On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:34:55PM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
Only by bugging Curt to make a new release. :)
Is CVS relatively stable (near releasability) at this time ?
To be fair, building FlightGear from CVS really is no harder than
building the source tarballs.
Its not really the building,
Jim Wilson writes:
Ok, yes as long as the origin is in sync, and the fdm rotates
correctly. Just the same if the FDM origin was at the
c.g. (geometry or gravity?) instead of the cockpit there would be a
better chance of actually having the thing on the runway.
The CG moves around quite
Tony Peden wrote:
BTW, you will rarely see the c.g. used as a reference point for
dimensions on aircraft. First of all, it moves in flight. Second of
all, it's very difficult to actually point to its location.
That's my intuition too. David is correct, though, that most
lightplane POH's use
--- Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
BTW, you will rarely see the c.g. used as a reference point for
dimensions on aircraft. First of all, it moves in flight. Second
of
all, it's very difficult to actually point to its location.
That's my intuition too. David is
In this case, the simplest solution is to bring up the 747 model in a
(registered) copy of AC3D, drag it around so the nose tip lies exactly
on the origin, and save it. I can do all but the last step. :)
I could do nthing - but the last step. AC3D on SGI IRIX is free and
unsupported - it has
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 3:14 pm, Jim Wilson wrote:
When the 3D model origin is set at the nose or cockpit, the aircraft is too
far back on the runway at startup. So far back that the main gear is not
on the pavement. It looks stupid. Even as it is currently, it sits too
far back. If
Jim Wilson wrote:
When the 3D model origin is set at the nose or cockpit, the aircraft
is too far back on the runway at startup. So far back that the main
gear is not on the pavement. It looks stupid.
Ah, now I think I understand what you mean. I agree, the model
placement looks dumb. But
I have been flying with the 747-yasim for short while now, and I also have a
few questions.
Is fuel consumption modeled in yasim, or will it ever be? Lots of fuel in
the tanks could also
cause problems with landing right? I have tried landing several times but
always bounce off
the runway.
Burrito Jack wrote:
Is fuel consumption modeled in yasim, or will it ever be?
Someday. :) Right now, you can use --prop:/sim/fuel-fraction=0.2 to
get an appropriate landing weight. Really, this would be very simple.
Like I've said, I'm lazy.
To be honest, I don't usually fly cross country in
burrito [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is fuel consumption modeled in yasim, or will it ever be? Lots of fuel in
the tanks could also
cause problems with landing right? I have tried landing several times but
always bounce off
the runway.
It should be possible to land even with ack! full tanks.
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I agree, we need a per-aircraft runway startup offset (which would
basically be the length of the fuselage). Alternatively, we could
pick the *tail* of the aircraft as the coordinate origin. That would
behave correctly under these conditions.
One
Jim Wilson writes:
One advantage of switching to the tail would be that just about any
aircraft would position reasonably on the runway without special
configuration. Don't know if there are any disadvantages.
I think that's the wrong reason to make the choice -- it's a permanent
kludge
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 09:24:43AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
Cool, someone's playing with the 747. This model hasn't had a lot of
tweaking yet beyond the engine thrust bugs that Jim Wilson dealt with
a few months back.
Hey, the 747 is the queen of the sky :-)
Does it model the thrust
Manuel Bessler wrote:
BTW: What is the difference between Speedbrakes and Spoilers?
Typically spoilers refer only to flaps on the top of a wing. They
spoil the lift generated and allow the plane to fly at a higher angle
of attack for the same lift, and thus descend more steeply (or remain
on
Cool, someone's playing with the 747. This model hasn't had a lot of
tweaking yet beyond the engine thrust bugs that Jim Wilson dealt with
a few months back.
Manual Bessler wrote:
Here are a few things I wanted to ask about the 747-yasim:
Does it model the thrust reversers ?
What about
Andy Ross writes:
And finally, I agree. The default gear damping is a little too light.
YASim computes a default damping coefficient automatically, based on
the weight of the plane and the placement of the gear. But it's not
going to work perfectly for all aircraft. There needs to be a
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Speaking of gear modeling in the 747-yasim, have you tried getting the
aircraft up to say 40kts. taxiing and then hit the brakes ... there is
clearly something going on with the 747 gear modeling that is not
physically possible ... best seen when viewed from the chase
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Speaking of gear modeling in the 747-yasim, have you tried getting the
aircraft up to say 40kts. taxiing and then hit the brakes ... there is
clearly something going on with the 747 gear modeling that is not
physically possible ... best seen when viewed from the chase
Andy Ross writes:
This is tedious to fix (for me, anyway -- I don't have a registered
AC3D copy that can save), so no one has bothered. There's also the
question of whether it should be fixed in the YASim file or the model
file. I contend that the nose is a much better origin, since a
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Speaking of gear modeling in the 747-yasim, have you tried getting the
aircraft up to say 40kts. taxiing and then hit the brakes ... there is
clearly something going on with the 747 gear modeling that is not
physically possible
Jim Wilson wrote:
It isn't tedious at all, we can offset the origin to where we want
without messing with the ac file *and* it won't affect the
animation.
Cool. Uh, how? :)
Having the FDM origin at the center of gravity should improve the
appearance of the 3D modeling since pitching of the
21 matches
Mail list logo
