graphics hardware for other
purposes I think - like displaying FlightGear ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Spott schrieb:
> "Oliver C." wrote:
>
>
>>I read the word "turbulence" and thought that perhaps
>>this could be usefull somehow for flightgear or jsbsim but i am not shure
>>about that, so i mention it here maybe you know it better if this co
Martin Spott wrote:
"Oliver C." wrote:
I read the word "turbulence" and thought that perhaps
this could be usefull somehow for flightgear or jsbsim but i am not shure
about that, so i mention it here maybe you know it better if this could be
somehow usefull for flightgear/jsbsim.
Simulation of
"Oliver C." wrote:
> I read the word "turbulence" and thought that perhaps
> this could be usefull somehow for flightgear or jsbsim but i am not shure
> about that, so i mention it here maybe you know it better if this could be
> somehow usefull for flightgear/jsbsim.
Simulation of fluid dynami
In a german news page (http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2005/7690.html)
i found an article about a software called OpenFOAM which was put under the
GPL license a few days ago and can do the following:
"The OpenFOAM (Field Operation and Manipulation) software package can simulate
anything from compl
30 matches
Mail list logo
