Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:08:44 -0400, David wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > ..Burt Rutan wrote an article on this very idea in EAA Experimenter > > about 10 years ago. The remaining bits missing, is, radar drivers, > > radar to visual etc models, and a radar echo integrator to build the > > seen scenery and "the virtual antenna" track, and radar-to-radar > > communication, to share seen sceneries, "to see around the > > mountain". ;-) > > The technology has matured a lot since then. > > A mode S transponder will feed the location of other aircraft to a > multifunction display (MFD), which will then superimpose the positions > over a moving map with elevation information, taking your own position > from a GPS receiver like the Garmin 430. At the same time, a > Stormscope 950 will feed weather information from up to 200 nm away to > the MFD, which will draw possible thunderstorms on top of the same > map. I could have all of this in my Warrior, today, if I were willing > to drop about USD 50-60K--that's about the resale value of my entire > plane, but it's a lot cheaper and more realistic than it would have > been 10 years ago, and is pretty-much standard in the few new planes > now sold each year. > > Presumably, the mode S transponder, GPS, and Stormscope could just as > easily feed into a FlightGear-based display on a tablet PC, if you > didn't mind a few wires across your lap. ..bluetooth or wifi weeds that weed. ;-) Call me paranoid, I prefer to carry an onboard radar too, not just rely on the ground radar etc, yes, it's another point of failure, in pretty much the same way the Ju52-3m has a 3 times bigger chance of a flame-out as the early single engined Ju52-1m. > > ..the remainder is AFAICT, a trivial adaption of FlightGear, > > and a somewhat less trivial certification. ;-) > > No certification is required unless the equipment is permanently > attached to the airplane. FlightGear running on a tablet PC strapped > to your lap, for extra situational awareness, would be fine. I > wouldn't want to be so crowded myself, but maybe some day ... ..exactly. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..Burt Rutan wrote an article on this very idea in EAA Experimenter about 10 years ago. The remaining bits missing, is, radar drivers, radar to visual etc models, and a radar echo integrator to build the seen scenery and "the virtual antenna" track, and radar-to-radar communication, to share seen sceneries, "to see around the mountain". ;-) The technology has matured a lot since then. A mode S transponder will feed the location of other aircraft to a multifunction display (MFD), which will then superimpose the positions over a moving map with elevation information, taking your own position from a GPS receiver like the Garmin 430. At the same time, a Stormscope 950 will feed weather information from up to 200 nm away to the MFD, which will draw possible thunderstorms on top of the same map. I could have all of this in my Warrior, today, if I were willing to drop about USD 50-60K--that's about the resale value of my entire plane, but it's a lot cheaper and more realistic than it would have been 10 years ago, and is pretty-much standard in the few new planes now sold each year. Presumably, the mode S transponder, GPS, and Stormscope could just as easily feed into a FlightGear-based display on a tablet PC, if you didn't mind a few wires across your lap. ..the remainder is AFAICT, a trivial adaption of FlightGear, and a somewhat less trivial certification. ;-) No certification is required unless the equipment is permanently attached to the airplane. FlightGear running on a tablet PC strapped to your lap, for extra situational awareness, would be fine. I wouldn't want to be so crowded myself, but maybe some day ... All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
Nick wrote: Also, and this applies particularly to flight near the ground, the update rate for GPS is (or was last time I checked) about 1 second. Update rate depends upon the receiver. My portable Garmin 196 updates several times per second (perhaps 4 Hz, but I haven't measured). A jet making an approach at 140 kts is going about 225 ft/s. With a 700 fpm descent rate that would correspond to this approach speed on a 3 deg glide slope (VS in fpm is TAS in kts * 10 and divided by 2 as my instructor used to teach) even if the accuracy were perfect you would have already landed 11 ft high or low by the time you realized the error. Normally, you start ignoring the altimeter and flying visually below 200 ft AGL (on an ILS) or about 500 ft AGL (on a non-precision approach). Some big planes do have autoland, but that probably uses a RADAR altimeter: after all, the regular barometric altimeter is allowed to be off by up to 50 ft either way. For anything I'd be likely to fly in real life (most of my professional simulator time has been in airliners, space shuttles and now spacecraft) the numbers (Cessna 150 eg) would be 60 kts approach speed (~95 ft/s) > 300 fpm descent rate (~5 ft/s) Yikes, that's a slow approach! Did you get that number by putting the 150 on a 3 deg glide path? I don't think anyone would approach that low in a light, single-engine plane unless on an ILS -- 5 or 6 deg is probably more typical. You want to be high enough that you can glide to the runway in case of an engine failure, and a 3 deg glide path is way too low for that. Still enough to throw you off. Accuracy has improved dramatically since the elimination of SA, but the time lag is still a bugger. Again, time lag depends on the receiver, but it's far better than one second with the newer technology. The big change for vertical accuracy is not from GPS itself but from WAAS -- that's why the FAA has approved precision GPS/WAAS approaches down to 250 ft DH (expect to see ILS's start disappearing from some smaller airports over the next decade). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:45:03 +0200, Olivier wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Does someone already fly with Flight Gear? > > Here is my point : > > FG installed on a laptop and configured in such a way that : > the weather is sunny > time is set to 10:00 am > and only the hud is overlapped on the external forward view (no > A/C cockpit displayed) > > Now, a GPS and a "light" AHRS/IMU (like the MT9 of Xsens for instance) > is connected to the laptop. > > At last, the position, altitude, heading, speed, attitude, ... data of > the simulation are replaced by the sensor's data. > > We have here an unrivalled 3D primary flight display. > > (OK, for accurate Air Speed and Altitude computation, two additional > pressure sensors should be connected to the PC to get static and > dynamic pressure data. However, GPS Ground Speed and GPS Altitude data > are sufficient to validate the concept and much more easier to obtain) > > > This kind of display could be very helpful when flying in IMC because > it's always nice to have a clear representation of the surrounding > terrain, airfields, antennas, buildings, bridges, ... > > Flying in real IMC with a synthetic VFR environment could then > dramatically increases situation awareness. ..Burt Rutan wrote an article on this very idea in EAA Experimenter about 10 years ago. The remaining bits missing, is, radar drivers, radar to visual etc models, and a radar echo integrator to build the seen scenery and "the virtual antenna" track, and radar-to-radar communication, to share seen sceneries, "to see around the mountain". ;-) ..radar drivers must talk to "the iron", the radar track "virtual antenna" idea is chop the transmitted signal into pulses with an ID each, (yes, it's is patented, I've spoken with the guy, a Norse Naval radar officer ;-) ), the integration is a math trick to make use of "old" ID'ed echos to verify, enhance etc fresh data off the fresh echos, bonus is this use of old ID'ed echo data, "builds an antenna" the lenght of your track, and long antennas help accuracy. ;-) ..the RL HUD HW uses total reflection of (laser?) light to paint pictures on the inside of the cockpit glass, ( http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/l6.htm ), this can be done with similar hardware, or, say, lasers and mirrors controlled with audio speaker type membrane magnets. ..the remainder is AFAICT, a trivial adaption of FlightGear, and a somewhat less trivial certification. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
Good evening, GPS altitude is less reliable than GPS position because you derive it from the Pythagorean Theorem (or something similar) where the unkown altitude is the vertical leg (~23,800 mi) of a triangle and position is the horizontal leg. Due to the large size of the vertical leg, small percentage errors will be very large in magnitude. Also, and this applies particularly to flight near the ground, the update rate for GPS is (or was last time I checked) about 1 second. A jet making an approach at 140 kts is going about 225 ft/s. With a 700 fpm descent rate that would correspond to this approach speed on a 3 deg glide slope (VS in fpm is TAS in kts * 10 and divided by 2 as my instructor used to teach) even if the accuracy were perfect you would have already landed 11 ft high or low by the time you realized the error. For anything I'd be likely to fly in real life (most of my professional simulator time has been in airliners, space shuttles and now spacecraft) the numbers (Cessna 150 eg) would be 60 kts approach speed (~95 ft/s) 300 fpm descent rate (~5 ft/s) Still enough to throw you off. Accuracy has improved dramatically since the elimination of SA, but the time lag is still a bugger. Hope this enlightens. (Hope it's right) Nickolas HeinMorgantown WV - Original Message - From: Jonathan Richards To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear ! On Tuesday 13 Apr 2004 12:45 am, Olivier Soussiel wrote:> Does someone already fly with Flight Gear?> Flying in real IMC with a synthetic VFR environment could then dramatically> increases situation awareness.OlivierYou mean flying with FlightGear, as in off the ground, right? The developers (and I'm not one) take a lot of trouble to make FlightGear as realistic as possible. *BUT* if you took a laptop up in the sky in IMC, in the hope that the screen would show you a realistic view of the outside world, you'd have to be mad, and it's probably not legal. If there isn't a disclaimer somewhere on www.flightgear.org to say that the data are not to be used for real flight, then there should be! Don't even think about it!RegardsJonathanPS Someone will know better than I, but isn't GPS altitude much less reliable than GPS position?J.___Flightgear-devel mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
Jonathan Richards wrote: PS Someone will know better than I, but isn't GPS altitude much less reliable than GPS position? Even without WAAS, a GPS is more accurate than a barometric altimeter at cruise altitude; near the ground (or more accurately, near the location and elevation where the altimeter setting originated), the altimeter becomes more accurate than a non-WAAS GPS. That's why altimeters work well for takeoff and landing, but not so well for clearing mountains (and thus, we have to add an extra safety buffer). With WAAS, which is available even on handhelds like my Garmin 196, the GPS altitude is accurate to within a few feet. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
On Tuesday 13 Apr 2004 12:45 am, Olivier Soussiel wrote: > Does someone already fly with Flight Gear? > Flying in real IMC with a synthetic VFR environment could then dramatically > increases situation awareness. Olivier You mean flying with FlightGear, as in off the ground, right? The developers (and I'm not one) take a lot of trouble to make FlightGear as realistic as possible. *BUT* if you took a laptop up in the sky in IMC, in the hope that the screen would show you a realistic view of the outside world, you'd have to be mad, and it's probably not legal. If there isn't a disclaimer somewhere on www.flightgear.org to say that the data are not to be used for real flight, then there should be! Don't even think about it! Regards Jonathan PS Someone will know better than I, but isn't GPS altitude much less reliable than GPS position? J. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
Olivier Soussiel wrote: Does someone already fly with Flight Gear? Yes, I've thought about what you suggest, as, I'm sure, have others. You'd want a small tablet PC strapped to your leg -- cockpits are very cramped, even in bizjets. You also need to think about the power supply. Personally, even then, I don't think I'd want to be staring down into my lap during an approach in IMC (that's the only place that the synthetic vision is really necessary; otherwise, you'll usually be far above terrain at IFR altitudes, with very rare exceptions). I do think that tablet PCs will eventually push into this space somehow, though. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Welcome on board Flight Gear !
Does someone already fly with Flight Gear? Here is my point : FG installed on a laptop and configured in such a way that : the weather is sunny time is set to 10:00 am and only the hud is overlapped on the external forward view (no A/C cockpit displayed) Now, a GPS and a "light" AHRS/IMU (like the MT9 of Xsens for instance) is connected to the laptop. At last, the position, altitude, heading, speed, attitude, ... data of the simulation are replaced by the sensor's data. We have here an unrivalled 3D primary flight display. (OK, for accurate Air Speed and Altitude computation, two additional pressure sensors should be connected to the PC to get static and dynamic pressure data. However, GPS Ground Speed and GPS Altitude data are sufficient to validate the concept and much more easier to obtain) This kind of display could be very helpful when flying in IMC because it's always nice to have a clear representation of the surrounding terrain, airfields, antennas, buildings, bridges, ... Flying in real IMC with a synthetic VFR environment could then dramatically increases situation awareness. Olivier ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:30, Gene Buckle wrote: > An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet engines > along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. The Hunter in FlightGear does a passable version of heat blur. However, it terminates suddenly a couple of aircraft lengths from the tailpipe. I also get a strange artifact if clouds are behind the exhaust plume; the clouds are absent immediately behind the exhaust plume. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Basic tower model
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Does anyone have (or can anyone build) a fairly simple, generic airport control tower model? Robin's latest airport data has some tower position information so I'd like to include these in the next world scenery build. Sure, gimme a day or two. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Basic tower model
Does anyone have (or can anyone build) a fairly simple, generic airport control tower model? Robin's latest airport data has some tower position information so I'd like to include these in the next world scenery build. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] xastir moving map?
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:35:52 -0400, Wendell wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've recently found Xastir (http://www.xastir.org/), a rather ..this too is GPL. ;-) > nifty mapping package by/for the HAM radio community. It can > display shapefile maps, terraserver (satellite photo) maps, > tiger maps, and with some recent patches to the code and some > map transformations, it can display sectionals > (http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA_sectionals/). It can > also dynamically retrieve and display NWS weather radar as an > overlay to the maps. > > I'm currently discussing with their developer group how > FlightGear NMEA output would be input into Xastir. (Also > symbology and possible TCAS-like data). > > Is there any interest in the fgfs community, or is Atlas > sufficient? ..yep, I'll have a look. If Atlas is, who says that's a reason not to take a look at Xastir? ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RW light disappear
On Monday 12 April 2004 17:28, Jim Wilson wrote: > > I noticed something similar with the F-16 at low altitudes. I'm starting > > to wonder if we need a select-deselect option for cloud layers that > > should not be visible to solve this problem? > > Is this an issue only from the cockpit view? I made some screenshots of the F-16. http://home.tiscali.no/rvovesen/f16-cockpit.png http://home.tiscali.no/rvovesen/f16-ext1.png http://home.tiscali.no/rvovesen/f16-ext2.png You can clearly see from ext1 and ext2 that the lights are not visible through the canopy of the F-16, but still the building in the background is. The cockpit shot is a bit harder to see but you can see that inside the darker region no lights are visible. The canopy glass of the F-16 has probably (I haven't opened the model in AC3D) some semitransparent material. The same holds for the propeller disk of the C172, and if you try the Cub I think it too has a transparent material for the propeller disk. I would say that it is an issue with semitransparent materials. If you try the 2d panels the lights are visible. But the strangest thing is that as the aircraft rises above som 50 ft above the ground the lights appear. -- Roy Vegard Ovesen ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Andy Ross said: > Gene Buckle wrote: > > Andy Ross wrote: > > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...] > > > > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge > > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for > > it. > > It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits, > nice sounds. Awful terrain, laughable flight model. I > distinctly remember being very impressed by their 6DOF attitude > gyro in the A-4 (something I worked hard at for our version), > until I noticed it was turning the WRONG WAY. Ugh. The animation on our A-4 ai is very simplistic, only mapping to uncooked FDM outputs, but it does go the right direction. I don't know much about how they really work. Maybe the super-accurate readout and instantanious response is correct. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:06:27 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfram Kuss) wrote: BTW, I had a look for a X15 3D model a short while ago. There is a new MSFS/CFS model, but it is not much better than the old one, so I don't think it is worth it. The one we have now doesn't seem too bad, but the skins need some detail work, I think. If I had a little more time I'd almost think of giving that a try, but FDM (and tax preparations) are sucking up all my time. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
BTW, I had a look for a X15 3D model a short while ago. There is a new MSFS/CFS model, but it is not much better than the old one, so I don't think it is worth it. Bye bye, Wolfram. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] MingW and FlightGear
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:45:48 -0400 "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Before Fred started providing MSVC compiled executables IIRC the the only Win32 executables ever available for download from flightgear.org were MingW compiled. What problems are you experiencing ? Norman Nothing really. I had compiled JSBSim under MingW for the first time the other day. I had to remove references to snprintf and link with libwsock32, but other than that I was really happy with it. I wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to waste time on something that was not possible. Maybe I am already compiling FlightGear with mingw and didn't even know it. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> Gene Buckle wrote: > > Andy Ross wrote: > > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...] > > > > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge > > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for > > it. > > It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits, > nice sounds. Awful terrain, laughable flight model. I > distinctly remember being very impressed by their 6DOF attitude > gyro in the A-4 (something I worked hard at for our version), > until I noticed it was turning the WRONG WAY. Ugh. > A lot of work has gone into fixing it and people are even making new terrain for it. Since it's classed as a "survey" sim, it's not going to have high quality flight models like FlightGear does. :) An effect I'd like to see is heat blur at the exhaust end of jet engines along the lines that Lock On: Modern Air Combat has. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Gene Buckle wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > [...] otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game [...] > > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge > following that's been making new aircraft and other things for > it. It's all eye candy, no meat. Pretty aircraft, beutiful cockpits, nice sounds. Awful terrain, laughable flight model. I distinctly remember being very impressed by their 6DOF attitude gyro in the A-4 (something I worked hard at for our version), until I noticed it was turning the WRONG WAY. Ugh. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] MingW and FlightGear
Jon S Berndt writes: > > Can anyone tell me if FlightGear has been successfully compiled and > linked using mingw? Before Fred started providing MSVC compiled executables IIRC the the only Win32 executables ever available for download from flightgear.org were MingW compiled. What problems are you experiencing ? Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RW light disappear
Erik Hofman said: > Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote: > > On Monday 12 April 2004 04:01, Dave Perry wrote: > > > >>I just noticed that the runway lights disappear as I flare out in the > >>c172. > > > > I've noticed this too. It seems that the transparent propeller disk is the > > reason. I tried stopping the engine on ground and that brought back the > > lights. One thing that is strange is that the propeller disk is only opaque > > to lights below a very low altitude. > > > >>Noticed this first as I was completing the ILS RW 35 precision > >>approach into KAZO (Kalamazoo, MI). Complete CVS update Friday evening > >>the 9th (plib, SimGear, FlightGear, and base). This seems to me a new > >>issue with this update. > > > I noticed something similar with the F-16 at low altitudes. I'm starting > to wonder if we need a select-deselect option for cloud layers that > should not be visible to solve this problem? > Is this an issue only from the cockpit view? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> There was an otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game > released about a year ago that did contrails really well. You > could finish a dogfight and look up to see bright, looping > contrail traces of the fight in the sky. > I don't know why you'd call it forgettable. There's a huge following that's been making new aircraft and other things for it. g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RW light disappear
Dave Perry said: > I just noticed that the runway lights disappear as I flare out in the > c172. Noticed this first as I was completing the ILS RW 35 precision > approach into KAZO (Kalamazoo, MI). Complete CVS update Friday evening > the 9th (plib, SimGear, FlightGear, and base). This seems to me a new > issue with this update. > Dave Perry > Does it happen on other runways? Past issues have been related to changes in the ground elevation calculation. Do you see any sign of the lights if you look up in the air after they "disappear"? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] MingW and FlightGear
Can anyone tell me if FlightGear has been successfully compiled and linked using mingw? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Andy Ross wrote: - no jetstream visible I assume this means contrails? (The "jet stream" normally refers to the strong west winds above the tropopause in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere). ... which is often, roughly, the boundary between cold air from the pole and warm air from the equator. SSG already has support for smoke, etc., with drift, though I don't remember the name of the class. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Ilja Moderau wrote: > - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound > - no cockpit light at night visible These two are relatively easy. The "outside" sound handling will probably require some code, but nothing difficult. > - no jetstream visible I assume this means contrails? (The "jet stream" normally refers to the strong west winds above the tropopause in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere). Rendering contrails would require that someone write a module that builds and caches an appropriate ssg node, updating it as necessary to reflect the engines' paths. Probably not trivial, but it would be cool. There was an otherwise forgettable "Strike Fighters" game released about a year ago that did contrails really well. You could finish a dogfight and look up to see bright, looping contrail traces of the fight in the sky. > - engines can't be turned off This is a limitation of the YASim jet model. It wouldn't be hard to throw something together so you could shut it off. The problem is that stopping and starting a *real* turbine engine is a complicated process, which differs widely between specific engine models. So I guess I don't really see the point: the only purpose to shutting an engine down is to practice starting it, which isn't going to be realistic without a *lot* of work. But I'm not firm on this. If enough people shout about it, I can hack up an engine start for YASim. :) Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> > > The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ > > > circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for > > > the F-16. > > > > > > > Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :) > > You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying to fulfill > the pilot's wish here: > > http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg > > You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the > highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't > enough. > I know that the leading edge slats were automatic, but not the flaps. There's just something wrong with not being able to manual command a flap extension or retraction. :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] xastir moving map?
I've recently found Xastir (http://www.xastir.org/), a rather nifty mapping package by/for the HAM radio community. It can display shapefile maps, terraserver (satellite photo) maps, tiger maps, and with some recent patches to the code and some map transformations, it can display sectionals (http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA_sectionals/). It can also dynamically retrieve and display NWS weather radar as an overlay to the maps. I'm currently discussing with their developer group how FlightGear NMEA output would be input into Xastir. (Also symbology and possible TCAS-like data). Is there any interest in the fgfs community, or is Atlas sufficient? Wendell ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List 2
Ilja Moderau wrote: I read in the Aircraft Todo Lists of some Aircrafts: - no jetstream visible - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound - no cockpit light at night visible - engines can't be turned off Are such things possible in FlightGear? Jetstream can be kludged together, but there is no real solution yet. Cockpit sounds can differ from outside sounds (check the c172 in CVS). Engines can be turned off, it's just that they start turned on for convenience. Cockpit light is the most problematic of them all. It can be adjusted a bit by adding emissive lighting, but it's not optimal. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Jon Berndt wrote: Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here was the g-limiter ... No, it was the pilot. :-( Eh, yes, you're right. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
> > You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying > to fulfill > > the pilot's wish here: > > > > http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg > > > > You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the > > highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't > > enough. > > Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here > was the g-limiter ... > > Erik No, it was the pilot. :-( Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
I read in the Aircraft Todo Lists of some Aircrafts: - no jetstream visible - engine sound in cockpit does not differ from outside engine sound - no cockpit light at night visible - engines can't be turned off Are such things possible in FlightGear? -- Men can´t fly? http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/fly.jpg ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RW light disappear
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote: On Monday 12 April 2004 04:01, Dave Perry wrote: I just noticed that the runway lights disappear as I flare out in the c172. I've noticed this too. It seems that the transparent propeller disk is the reason. I tried stopping the engine on ground and that brought back the lights. One thing that is strange is that the propeller disk is only opaque to lights below a very low altitude. Noticed this first as I was completing the ILS RW 35 precision approach into KAZO (Kalamazoo, MI). Complete CVS update Friday evening the 9th (plib, SimGear, FlightGear, and base). This seems to me a new issue with this update. I noticed something similar with the F-16 at low altitudes. I'm starting to wonder if we need a select-deselect option for cloud layers that should not be visible to solve this problem? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] RW light disappear
On Monday 12 April 2004 04:01, Dave Perry wrote: > I just noticed that the runway lights disappear as I flare out in the > c172. I've noticed this too. It seems that the transparent propeller disk is the reason. I tried stopping the engine on ground and that brought back the lights. One thing that is strange is that the propeller disk is only opaque to lights below a very low altitude. > Noticed this first as I was completing the ILS RW 35 precision > approach into KAZO (Kalamazoo, MI). Complete CVS update Friday evening > the 9th (plib, SimGear, FlightGear, and base). This seems to me a new > issue with this update. > Dave Perry > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Roy Vegard Ovesen ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Todo List
Jon Berndt wrote: The FC adjusts the flap settings to optimal performance under _all_ circumstances. I have yet to read somewhere there is a flap override for the F-16. Hmmm. I knew there was a reason I didn't like that airplane. :) You can see the leading edge slats responding to the FCS trying to fulfill the pilot's wish here: http://www.avweb.com/newspics/DavisTbirdEject.jpg You can't really tell here what the flaps are doing. I suspect this is the highest lift configuration the F-16 has in this situation. It still wasn't enough. Yes it is (for high angle of attack). But I think the main problem here was the g-limiter ... Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
