Hi,
I agree with Norman. As long as control system is of concern, it is much
better to use normalized units.
surface deflections in degrees, and for good reason: it's natural, it's
physical. From the point of view of JSBSim, normalized aerosurface
Degrees are not natural, nor physical. We may
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I think we are limiting the discussion here to only flying control
surface positions, i.e.
- left aileron deflection
- right aileron deflection
- elevator deflection
- rudder deflection
- nose/tail wheel deflection.
I wouldn't like this one to end up in degrees. Not because
Hi
..another way to run code: http://gpgpu.org/ , for a wee quick intro,
chk out:
http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~jowens/talks/owens-hpec04-gpgpu.pdf
..note how they waaail for killer apps. ;-)
..formation flight: http://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~tgamblin/gpgp/ ;-)
...more gory details:
David Luff wrote:
http://mail.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2002-December/014095.html
It requires openGL-1.2 for the patch to take effect, which I don't have on
Cygwin. If your SGI is openGL-1.2 capable, then perhaps you could see if
it makes any difference on your system?
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..FG-lawfully. ;-) Gamers obviously wanna buzz the White House in
an X-15 or in 747 formations, or touch-and-go the Space Shuttle on any
nice wee town's drag strip. We have the Shuttle launching?
Set it up as a submodel on top of the 747? :-)
How about dropping the X-15
* Erik Hofman -- Thursday 16 December 2004 14:26:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
z-offset-m alias=/sim[0]/chase-distance-m[0]/
In the archives I noticed you had a patch for this.
No. I said it's fixed and I'd send you the patch after some more testing.
The bug is in the load function, but
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:28:12 +, Jon wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..FG-lawfully. ;-) Gamers obviously wanna buzz the White House
in an X-15 or in 747 formations, or touch-and-go the Space Shuttle
on any nice wee town's drag strip. We have the Shuttle
Erik Hofman wrote:
Personally, I would be in favor of using angles to describe the
positions of left/right aileron, elevator, rudder and nose/tail wheel.
Please, not for the wheels. Really.
It doesn't probably matter too much for 3d animation if your conversion
factor get's you close. However,
On Thursday 16 December 2004 10:38, Thomas Förster wrote:
Am Mittwoch 15 Dezember 2004 14:48 schrieb Oliver C.:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 07:35, Paul Surgeon wrote:
I hope we either drop PUI (plib's UI) or at least do a major upgrade to
it. We use PUI in the menus at the moment and in
On Thursday 16 December 2004 05:13, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
A user may be able to access a lot of planes due to his/her experience
points, but it will be necessary to pass the tests before he/she can truly
unlock these planes. Similarly, a user may unlocked a lot of scenarios,
but enough
Hi,
Control law block diagrams I have seen take stick input in pounds force (pilot
inputs) and
output in degrees to actuators. I've never seen one that output control
commands to an
aerosurface actuator in a range from 0 to 1. Have you?
I have seen (and I've seen more than few) control law
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:15:52 -0800
Richard Harke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A rotation whether in degrees or radians only makes sense if the
axis of rotation is specified. This would have to be on a per aircraft
basis. Also I'm sure that many if not most control surfaces do not
simply rotate
On 12/16/04 at 12:16 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
David Luff wrote:
I've commited a work-around to the base that wraps all the symetrical
runway panels in the v direction (everything except the threshold panel
has
identical upper and lower borders, and so can safetly be wrapped in v
given
that
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:21:24 +0100
Gordan Sikic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have seen (and I've seen more than few) control law diagrams
taking some generalized input (0-1 range), taking target speed, or
attitude, or something,... but havent seen any, taking as a input
force that pilot has to
Tonight an old KLM-747 will be shipped through the canals of Amsterdam on
it's way from Schiphol Airport (EHAM) to the new Aviodrome
(http://www.aviodrome.nl) museum at Lelystad airport (EHLE).
I found some pictures at:
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/phbuk-15dec04.htm
The transport will pass near
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:47:03 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon's concern is quite valid, but there are problems. As I work
through
these concepts in my mind, I can see that although the current
method sounds
more complicated for the 3D animator, having to deal with the real
Jon S Berndt said:
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value of, say,
0.5 really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when the total range is 0
to 60?
No telling. How many angles can you discern at 50 meters on a 1600 pixel
screen (not to mention 800)? :-)
Also, to have
Just a brief question,
I'm getting back into 3d modelling and would like to contribute geometry
corrections for the C172P (I have a fairly extensive library of
photos/drawings for the type).
I'm just getting into AC3D as it seems rather pleasant to use compared to my
usual tool, Blender,
Hi Jon,
I see you are really mad :)
Look here at the X-15 data and FCS diagram:
http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/X-15Aero.html
The USAF F-16 (Block 40) FCS diagram is the same way: stick force is the
input. Same with Space Shuttle control Law diagrams.
The JSBSim X-15 model simulates the X-15
More picutures can be found here:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=PH-BUKdistinct_entry=true
Ampere
On December 16, 2004 03:43 pm, Durk Talsma wrote:
Tonight an old KLM-747 will be shipped through the canals of Amsterdam on
it's way from Schiphol Airport (EHAM) to the
David Luff writes:
I guess I'd better go and see what it looks like on an NVidea card now...
Well, I've had a very good pan round the Chicago scenery in the ufo with both
the old and new materials.xml on a Linux box with a Geforce3, and I can't find
a shred of difference in any of the
Well, I can only respond with an air transport:
http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=256867
(I haven't scanned my own pictures yet; if you search for Beluga and MUC
you'll find lots of pictures on the net)
There an A310 (history of this plane:
On December 16, 2004 06:11 pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
Currently I'm trying to convince them to use FlightGear for their
visuals...
You will need to write a technical report for that.
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:04:30 +
David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've had a very good pan round the Chicago scenery in the ufo with
both the old and new materials.xml on a Linux box with a Geforce3, and I
can't find a shred of difference in any of the runways, regardless of
Any more background on why the aircraft is being transported this way?
The obvious solution to getting the aircraft there would be to fly it in.
EHLE has 4,265ft of runway; more than enough to get a 747 down with nil
payload and a light fuel load. (A 747 with payload + light fuel can reputedly
On Friday 17 Dec 2004 01:30, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Dave,
Is the the default aircraft? The current C172 models are very
functional, but pretty basic. They certainly could be spiffed up a
bit. I'm not opposed to adding a few polygons if they contribute to the
model. Part of the trick of
The first: In going from version 1.3 to 1.4, Melchior Franz
noted that there was no /velocities/vertical-speed-fpm
property to display, and changed the property referenced to
/velocities/vertical-speed-fps, which does exist. But the
display should show fpm; so a scale parameter is inserted
to
Hi,
Building CVs pre-release:
FGNozzle.cpp:74: implicit declaration of function 'int
JSBSim::snprintf(...)'
what's missing? library? upgrade compiler? still running with 2.95.4
Moving up from 0.9.5 which works fine, skipped 0.9.6. Did I miss
something that happened in 0.9.6?
Regards
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:13:05 -0500, Ampere wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On December 14, 2004 10:39 pm, Oliver C. wrote:
What would you think about the following options:
- Learn to Fly
- Quick Flight
- Scenario Flight
- Configuration or Settings
- Quit
Best Regards,
Andrew Midosn wrote:
It seems slightly odd to me to feel that 'serious'
users don't want/need a decent user interface, while
gamers do. As a Linux user, and a developer who is
happy to use command line tools, I'm certainly not
afraid of not having a GUI available. But if someone
I'm talking about
Am Mittwoch 15 Dezember 2004 14:48 schrieb Oliver C.:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 07:35, Paul Surgeon wrote:
I hope we either drop PUI (plib's UI) or at least do a major upgrade to
it. We use PUI in the menus at the moment and in my opinion the widgets
look absolutely GHASTLY.
What
On Thursday 16 Dec 2004 09:07, Erik Hofman wrote:
I'm talking about full-blown simulators here, where there is no keyboard
(or mouse) in sight of the visual system and everything has to be done
remote, using an instructor station. Often this implies multiple display
systems. That's one of the
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 22:38:
fgfs doesn't like *.sav files with property alias (see below). It doesn't
really crash, but abort.
z-offset-m alias=/sim[0]/chase-distance-m[0]/
fixed. Need to make some more tests before sending to Erik.
m.
Hi,
I agree with Norman. As long as control system is of concern, it is much
better to use normalized units.
Control law block diagrams I have seen take stick input in pounds force (pilot
inputs) and
output in degrees to actuators. I've never seen one that output control
commands to an
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Chris Metzler -- Wednesday 15 December 2004 19:15:
- attempting to load a saved state from the menu crashes the program.
fgfs doesn't like *.sav files with property alias (see below). It doesn't
really crash, but abort.
z-offset-m alias=/sim[0]/chase-distance-m[0]/
Thomas Förster schrieb:
Am Mittwoch 15 Dezember 2004 14:48 schrieb Oliver C.:
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 07:35, Paul Surgeon wrote:
I hope we either drop PUI (plib's UI) or at least do a major upgrade to
it. We use PUI in the menus at the moment and in my opinion the widgets
look absolutely
On 12/16/04 at 11:43 AM Martin Spott wrote:
David Luff wrote:
http://mail.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2002-December/014095.
html
It requires openGL-1.2 for the patch to take effect, which I don't have
on
Cygwin. If your SGI is openGL-1.2 capable, then perhaps you could see
David Luff wrote:
On 12/16/04 at 11:43 AM Martin Spott wrote:
David Luff wrote:
http://mail.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2002-December/014095.
html
It requires openGL-1.2 for the patch to take effect, which I don't have
on
Cygwin. If your SGI is openGL-1.2
On Thursday 16 December 2004 04:06, Jon Berndt wrote:
True, I've seen both. JSBSim has used both, and we accept both, but
normalized units are anything but normal - you have to provide a range
for it to mean anything, and as far as I can tell, there is no standard
here. It's defined on a
Richard Harke said:
A rotation whether in degrees or radians only makes sense if the axis
of rotation is specified. This would have to be on a per aircraft basis. Also
I'm sure that many if not most control surfaces do not simply rotate about
a single axis but involve sliding motion and
Pilots are taught to think in terms of pressure on stick not displacement.
That is part of the reason that the F-16 is built the way it is.
-- Adam Dershowitz, Ph.D., CFI, MEI
From: Gordan Sikic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16
David Luff wrote:
It requires openGL-1.2 for the patch to take effect, which I don't have on
Cygwin. If your SGI is openGL-1.2 capable, then perhaps you could see if
it makes any difference on your system?
Hmmm this is IRIX-6.5.22:
sirius: 22:33:55 ~ glxinfo
display: :0.0
server glx
42 matches
Mail list logo
