Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting

2004-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Mally wrote: You may not be a patent lawyer, but that's a convincing sounding explanation of the legal position. PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e. whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious? I didn't notice anything not obvious. They

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Lee Elliott wrote On Friday 13 February 2004 06:16, Jon Berndt wrote: True, but... This is a chunk of calculations running every frame. In the olden days, the cost would be too high. These days, it's not even a spec on a flea on the butt of an elephant in terms of the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? :-) Jon I've thought about trying this but I think it could only be really effective in level flight. As soon as you

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:07, Vivian Meazza wrote: Lee Elliott wrote On Friday 13 February 2004 06:16, Jon Berndt wrote: True, but... This is a chunk of calculations running every frame. In the olden days, the cost would be too high. These days, it's not even a spec

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Lee Elliott wrote On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? :-) Jon I've thought about trying this but I think it could only be really effective

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Lee Elliott Sent: 14 February 2004 13:35 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:07, Vivian Meazza wrote: Lee Elliott wrote On Friday 13 February 2004 06:16, Jon Berndt wrote: True,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:43, Vivian Meazza wrote: Lee Elliott wrote On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? :-) Jon I've thought

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:52, Vivian Meazza wrote: Lee Elliott Sent: 14 February 2004 13:35 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models On Saturday 14 February 2004 13:07, Vivian Meazza wrote: Lee Elliott wrote

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Lee Elliott writes: On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? Another possiblity would be some sort of particle object handling where temporary objects could

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 14:08, Norman Vine wrote: Lee Elliott writes: On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? Another possiblity would be some sort of

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jim Wilson
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Russell Suter writes: Jon S Berndt wrote: I don't see any advantage to your approach. By your responses, you give me no indication that you even understand what I'm saying. I seem to be alone in my dissent anyway... What you are

Re: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting

2004-02-14 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Tony Peden wrote: PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e. whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious? Amazon: One-click ordering. I think the answer is no. Even if it's something that has to be non-obvious, that only means you have to

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Jim Wilson writes: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Please try to configure your mailer to not quote raw e-mail addresses in your replies. Let's not make the spam harvesters' life any easier... Russell Suter writes: By your responses, you give me no indication that you even

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Norman Vine says Lee Elliott writes: On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? Another possiblity would be some sort of particle object handling

RE: [Flightgear-devel] XML SCripting

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Curtis L. Olson writes: Tony Peden wrote: PS. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on my earlier question, i.e. whether what's being patented has to be something non-obvious? Amazon: One-click ordering. I think the answer is no. Even if it's something that has to be

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Norman Vine wrote: I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation such as a radar display with out some kind of 'adjustment' No-digging-necessary'ly-yr's Collision detection could be an

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Andy Ross
Jon S. Berndt wrote: IIRC, YASim provides for the origin at the nose tip too (or something close to that). YASim doesn't care, actually. It reports the output lat/lon/alt value as the location of the coordinate origin of the airframe (that is, the 0,0,0 referenced by all the coordinates it

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Curtis L. Olson writes: Norman Vine wrote: I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation such as a radar display with out some kind of 'adjustment' No-digging-necessary'ly-yr's

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jim Wilson
Norman Vine said: Jim Wilson writes: I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation such as a radar display with out some kind of 'adjustment' The _only_ difference between now and

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Andy Ross
Lee Elliott wrote: I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking about:) The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank has dropped so it falls straight even though the a/c may be climbing and banking. This is more of a code architecture issue.

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Jim Wilson writes: Norman Vine said: Thanks for making the mailer fix :-) I certainly hope you are not planning on publishing the 'position' as reported by the FDM for things like collision detection and related instrumentation such as a radar display with out some kind of

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Andy Ross Lee Elliott wrote: I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking about:) The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank has dropped so it falls straight even though the a/c may be climbing and banking. This is more of a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Russell Suter
Jim Wilson wrote: Vivian Meazza snip said: I'm about halfway through generating a 3d cockpit for the Seahawk model - are you going to move the origin of the model? I'd like a heads up, it will probably affect how I go about the rest of the work. If the model is already animated (and/or

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Tony Peden
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 10:23, Russell Suter wrote: Jon Berndt wrote: So, instead of defining some arbitrary frame, _we_use_an_industry_standard_, which is the structural frame that the manufacturer defines, when available. It is always (in my experience) X positive aft, Y positive right,

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
FWIW _all_ this patch does is allow the specification of a static location for the FDM to report aircraft position at in JSBsim. Previously it was reported from the current center of gravity. That's exactly right. Furthermore, if the VRP is set to the empty weight CG for an aircraft flight

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
There really are no industry standards here. Body axis, earth local, and earth fixed are commonly used in simulation. A system like our structural system is commonly used by manufacturing, ground ops, and flight ops folks. But even then, the origins vary from airplane to airplane. Yes,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread David Culp
This is more of a code architecture issue. Once something has left the aircraft, it ought be be handed to a simple ballistics FDM or somesuch. Making it disappear from the aircraft model is as simple as adding a select animation and can be done right now. And you can set the weight tag to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jim Wilson
Russell Suter said: I suspect these properties are applied anyway -- even if they are zero. I don't know if these are applied per frame or if they are applied once to the model. In the latter case, you can ride the toll road all day and only have to pay the toll once! Exactly. From

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 17:48, Andy Ross wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking about:) The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank has dropped so it falls straight even though the a/c may be climbing

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 14:48, Jim Wilson wrote: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Friday 13 February 2004 22:27, Jon S Berndt wrote: Any chance of modeling wingtip vortices (when CL is high enough above some threshhold) and rocket engine exhaust? :-) Jon If we

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Lee Elliott
On Saturday 14 February 2004 18:35, Vivian Meazza wrote: Andy Ross Lee Elliott wrote: I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking about:) The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank has dropped so it falls straight even though

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
One feature in JSBSim that I began and have not yet finished (pending other things) is a parent/child capability. You can (for instance) load a Mk82 on an F-16 and the physical effects of the Mk82 will affect the F-16. The position is based on the position of the parent, and so is the orientation.

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Jon Berndt wrote One feature in JSBSim that I began and have not yet finished (pending other things) is a parent/child capability. You can (for instance) load a Mk82 on an F-16 and the physical effects of the Mk82 will affect the F-16. The position is based on the position of the

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Lee Elliott wrote On Saturday 14 February 2004 18:35, Vivian Meazza wrote: Andy Ross Lee Elliott wrote: I think drop tanks would be feasible but it would need some thinking about:) The fun bit will be counteracting the a/c manuevours after the tank has

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Josh Babcock
Actually, I was thinking of playing with wing flexing with the model that I am working on now, but I figured that I already had too many bells and whistles. I was going to divide each wing into about four sections and put them into a tree-like structure with all the engines, etc hanging off

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
Sounds VERY good. I'm sure you'll get round to it in due course. Vivian Did I say that? ;-) I think I may have a few weeks this summer *alone*. That's got opportunity written all over it. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Vivian Meazza
Jon Berndt Sounds VERY good. I'm sure you'll get round to it in due course. Vivian Did I say that? ;-) I think I may have a few weeks this summer *alone*. That's got opportunity written all over it. Excellent. But summer is for real flying. Vivian

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Jim Wilson writes: Russell Suter said: I suspect these properties are applied anyway -- even if they are zero. I don't know if these are applied per frame or if they are applied once to the model. In the latter case, you can ride the toll road all day and only have to pay the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Andy Ross wrote: Running it under a separate FDM handler is something that the C++ code just doesn't support yet, though. It's probably not hugely difficult to make work, though. Thinking about: 1. inherit the main FDM's moments and forces 2. transpose them to the appropriate location. 3. Use

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Josh Babcock
Or just have a command that creates an object at a certain point with a certain velocity vector and orientation. Josh Erik Hofman wrote: Andy Ross wrote: Running it under a separate FDM handler is something that the C++ code just doesn't support yet, though. It's probably not hugely difficult

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Norman Vine wrote: Hmm.. conventional radar usage is perhaps a bit of a stretch but things such as automated landings use radar verification where being off by half the length of a 747 could lead to 'interesting' things .. there are other interesting uses for radar like things too that are

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Lee Elliott wrote: Agreed, a simple 'ballastics' FDM would be a far better solution, but then someone's got to design code it. Which reminds me, an FDM (Yasim, UIUC/LaRCsim or JSBSim) could spawn an AIModel object which has (simple) ballistic trajectory support. Erik

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Jim Wilson wrote: The _only_ difference between now and what we had before is now the position may be reported at a fixed location on the aircraft by JSBsim. Before it was reported at the _current_ center of gravity which varies according to load, fuel consumption, etc. I'm sorry to be so

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
The _only_ difference between now and what we had before is now the position may be reported at a fixed location on the aircraft by JSBsim. Before it was reported at the _current_ center of gravity which varies according to load, fuel consumption, etc. I'm sorry to be so dense, but could

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Josh Babcock wrote: Or just have a command that creates an object at a certain point with a certain velocity vector and orientation. I think you still need the moments to get a decent traject match. Erik Josh Erik Hofman wrote: Andy Ross wrote: Running it under a separate FDM handler is

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jonathan Richards
On Saturday 14 Feb 2004 6:27 pm, Norman Vine wrote: snip AFAIK In most systems if an object is represented by a point location it is expected that said location will be 'near' the center of the object in question. In the case of radar the center point of the 'target's on-screen echo' when

[Flightgear-devel] waves white flag

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
I give up. Sort of. I just want things to work out properly between the FDM and the 3D model. JSBSim now can provide the lat/lon/alt of a fixed point on the aircraft. This includes the possibility of providing an offset from the initial CG to the current CG. We can provide whatever is desired.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] waves white flag

2004-02-14 Thread Josh Babcock
Personally, I think the nose VRP makes a lot of sense. I think people are trying to make this a lot more complicated than it is. It's just a simple solution to a small problem. I vote Yea. Josh Jon Berndt wrote: I give up. Sort of. I just want things to work out properly between the FDM

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy

2004-02-14 Thread Josh Babcock
Oh, yeah, that too. Josh Erik Hofman wrote: Josh Babcock wrote: Or just have a command that creates an object at a certain point with a certain velocity vector and orientation. I think you still need the moments to get a decent traject match. snip

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
No. No. No. No. There need not be a prior agreement. The 3D modeler uses whatever origin suits. It appears in many cases that's the nose. Yes, yes. There has to be an understanding of the difference between the frames of reference (FDM and 3D model). If we are providing the position of

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Norman Vine wrote: Jim Wilson writes: Exactly. From sgLoad3DModel (in SimGear/simgear/scene/model.cxx): Yup, something like that is how it's supposed to work but ... I remember your asking about how to set this up and that you didn't like the axis angle form that we were using

[Flightgear-devel] 3D Panel Instruments

2004-02-14 Thread David Megginson
I've started work on some 3D panel instruments. You can see them, in various stages of completion, in the latest CVS version of the pa28-161. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Flightgear-devel] Portable unlink() / rmdir()

2004-02-14 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Honest, I'm not writing a windows virus here. :-) I am working on an fltk app to make it easier to install / uninstall 10x10 .tar.gz scenery chunks. I have the install part mostly working (via libtar / libz) so now I am looking at uninstalling. For unix I can do a depth first traversal of the

[Flightgear-devel] Thunderbird crash video

2004-02-14 Thread Jon Berndt
(Windows media video) http://www.wedda.demon.nl/tbird.wmv Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aerodynamic centre and 3D models

2004-02-14 Thread Russell Suter
Jon Berndt wrote: No. No. No. No. There need not be a prior agreement. The 3D modeler uses whatever origin suits. It appears in many cases that's the nose. Yes, yes. There has to be an understanding of the difference between the frames of reference (FDM and 3D model). If we are

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy - Wing Bending

2004-02-14 Thread kreuzritter2000
On Saturday 14 February 2004 22:10, Josh Babcock wrote: Actually, I was thinking of playing with wing flexing with the model that I am working on now, but I figured that I already had too many bells and whistles. I was going to divide each wing into about four sections and put them into a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Eye candy - Wing Bending

2004-02-14 Thread kreuzritter2000
On Sunday 15 February 2004 08:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am working on wing bending too but i am still on working out how a physical model of this wing bending would look like in real life. Upgrade: And how to simplify it and integrate it nicly into flightgear so that it is still fast

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Portable unlink() / rmdir()

2004-02-14 Thread Norman Vine
Curtis L. Olson writes: Honest, I'm not writing a windows virus here. :-) I am working on an fltk app to make it easier to install / uninstall 10x10 .tar.gz scenery chunks. I have the install part mostly working (via libtar / libz) so now I am looking at uninstalling. For unix I can