On Saturday, 15 November 2003 08:39, JD Fenech wrote:
Stupid idea: Has anyone thought to make a simple FDM for ground
vechicles? I admit it might get boring quickly, but in a multiplay
situation, it might be intresting to allow someone to simply watch
takeoffs from the ground, with a mobile
* David Culp -- Saturday 15 November 2003 03:51:
Does anyone have an aircraft carrier model that I can use?
Yes, you!
$FG_ROOT/Models/Geometry/saratoga.ac
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but I
can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed now,
it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible with a
low overhead. As long as any scheme could be easily
Andy Ross wrote:
John Barrett wrote:
I've got some code from another project that I'm trying to hook into
FG...
[which turns out to be:]
I'm integrating the SpiderMonkey JS engine
Into the client? Yikes. There was a big flame war the last time this
was mentioned. That interpreter is almost
On Saturday 15 November 2003 08:50, Erik Hofman wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but
I
can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed
now,
it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible
I'm getting a lot of these fatal errors in flightgear 0.9.3:
Takeoff report for LEFT_MAIN
Distance traveled:1456.4441 ft, 443.9242 meters
Distance traveled (over 50'): 2180.1366 ft, 664.5056 meters
-(a few minutes later)
slDSP: getBufferInfo: Broken pipe
-hangs
* Andreas -- Saturday 15 November 2003 13:55:
slDSP: getBufferInfo: Broken pipe
[...]
I've searched the archives and some people had this with earlier versions,
but no definite solution.
plib asks the Linux kernel (which version?) for the amount
of free space in the oss playback buffer. The
* Melchior FRANZ -- Saturday 15 November 2003 14:25:
PS: If I hadn't found User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i in your mail
then I would have had to guess which OS you are using!
Not that Mutt wouldn't run on other systems than Linux,
of course. Just a matter of probabilities ... ;-)
m.
I've split the scenery directory of the base package into Terrain and
Models - both contain the same directory structure, the differences are:
Models - contains only the .ac files and their associated files, and .stg
files with only OBJECT_STATIC lines.
Terrain - contains only .btg.gz files (for
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 02:25:05PM +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
plib asks the Linux kernel (which version?) for the amount
2.6.0-test5
of free space in the oss playback buffer. The kernel responds
with Broken pipe.
I'd say that the sound driver (which? oss? alsa?) for your
alsa,
Ok, I got the Saratoga moving across San Fransisco bay at 30 knots.
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/saratoga_SFO_bay.jpg
It can't be landed on because the deck is not solid (however you can fly
inside and grab lunch). Is there a way to solidify the deck?
Dave
--
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Jon Stockill -- Saturday 15 November 2003 15:28:
fgfs --fg-scenery=/usr/local/lib/FlightGear/Scenery/Models;
/usr/local/lib/FlightGear/Scenery/Models/Terrain
The separator is supposed to be a colon under Linux and Linux-like
OSes. Works for me
* Jon Stockill -- Saturday 15 November 2003 15:28:
fgfs --fg-scenery=/usr/local/lib/FlightGear/Scenery/Models;
/usr/local/lib/FlightGear/Scenery/Models/Terrain
The separator is supposed to be a colon under Linux and Linux-like
OSes. Works for me (with the help of a bugfix for misc/sg_path.cxx,
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Culp wrote:
Ok, I got the Saratoga moving across San Fransisco bay at 30 knots.
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/saratoga_SFO_bay.jpg
Nice :-)
--
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Paul Surgeon writes:
I don't know about everyone else's experience but I haven't found
one aircraft in FG that wants to sit still on the ground even with
the engine off. I've never seen a stationary aircraft weather
vane into a 10 knot wind in real life.
It might be that the problem is
David Culp writes:
Ok, I got the Saratoga moving across San Fransisco bay at 30 knots.
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/saratoga_SFO_bay.jpg
It can't be landed on because the deck is not solid (however you can fly
inside and grab lunch). Is there a way to solidify the deck?
* Andreas -- Saturday 15 November 2003 15:16:
2.6.0-test5
[...]
alsa, whichever version came with that kernel
[...]
Intel Corp. 82801DB AC'97 Audio (rev 02)
That's Asus' P4PE onboard audio.
OK. Can't tell you anything specific about this combination,
but I'm running an ac97 based card
* Jon Stockill -- Saturday 15 November 2003 15:44:
Hmmm, I tried a colon - that didn't work either. What's the bugfix? Is it
in SimGear CVS?
No. I submitted it to the list but it was ignored.
Index: sg_path.cxx
===
RCS file:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:38:32PM +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
OK. Can't tell you anything specific about this combination,
but I'm running an ac97 based card (SiS7012) and I also had
problems with early 2.[56] kernels. There were some changes
to ac97 since test5 and I recommend to try
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Jon Stockill -- Saturday 15 November 2003 15:44:
Hmmm, I tried a colon - that didn't work either. What's the bugfix? Is it
in SimGear CVS?
No. I submitted it to the list but it was ignored.
Index: sg_path.cxx
* Andreas -- Saturday 15 November 2003 15:52:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:38:32PM +0100, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
[2.6.0-test9]
works very well (apart from analog/ns558 joystick hats :-)
Uhoh, not so great ;)
The joystick (a.k.a coolie) hat isn't/wasn't recognized in this
and earlier versions.
Hi,
I am receiving an increasing number of request for working
project files for MSVC. While I can't reply specifically
to everybody, I packed my current, unedited, project files
here :
ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Win32/MSVC/
They are for MSVC 7. I am not trying to compile with
David Megginson wrote:
David Culp writes:
Ok, I got the Saratoga moving across San Fransisco bay at 30 knots.
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/saratoga_SFO_bay.jpg
It can't be landed on because the deck is not solid (however you can fly
inside and grab lunch). Is there a way to
Erik Hofman wrote:
BTW. Does Nasal work like PSL, int that one has to initiate each step?
I've done a script manager for PSL that I've laying around somewhere
that would allow multiple scripts to work simultaneously and can
expand over multiple frames (instead of needing to run the whole
David Megginson wrote:
Paul Surgeon writes:
I don't know about everyone else's experience but I haven't found
one aircraft in FG that wants to sit still on the ground even with
the engine off.
It might be that the problem is not ground reactions but
aerodynamics.
It's the ground
Lee Elliott writes
...but I have a reasonable founding in it (from about eight years old).
Each individual instrument will try to draw it's own current. Assigning
ratings to the instruments makes a lot of snese to me, as would the
supply capacity of the generator system and batteries.
LeeE
Andy Ross writes:
There's no way (short of user-space context
switching voodoo) to return to the top-level stack frame without
trashing the frame of the recursive call.
there is some neat 'C' voodoo here
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html
Norman
Good afternoon,
This sort of modelling is standard practice for
training simulator companies. They identify a "zero-speed" model for
landing gear reactions. Now you'd think that if it's standard practice
someone would have it written down so newcomers wouldn't have to figure it out
all over
Norman Vine wrote:
Andy Ross writes:
There's no way (short of user-space context
switching voodoo) to return to the top-level stack frame without
trashing the frame of the recursive call.
there is some neat 'C' voodoo here
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html
It's the ground reaction code. :)
JSBSim and YASim do things pretty much the same way, using a
coefficient of friction for gear as they slide over the ground. This
integration works fine for a moving aircraft, but it's really not
right for a stopped one. An aircraft with exactly zero speed
Well I don't think we need to go to such extremes so soon unless someone has
some time on their hands. :)
It would be nice to at least get it to a point where people can park an
aircraft on the apron and come back 10 minutes later and find it where they
left it.
I like the idea of just
I like the idea of just having some sort of overide FDM when stationary.
We can model surface conditions later including water landings
for floatplanes and snow landings for aircraft with skis.
I have some design docs for floatplanes such as the older 1940's era
Clipper style of aircraft and I
I have some design docs for floatplanes such as the older 1940's era
Clipper style of aircraft and I am wanting in the worst way to model one
of those just for nostalgia - they were fascinating planes, and I
believe a
well modeled aircraft would add a lot to FlightGear. Imagine a nice flight
Good afternoon again.
I just remembered another trick about zero-speed
rolling models. Below a threshold speed (say 1 m/s) you make the force
proportional to the velocity. That way you'll get zero force at zero
speed. The other thing that can happen if you don't is that you'll
oscillate
Nick wrote:
I just remembered another trick about zero-speed rolling models.
Below a threshold speed (say 1 m/s) you make the force proportional to
the velocity. That way you'll get zero force at zero speed. The
other thing that can happen if you don't is that you'll oscillate
about the
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
NickSent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 2:39 PMTo:
FlightGear developers discussionsSubject: Re: [Flightgear-devel]
Airport vehicle (driving) sim
Good afternoon again.
I just remembered
On Saturday, 15 November 2003 21:25, Jon Berndt wrote:
I have some design docs for floatplanes such as the older 1940's era
Clipper style of aircraft and I am wanting in the worst way to model one
of those just for nostalgia - they were fascinating planes, and I believe a
well modeled aircraft
FlightGear would need several changes in various areas to support
things like water landings.
Not really. The FDM would initially assume that you were going to land on
water. The ground reactions would be the same no matter what kind of
terrain you were on. This could prove interesting,
On Saturday 15 Nov 2003 9:24 pm, Paul Surgeon wrote:
FlightGear would need several changes in various areas to support things
like water landings.
Firstly we would need to be able to specify various ground types.
One way of doing this is to have a number attached to each polygon in the
I'm advertizing FlightGear among my flight school co-students from time
to time and it apperears they believe me FG might be an alternative to
MSFS - today they were talking about MSFS having weak FDM's and I took
it as a chance to mention FG's quality using real-flight data for
several aircraft.
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am receiving an increasing number of request for working
project files for MSVC. While I can't reply specifically
to everybody, I packed my current, unedited, project files
here :
ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Win32/MSVC/
I'm proud to
Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So something like:
--fg-scenery=$fgroot/Scenery;$fgroot/BaseScenery;$fgroot/StaticScenery
would give you detailed scenery where you've loaded it, basic scenery
outside that area, and static objects overlaid on top of it all.
I have a question here. I
Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
BTW. Does Nasal work like PSL, int that one has to initiate each step?
I've done a script manager for PSL that I've laying around somewhere
that would allow multiple scripts to work simultaneously and can
expand over multiple frames (instead of needing to run
John Barrett wrote:
Did your script manager run the framents in the same
context so they shared data ??
No, the only shared data would be the property tree.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Andy Ross -- Saturday 15 November 2003 21:52:
But this is only one problem of many. FWIW, I think most of the YASim
planes sit quite well.
The helicopters are somewhat funny, though. Although the bo105 sits
on skids (which should give quite some friction), it moves happily
around ... until
I did some playing around and made my aircraft model be the carrier. It looks kind of
odd having that big ship flying around KSFO!
Jonathan Polley
On Saturday, November 15, 2003, at 08:15AM, David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I got the Saratoga moving across San Fransisco bay at 30
* Martin Spott -- Saturday 15 November 2003 22:54:
which separator _is_supposed_ to be the right one ? Does the behaviour
differ on Windows and Unix ?
Yes, and Mac is yet another flavor. :-)
See simgear/misc/sg_path.cxx:
| #if defined( macintosh )
| static const char sgDirPathSep = ':';
|
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, God. Yes, I went through the mental gyrations for that one a year or
two ago. It's a story problem nightmare when considering how to implement
with multiple and variable numbers of gear bogeys. What if you run into ice
on one gear?
You might get into
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis Cunningham writes:
Why ?.To both this and the WB.
As Dave says the empty weight is part of the certification.And I would
think
it would be more
important to worry about fuel ,baggage,passengers and the like than the
weight of the ASI.
Why you would need to
Innis Cunningham writes:
Seeing how the ampere draw and the voltage would under normal
conditions hardly move (except maybe at start). The information could be
programmed into
the electrical supply system.I assume we are dealing with light A/C
here as I doubt anyone flying a 737 would see an
On Sunday 16 November 2003 01:08, Innis Cunningham wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis Cunningham writes:
Why ?.To both this and the WB.
As Dave says the empty weight is part of the certification.And I
would
think
it would be more
important to worry about fuel
Seeing how the ampere draw and the voltage would under normal
conditions hardly move (except maybe at start). The information could be
programmed into
the electrical supply system.I assume we are dealing with light A/C
here as I doubt anyone flying a 737 would see an amp metre in their
life
52 matches
Mail list logo
