http://www.plausible.org/andy/new_geodesy.tar.gz
Just some minor issues:
- the use of static is deprecated for module-local objects, anonymous
namespaces should be used instead.
- I'd prefer references over pointers. Also, don't pass doubles by
value but by const instead. This leaves
Gerhard Wesp wrote:
- the use of static is deprecated for module-local objects, anonymous
namespaces should be used instead.
Oh dear. Mild flame time. (Entirely irrelevant to the algorithms in
the new code, so uninterested folks can stop reading now. :)
I'm not big on C++ pedantry,
Alan King writes:
Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna
etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation
between the pedals 4 seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have
2 in and 2 out for the 4 total, but can easily shorten it up,
Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna
etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation
between the pedals 4 seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have
2 in and 2 out for the 4 total, but can easily shorten it up, feels
like I'd have a
On 12:42 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote:
Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna
etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation
between the pedals 4 seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have
2 in and 2 out for the 4 total, but can
Matthew Law wrote:
That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much throw is
available on his aircraft?
This is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure. I think of the rudder
pedals in terms of pressure rather than movement -- to get that in a
simulator cockpit, you'll
David Megginson wrote:
Matthew Law wrote:
That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much
throw is
available on his aircraft?
This is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure. I think of the rudder
pedals in terms of pressure rather than movement -- to get that in a
Alan King wrote:
Just a spring return to give some general feedback is all I'm planning
for now. Main use on a simulator is simply to seperate the controls to
the correct actions, don't see much point in going beyond that short of
doing a full cockpit simulation of a particular type, which
One more time
The command option to offset the pilots view does not appear to be working
in 0.9.3
Setting 'view-offset=LEFT' or using any other parameter (RIGHT, 50, -50,etc)
has no effect. Is anyone else seeing this problem?
Looking in options.cxx the property
On 14:52 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote:
Also I'm assuming the yoke on most planes has a bit more throw than
+-2, but that's about the limit of what's practical with my current
hardware so it'll probably do ok. I could get 6 travel or so max, just
gets a bit more trouble to do.
It's
David Megginson wrote:
Alan King wrote:
It depends on what you're doing. Control feedback is pretty critical
for basic stick-and-rudder flying (that's one of the reasons that flying
a plane in FlightGear is so much harder than in real life). For pure
recreation, or for instrument training,
Alan King writes:
Yes it is. But the control feedback in the simulator EXACTLY
matching real life is not critical. For that matter a Cessna rudder
probably doesn't exactly match a P-51 rudder either, but I have no
doubts that learning rudder on said Cessna prepares you for 80 or 90
Andy,
Why don't we go ahead and commit one of these since both sound a lot
better than what we have now. Then we could do some timing tests and
see if we need to consider trading precision for faster performance.
Regards,
Curt.
Andy Ross writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Yes, this was written
Matthew Law wrote:
On 14:52 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote:
Also I'm assuming the yoke on most planes has a bit more throw than
+-2, but that's about the limit of what's practical with my current
hardware so it'll probably do ok. I could get 6 travel or so max, just
gets a bit more
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Andy,
Why don't we go ahead and commit one of these since both sound a lot
better than what we have now. Then we could do some timing tests and
see if we need to consider trading precision for faster performance.
Note this will cause a 'shift' with respect to the
Norman Vine wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Andy,
Why don't we go ahead and commit one of these since both sound a lot
better than what we have now. Then we could do some timing tests and
see if we need to consider trading precision for faster performance.
Note this will cause
On 00:42 Fri 19 Dec , Matthew Law wrote:
What are the fields? I'm guessing at some here:
Sorry. I just found the doc on the FGFS site. I've got to start RTFMing more often :-)
All the best,
Matt
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
To my detriment I haven't been following past discussions on scenery editing. I would
like to add the missing 18/36 runway to EGNF. I have gunzipped the runways.dat file
and found the following line for EGNF:
R EGNF 06 53.316990 -1.196100 60.00 1476 118 NAVNN 00 0
On Friday 19 December 2003 01:54, Matthew Law wrote:
On 00:42 Fri 19 Dec , Matthew Law wrote:
What are the fields? I'm guessing at some here:
Sorry. I just found the doc on the FGFS site. I've got to start RTFMing
more often :-)
Also check:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Alan King writes:
The FAA defines tolerances that a sim builder needs to meet in order
to be certified. Control forces are something they definitely pay
attention to. Rudder force for some manuever might need to be within
5 lbs of the real thing for instance. But if it
Norman Vine wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
Why don't we go ahead and commit one of these since both sound a lot
better than what we have now. Then we could do some timing tests and
see if we need to consider trading precision for faster performance.
Note this will cause a 'shift' with
Is there a list of FlightGear functions anywhere? I recall someone
recently mentioning a function that would return the ground elevation for
a given lat,lon but does such a function exist?
LeeE
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Ross writes:
But the error isn't very large. It's not like the old code was
horribly wrong. On the surface, it disagreed by about a meter or so.
Scenery buildings probably aren't placed that accurately anyway.
AFAIK the geoid error is an order of magnitude or so greater then
then any
Looking around on the UNB site I discovered this gem
http://einstein.gge.unb.ca/tutorial/precision_navigation.htm
Norman
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
http://www.inmotionsimulation.com/training.html
Note they have included Flightgear in the training section rather than
gaming section.
I couldn't find prices anywhere on the website.
cc'd to flightgear-devel due to the budding hardware group on the list.
Nick
25 matches
Mail list logo
