Re: [Flightgear-devel] F-104 3d model added (early release)
Erik Hofman wrote: Matevz Jekovec wrote: Looks nice. (i.e. Shiny:)). Do you model these by yourself or are there any models available for us anywhere? I model them myself. Nice indeed. What program do you use for modeling? I'm still making my J-22 perfect and I have few questions. I have j22-set.xml in $FG_ROOT/Aircraft and J-22 stuff in $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/j22(/Models). I already animated my model by creating j22.xml in .../j22/Models folder. Today, I started on flight model, but I'm not sure if this is right. I made in my j22-set.xml file: flight-modelyasim/flight-model aeroj22/aero // Does this mean fgfs reads from Aircraft-yasim/j22.xml the flight model ??? Yes, that's right. Great, but isn't Yasim a team which goal is to create sophisticated flight models. So, if I just think one up and try to make it as real as possible in my power and I'm not a member of Yasim, can I put my files to the Yasim folder then? And I entered $FG_ROOT/Aircraft-yasim and created j22.xml file. (I copied one from a4.xml and modified it for my needs). So when I run fgfs --aircraft=j22, my J-22 model has everything he needs and is prepared for distribution, right? So far so good. I don't see any problems with that approach. Erik I looked into A10 (did you model it? If yes, great work!!) and YF23 xmls. In practise, what does shift+b key do? When on the ground, apply all brakes and when in the air, it OPENS THE CANOPY IN THE MIDDLE OF FLYING?? ;) I thought something related to b should toggle an airbrake or something (ok, brakes on the ground are fine)... Where are the key bindings for seperated aircraft anyway (or do we have common one for all the aircrafts)? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] F-104 3d model added (early release)
Matevz Jekovec wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Matevz Jekovec wrote: Looks nice. (i.e. Shiny:)). Do you model these by yourself or are there any models available for us anywhere? I model them myself. Nice indeed. What program do you use for modeling? I use ac3d for sgi. flight-modelyasim/flight-model aeroj22/aero // Does this mean fgfs reads from Aircraft-yasim/j22.xml the flight model ??? Yes, that's right. Great, but isn't Yasim a team which goal is to create sophisticated flight models. So, if I just think one up and try to make it as real as possible in my power and I'm not a member of Yasim, can I put my files to the Yasim folder then? YASim is mainly created by Andy Ross who specifically designed it for FlightGear. It has been modified by David Megginson in several ways. It would be no problem including a configuration file in the Aircraft-yasim directory. I think you may be confused by the UIUC team. I looked into A10 (did you model it? If yes, great work!!) and YF23 Both are created by Lee Elliot. xmls. In practise, what does shift+b key do? When on the ground, apply Shift+b is parking brake. all brakes and when in the air, it OPENS THE CANOPY IN THE MIDDLE OF FLYING?? ;) I thought something related to b should toggle an airbrake or something (ok, brakes on the ground are fine)... Where are the key Speedbrake is activated by pressing ctrl+b bindings for seperated aircraft anyway (or do we have common one for all the aircrafts)? You can define special keys in the aircraft.-set.xml file located in FlightGear/data/Aircraft. One example is the p-51d which has ctrl+b assigned for engine boost. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] New rendering propery added
Hi, In a private discussion with Frederic Bouvier about the framerate hit of the new static scenery created by Frederic (which I still think is a fantastic job by the way) we came to the conclusion it would be a good idea to have a realism property set to adjust the level of realism for the scenery rendering. As of now I've added the /sim/rendering/realism property which could be used to control the realism level. The two things discussed so far are the bridges and the Bank of America building which could be generated at a much lower vertex count by using some texture tricks but at the cost of realism. Frederic suggested to add a LOD to both to controll the looks of these objects by applying textures at a large distance and vertex objects at short distance. By checking for the realism property it would be possible to prevent the LOD check for machines that can't handle these large amounts of vertices (like my O2) and show the textured object all the way. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircrafts flipped?
I'm writing my j22-yasim.xml by looking into a10-yasim.xml, yf23-yasim.xml and a4.xml files in data/Aircraft-yasim folder. Now I think I don't quite understand how can an aircraft have a nose gear at position x=1, left and right gears at x=-5. Isn't the aircraft faced from nose to back from -x to +x? This is for all other properties as well and right now, my j-22 flies like... khm... an inverted facing flying box in the right direction by a miracle :) - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] New rendering propery added
Hi, In a private discussion with Frederic Bouvier about the framerate hit of the new static scenery created by Frederic (which I still think is a fantastic job by the way) we came to the conclusion it would be a good idea to have a realism property set to adjust the level of realism for the scenery rendering. As of now I've added the /sim/rendering/realism property which could be used to control the realism level. The two things discussed so far are the bridges and the Bank of America building which could be generated at a much lower vertex count by using some texture tricks but at the cost of realism. Frederic suggested to add a LOD to both to controll the looks of these objects by applying textures at a large distance and vertex objects at short distance. By checking for the realism property it would be possible to prevent the LOD check for machines that can't handle these large amounts of vertices (like my O2) and show the textured object all the way. Erik Is this a boolean property, or a sliding scale? I think the latter (0-1 or 0-10) would be the better option since you could define points along the scale when chages are made. Such as random objects only when realism5, high poly count builds when 8, nothing but scenery and runways when 0.1 Richard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New rendering propery added
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I think someone should take a close look at why these objects have such a big impact on frame rates. Is it the polygon count? The texture usage? Obviously if a few buildings and bridges kill frame rates so bad, this approach isn't going to scale very far. How does MS put zillions of buildings in the scnene at once? The problem is the polygon count. The Bank of America building has all the corners in it's geometry and the bridges have all the support wires as geometry. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] F-104 3d model added (early release)
YASim is mainly created by Andy Ross who specifically designed it for FlightGear. It has been modified by David Megginson in several ways. It would be no problem including a configuration file in the Aircraft-yasim directory. I think you may be confused by the UIUC team. Oh, yes. What is JSBSim for then? all brakes and when in the air, it OPENS THE CANOPY IN THE MIDDLE OF FLYING?? ;) I thought something related to b should toggle an airbrake or something (ok, brakes on the ground are fine)... Where are the key Speedbrake is activated by pressing ctrl+b But it doesn't work in a10, nor yf23. For airbrake, spoiler is reserved for animation, right? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New rendering propery added
Erik Hofman writes: Hi, In a private discussion with Frederic Bouvier about the framerate hit of the new static scenery created by Frederic. I think someone should take a close look at why these objects have such a big impact on frame rates. Is it the polygon count? The texture usage? Obviously if a few buildings and bridges kill frame rates so bad, this approach isn't going to scale very far. How does MS put zillions of buildings in the scnene at once? Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New rendering propery added
Richard Bytheway wrote: Is this a boolean property, or a sliding scale? I think the latter (0-1 or 0-10) would be the better option since you could define points along the scale when chages are made. Such as random objects only when realism5, high poly count builds when 8, nothing but scenery and runways when 0.1 It's a slifing scale from 0 to 10. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New rendering propery added
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik Hofman writes: Hi, In a private discussion with Frederic Bouvier about the framerate hit of the new static scenery created by Frederic. I think someone should take a close look at why these objects have such a big impact on frame rates. Is it the polygon count? The texture usage? Obviously if a few buildings and bridges kill frame rates so bad, this approach isn't going to scale very far. How does MS put zillions of buildings in the scnene at once? As I said to Erik, with a GF3 and Athlon 1800, I don't see any hit. 30 fps sustained when building in sight or not. With a Matrox G400 and Athlon 700, it is another story and it can drop to 3 fps As I use only 16x16 or 32x32 textures, I presume it is the vertex count ( about 6000 for the Bay Bridge ). I will try to reduce the vertex count of the suspension chain by replacing it with small textures. Speaking about MSFS 2004, building seems the same since a while and they look not so terrible ( flat deck, single line for suspension chain, boxes for building ) So the idea is to modulate scene complexity with a parameter to fit everyone expectations and hardware. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircrafts flipped?
I'm writing my j22-yasim.xml by looking into a10-yasim.xml, yf23-yasim.xml and a4.xml files in data/Aircraft-yasim folder. Now I think I don't quite understand how can an aircraft have a nose gear at position x=1, left and right gears at x=-5. Isn't the aircraft faced from nose to back from -x to +x? This is for all other properties as well and right now, my j-22 flies like... khm... an inverted facing flying box in the right direction (miracle?:))... - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier? Thanks, Chris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Christopher S Horler wrote: Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier? Thanks, Chris I think S-3 Viking. - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I think S-3 Viking. C130 -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST) Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I think S-3 Viking. C130 http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircrafts flipped?
On Thursday 21 August 2003 17:55, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I'm writing my j22-yasim.xml by looking into a10-yasim.xml, yf23-yasim.xml and a4.xml files in data/Aircraft-yasim folder. Now I think I don't quite understand how can an aircraft have a nose gear at position x=1, left and right gears at x=-5. Isn't the aircraft faced from nose to back from -x to +x? This is for all other properties as well and right now, my j-22 flies like... khm... an inverted facing flying box in the right direction (miracle?:))... - Matevz Have a read of README.yasim in the AIrcraft-yasim folder. This explains the co-ordinate system. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Bay Bridge revisited
Following the suggestion of Erik, I am at minimizing the impact of the Bay Bridge model on framerate, by reducing the vertex count, and I must admit that it also improve the look as a side effect. The screenshot below give an idea of the difference between geometry and texture : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-2.jpg The texture ( 128x1 ) give a sharper look by avoiding z fighting on the strands. But, ( there is a but ), we still have the problem with clouds not seen through transparent textures. Those wanting to fly below the bridge will see this : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-3.jpg I think the benefits overcome the drawback, but you'll be warn ;-) -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Although interesting, this is certainly not typical! If you want to know about aircraft that typically operate on a carrier: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/powerhouse/airwing.html Jon S Berndt wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST) Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I think S-3 Viking. C130 http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bay Bridge revisited
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Following the suggestion of Erik, I am at minimizing the impact of the Bay Bridge model on framerate, by reducing the vertex count, and I must admit that it also improve the look as a side effect. The screenshot below give an idea of the difference between geometry and texture : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-2.jpg The texture ( 128x1 ) give a sharper look by avoiding z fighting on the strands. But, ( there is a but ), we still have the problem with clouds not seen through transparent textures. Those wanting to fly below the bridge will see this : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-3.jpg I think the benefits overcome the drawback, but you'll be warn ;-) If you use the same LOD settings as the Bank of America building you should be okay for normal use. I guess these type of differences should be allowed for lower realism settings. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bay Bridge revisited
Erik Hofman wrote: Frederic Bouvier wrote: Following the suggestion of Erik, I am at minimizing the impact of the Bay Bridge model on framerate, by reducing the vertex count, and I must admit that it also improve the look as a side effect. The screenshot below give an idea of the difference between geometry and texture : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-2.jpg The texture ( 128x1 ) give a sharper look by avoiding z fighting on the strands. But, ( there is a but ), we still have the problem with clouds not seen through transparent textures. Those wanting to fly below the bridge will see this : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-3.jpg I think the benefits overcome the drawback, but you'll be warn ;-) If you use the same LOD settings as the Bank of America building you should be okay for normal use. I guess these type of differences should be allowed for lower realism settings. My dilemma here is that I prefer the one with texture for every aspects but the clouds. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bay Bridge revisited
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Frederic Bouvier wrote: But, ( there is a but ), we still have the problem with clouds not seen through transparent textures. Those wanting to fly below the bridge will see this : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-bay-bridge-3.jpg I think the benefits overcome the drawback, but you'll be warn ;-) If you use the same LOD settings as the Bank of America building you should be okay for normal use. I guess these type of differences should be allowed for lower realism settings. My dilemma here is that I prefer the one with texture for every aspects but the clouds. I'm afraid this issue isn't going to be resolved very soon ... Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Boeing 717-200 flightmodel
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:53:39PM -0700, Tony Peden wrote: config with some others, like the F100, and they are the same although the F100 doesn't seem to suffer from the same problems. I've also used MoI values similar to those of the F100. Any suggestions for the fdm/aero beginner ? The problem is probably not in the flight controls, but in the aero. Try either reducing pitching moment due to elevator or increasing pitching moment due to alpha. I can be more specific if you e-mail me your config file. One note of caution: the keyboard increments are necessarily kind of big anyway. Yes, but you can still control most aircraft relatively OK with the keyboard. With my 717 config, even taking off is hard. Another problem (I think) is the lack of lift. I have only found something for the DC-9 (which is granddaddy of the 717): Clmax=2.0 Aero Matic guessed around 1.4 for my input. 1.4 is probably a skosh high for flaps up. For full landing flaps, it's going to be considerably higher. Do you have any stall speeds? No, I can't remember seeing anything like that for the 717 on the net. Even finding other speeds like V1, Vr, V2 was hard. I found one report from a test pilot who flew the 717. As far as I remember, Vr was around 120kts with flaps 13. I don't know what Clmax actually means... Max. Lift Coefficient at ? (i dont know) My model takes off at about 190kts with flaps up, and about 170 or so with first notch of flaps (ie. one keypress, ?1/3rd of full?) I don't know how the flaps stages in the jsbsim config correlate to the fgfs keyboard control (which seems to increase/decrease by 0.333 of the full value 1.0). Manuel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
On Thursday 21 August 2003 21:21, Russell Suter wrote: Although interesting, this is certainly not typical! If you want to know about aircraft that typically operate on a carrier: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/powerhouse/airwing.html Jon S Berndt wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST) Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I think S-3 Viking. C130 http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) I've got an idea that the (R)A-5B Vigilante was one of the largest and heaviest carrier based a/c. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
On Thursday 21 August 2003 18:41, Jon S Berndt wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST) Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I think S-3 Viking. C130 http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml A bit lower down that page there's some info and pics about U-2 ops from carriers too. Crazy! LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Christopher S Horler wrote: Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier? The E-2C (or the cargo version of the same plane) is probably the biggest that currently operates from U.S. carriers. Thanks, Chris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Tony Peden wrote: On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Christopher S Horler wrote: Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier? The E-2C (or the cargo version of the same plane) is probably the biggest that currently operates from U.S. carriers. I guess that depends on what the unit of measure is. It certainly isn't the heaviest... -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 21 August 2003 18:41, Jon S Berndt wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:32:18 +0100 (BST) Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matevz Jekovec wrote: I think S-3 Viking. C130 http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0097.shtml A bit lower down that page there's some info and pics about U-2 ops from carriers too. Crazy! Hey! It's the USS America! I know a guy who was brown shirt for EA-6Bs on the America. I'll hafta send him this one... -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Lee Elliott wrote: I've got an idea that the (R)A-5B Vigilante was one of the largest and heaviest carrier based a/c. Heaviest, that is if you consider a full load. At almost 80,000 lbs, max takeoff weight, you could be right. -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 19:12, Russell Suter wrote: Tony Peden wrote: On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Christopher S Horler wrote: Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier? The E-2C (or the cargo version of the same plane) is probably the biggest that currently operates from U.S. carriers. I guess that depends on what the unit of measure is. It certainly isn't the heaviest... It's close. It also appears to be the longest and have the most span. -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OT: Aircraft Carriers
Tony Peden wrote: On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 19:12, Russell Suter wrote: Tony Peden wrote: On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:54, Christopher S Horler wrote: Can anyone tell me the largest a/c that can operate from an a/c carrier? The E-2C (or the cargo version of the same plane) is probably the biggest that currently operates from U.S. carriers. I guess that depends on what the unit of measure is. It certainly isn't the heaviest... It's close. It also appears to be the longest and have the most span. It might be heaviest in empty weight. I believe it comes in at around 40,000 lbs. empty. Off the top of my pointed head, I think the EA-6B Prowler comes in at around 34,000 lbs. empty. I'd have to check the NATOPS manual for that. I don't about the S-3B Viking. As for max take-off weight, the Super Hornet FA/18 E/F come in at a whopping 66,000 lbs. whereas the Hawkeye maxes out at around 53,000 lbs. The Prowler is somewhere around 61,000 lbs... -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
