Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: old 3d clouds code
On Montag 13 Juni 2005 11:03, Melchior FRANZ wrote: Probably a good idea. The old code is broken, unmaintained, and uses nasty binary cloud definition files, while the new code yields much better results (except when flying through clouds). The old code may be more advanced in some respect (and slower :-), but it'll remain in the Attic/ anyway, so if someone wants to pick it up again, fix it, and make it better than the new clouds, go ahead ... Hmm, while I am a bit late now. I have not used the new code for some weeks. That is because of a crash in the OpenGL driver when called from the 'render in texture' initialization. So I cannot really tell how it looks like. Since nobody other complained I think it is a problem in this driver. So the last thing I remembered was that flying through clouds was much better with the old code. The new clouds seem to be afraid from an aircraft. They just move out of the flight path. As a result you almost never fly through clouds. Is this still the case? And if so, could the new cloud code be changed to behave like the old one in this case? If I understood right the Harris code really simulates the air. That means one could extract realistic upwinds and downwinds from that simulation. It's a pity, but since I don't have the time to look into that I cannot vote for keeping that ... Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Colditz Glider
On June 6, 2005 06:44 pm, Josh Babcock wrote: Well, take a look at what I put in, no wires, though I could do that with about zero trouble if people think it would add to the model. Personally I don't think it would add much though. Also I think the bar I put in there is pretty sensible. Now who's going to do the castle :) Happy escapes! Josh Well, here's a map if it helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colditzcampmap.jpg As to escapes, prisoners are encouraged to do so. If they get caught, they won't get shot. Read about the escape stories here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colditz_Castle Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Re: [Terragear-devel] Land data differences?
Yeah... Also, the thing is I'm planning to create sceneries and models for Hong Kong, and possibly some Taiwan and Sydney. I found multimap pretty useful. I suppose I work on them based on FG's official sceneries. So, back to my original poblem, does anyone know what data is used for the FG official sceneries? And how? I would imagine there's some sort of automated scripts or something? I ended writing one or two simple shell scripts to do all the terragear stuff (tgvpf, fgfs-tools-server/client, the lot) too. Hehe, the source of coordinates for buildings is a different one. I'd suggest you to have a look here - if you didn't have already: http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/ If buildings sit in the sea with your scenery then I'd suggest your coastline is inaccurate - I expect the buildings to be located at their correct positions, ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: The new 3D clouds are a good exemple of programming ressource, which could be used to simulate random waves ( i will get god lightnings or rather devil fires, if i continu in that way ). What I was referring to was moving masses of water. Simulating water sparkles is not a bad idea but doesn't require triangle mesh manipulations. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: old 3d clouds code
Mathias Fröhlich wrote: So the last thing I remembered was that flying through clouds was much better with the old code. The new clouds seem to be afraid from an aircraft. They just move out of the flight path. As a result you almost never fly through clouds. Is this still the case? Nope. If I understood right the Harris code really simulates the air. That means one could extract realistic upwinds and downwinds from that simulation. This has been added by David Culp, we just put a thundercloud and a ThunderStorm AIModel at the same location. It's a pity, but since I don't have the time to look into that I cannot vote for keeping that ... I think It's safe to say the new clouds code supersedes the old one. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] OpenAL for CygWin
I have placed a compiled tarball of yesterdays OpenAL CVS files @ http://www.vso.cape.com/~nhv/files/cygwin/cyg_openAL.tgz you might want to test these against the current FGFS before blindly overwriting your currrent installation Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Erik Yes it is very useful,i have made some modifications according to my needs, especially for water . These parameters give a wide range of possibility. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Metar connection unavalable = very long time for loading FG
When the connection to Metar is unavailable (loop of requests on the net), FG loads only after about 2 minutes. Is it possible to reduce it. It only happen with CVS release, 9-8 is good (no response, go on) -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d And for all the rotor heads out there, the surface area of the ground makes a huge difference to a helicopter in real life. e.g.. Tall grass is much preferable to concrete for emergency landings and high performance takeoffs. A smooth surface can seriously degrade hover in ground effect performance. OTOH, a bumpy surface can greatly increase the chance of dynamic rollover. Improving the ground material system would lay the groundwork for adding modeling for those effects to YASim. (though VRS, autorotation and translational lift are probably all more important) Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] OpenAL for CygWin
I have placed a compiled tarball of yesterdays OpenAL CVS files @ http://www.vso.cape.com/~nhv/files/cygwin/cyg_openAL.tgz you might want to test these against the current FGFS before blindly overwriting your currrent installation Is this distribution modified for use with CygWin as discussed in this thread recently? Namely, the _WIN32 - WIN32 issue, as well as the #define MVC? I suspect these statements could be modified in OpenAL CVS to support CygWin without trouble. Has anyone approached them about this? If not, I wonder if I ought to? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 à 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a écrit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Yes it is very useful,i have made some modifications according to my needs, especially for water . These parameters give a wide range of possibility. If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Metar connection unavalable = very long time for loading FG
Gerard Robin wrote: When the connection to Metar is unavailable (loop of requests on the net), FG loads only after about 2 minutes. Is it possible to reduce it. It only happen with CVS release, 9-8 is good (no response, go on) I've looked at it very briefly the past week and couldn't find anything obvious. Some more testing needs to be done. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] OpenAL for CygWin
Jon Berndt wrote: I have placed a compiled tarball of yesterdays OpenAL CVS files @ http://www.vso.cape.com/~nhv/files/cygwin/cyg_openAL.tgz you might want to test these against the current FGFS before blindly overwriting your currrent installation Is this distribution modified for use with CygWin as discussed in this thread recently? Namely, the _WIN32 - WIN32 issue, as well as the #define MVC? I suspect these statements could be modified in OpenAL CVS to support CygWin without trouble. Has anyone approached them about this? If not, I wonder if I ought to? Previous patches (namely the complete IRIX backend) have been accepted without a problem (although you sometimes might need to ask for it a second time). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] New turbo/supercharger code
Vivan Meazza wrote (in a CVS checkin): I've removed all the features that rely on the diff to YASim that I posted recently, I don't expect any reaction from Andy any time soon! I feel a bit inclined to remind him of his rant against Cygwin recently. I'm willing to be favourably surprised. Good grief. If you guys are going to snipe like this, at least keep it out of the public record. And try giving me more than 24 hours to reply next time. Easy stuff I can handle at work while I read the mailing list, but some stuff requires that I get home and actually run the simulator. This is decidedly not a trivial patch*, and takes time to test. No one else reported trying it, so that means I need to manually load up the engine definitions of every turbo/supercharged engine, verify that the plane can't reach the non-physical regime, make sure the solver still completes and that the parameters don't change too much, and only *then* worry about what the new features mean (example: why is there a cutout control? Couldn't that be done more generally by making the wastegate value settable? Did the Hurricane even have a wastegate? What gadget the cutout lever control?) * For one, I still hate the boost function that goes negative at high RPM, and am 60% sure it's going to hurt someone somewhere. For another, it's clearly modelling a supercharger; it doesn't correspond well to turbocharger behavior, nor does it provide a sane migration path to a simulation engine that supports both in a general way (or splits them out into separate objects). Now, of course, I am out of time before work and won't be able to work on this more until tonight. If you want to help me out, stuff like this would be really useful: + Fit a boost function that is asymptotic in the high RPM regime and doesn't go negative. More than anything else, this is what freaks me out the most about your patch. We discussed a few earlier, for example. Note that it can be piecewise: you don't need just one equation. + Try the other turbo/supercharged aircraft in the command line solver and provide output for the before/after case to verify that nothing weird is going on. + Explain better why you want the new CUTOUT control and didn't just make the wastegate setting modifiable at runtime (which simplifies the engine model and seems more general, IMHO). + Convince other folks to try the changes and report success. Just for the record: if this were an obvious fix or an simple/orthogonal new feature, then I would just apply it like I apply other fixes. It is neither, which means (I'm sorry) we are both going to have to do more work. Pissing me off isn't helping. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
On Monday 13 Jun 2005 15:14, Vivian Meazza wrote: There remains some more eye-candy to do: nav lights, beam approach marker lamps, realistic rad and oil temperature readings etc. In the meantime I would be grateful for any comments, not least that it all downloads and installs correctly! Installed the version from today's CVS and it seems to run fine here (Linux-x86 Nvidia). I have to say I had high expectations after the Hunter and Spit, and you haven't disappointed! There are so many nice touches that I've noticed already. One thing (not necessarily a bug) that I've sometimes found with the both Spit and the Hurricane is that they can be incredibly over-twitchy; this might well be directly related to my rather rubbish joystick. It seems that fairly often the stick is flicking about wildly in the cockpit, usually to one side in particular, and no amount of leaning on it is enough to resist that pull. Is this by design (crosswinds/prop wash, + nervous handling) or is it just that my stick is rubbish (it does give constantly flickering values, even when calibrated correctly) and that the sensitivity is set higher than usual for these planes? I haven't noticed any trouble with the hunter/seahawk etc, I can manage things like carrier landings with these OK. I'm Looking forward to the next plane already! Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 16:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: Le mardi 14 juin 2005 10:13 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Water isn't the only other material that should be modelled. There are also other materials such as grass and soil. Right now, I can take a short cut across the grass in any airport without concern, and these sort of behaviours should bring some consequences. =) True, that's why I added the numbers for rolling-friction and bumpiness in the materials.xml file for every coverage. Yes it is very useful,i have made some modifications according to my needs, especially for water . These parameters give a wide range of possibility. If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. Erik OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Metar connection unavalable = very long time for loading FG
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 16:14 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: When the connection to Metar is unavailable (loop of requests on the net), FG loads only after about 2 minutes. Is it possible to reduce it. It only happen with CVS release, 9-8 is good (no response, go on) I've looked at it very briefly the past week and couldn't find anything obvious. Some more testing needs to be done. Erik Yes i have searched, too, nothing found. I will try to simulate it. in the same situation (i mean FG polling for Metar without answer), i have tried directly the Metar command and i got immediately an answer with the real Weather of the same airport) -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Colditz Glider
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 00:42, Josh Babcock wrote: OK, model's done, same address. Now I'm going to do the animation XML. If I'm really cool I'll be able to make the wind ribbon look good. Otherwise, just controls and control surfaces. Also, I didn't know what the rudder pedals looked like, so I left them out. I would assume that it's just a stick on a pivot which would be super easy to add. I'm not sure about historical accuracy though. Of course, the entire inside of the cockpit is a WAG anyway. Thoughts? Josh Superb job, Josh. Many thanks. Sorry it's been a while since you completed it, but I've been ill. I love the details (like the wonky surface on the leading-edge!). The details of the inside of the cockpit are, as you say, just a guess but look pretty feasable to me. It would be nice if anyone on this list was visiting the IWM's Aircraft Museum and could contribute any detailed photos of the replica. A polite request to the museum itself might mean that such a visitor could be let past the ropes to get really close up. I got the impression from photos of the 2000 flight of the replica that the wing struts were a lot chunkier than you've made them, but that's all I can contribute. I have a bit more tweaking to do on the CG, and then I'll release what will (for now) probably be a first complete tarball of the Colditz Glider aircraft addon. Steve. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Metar connection unavalable = very long time for loading FG
* Gerard Robin -- Tuesday 14 June 2005 18:16: Gerard Robin wrote: When the connection to Metar is unavailable (loop of requests on the net), FG loads only after about 2 minutes. i have tried directly the Metar command and i got immediately an answer with the real Weather of the same airport) Both use the same code to fetch the data. But fgfs discards data sets that are older than /environment/params/metar-max-age-min (4 hours), and searches more recent data from farther away stations. If all are old (because the server is down and a proxy only spits out old data, or something), then you'll maybe get lots of requests one after the other. Next time, check the age of the weather data set that the metar program showed. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik Open to discussion: Sea Water MINE rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.3/bumpiness Sea Water FG rolling-friction2/rolling-friction bumpiness0.8/bumpiness Lake MINE rolling-friction0.8/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Lake FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness IntermittentStream MINE rolling-friction4/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness IntermittentStream FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik FORGET my Message SEEM TO BE SOMETHING WRONG WRONG , in my last material.xml Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Colditz Glider
Steve Hosgood wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 00:42, Josh Babcock wrote: OK, model's done, same address. Now I'm going to do the animation XML. If I'm really cool I'll be able to make the wind ribbon look good. Otherwise, just controls and control surfaces. Also, I didn't know what the rudder pedals looked like, so I left them out. I would assume that it's just a stick on a pivot which would be super easy to add. I'm not sure about historical accuracy though. Of course, the entire inside of the cockpit is a WAG anyway. Thoughts? Josh Superb job, Josh. Many thanks. Sorry it's been a while since you completed it, but I've been ill. I love the details (like the wonky surface on the leading-edge!). The details of the inside of the cockpit are, as you say, just a guess but look pretty feasable to me. It would be nice if anyone on this list was visiting the IWM's Aircraft Museum and could contribute any detailed photos of the replica. A polite request to the museum itself might mean that such a visitor could be let past the ropes to get really close up. I got the impression from photos of the 2000 flight of the replica that the wing struts were a lot chunkier than you've made them, but that's all I can contribute. I have a bit more tweaking to do on the CG, and then I'll release what will (for now) probably be a first complete tarball of the Colditz Glider aircraft addon. Steve. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Someone should commit this to CVS too. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Metar connection unavalable = very long time for loading FG
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Gerard Robin -- Tuesday 14 June 2005 18:16: Gerard Robin wrote: When the connection to Metar is unavailable (loop of requests on the net), FG loads only after about 2 minutes. i have tried directly the Metar command and i got immediately an answer with the real Weather of the same airport) Both use the same code to fetch the data. But fgfs discards data sets that are older than /environment/params/metar-max-age-min (4 hours), and searches more recent data from farther away stations. If all are old (because the server is down and a proxy only spits out old data, or something), then you'll maybe get lots of requests one after the other. Next time, check the age of the weather data set that the metar program showed. m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d That searching was the behavior I saw the other day. I can also add that starting fg with an unconnected dialup and metar turned on results in a ridiculously long timeout. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 19:17 +0200, Gerard Robin a crit : Le mardi 14 juin 2005 18:24 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit : Gerard Robin wrote: If you think some numbers are (way) off, please sent corrections to me. Most numbers where rough estimates without any testing. OK, don't you think it could be rather an open discussion? It would, if the rest of us could test it, but at this point you seem to be the only one who is using it. I am not sure to keep the TRUE i am not a GURU :-( and i worry it :-( No need to worry, there is no pressure. It's easily changed in the future :-) i only modify some, mainly water to make my SeaPlanes more realistic. I will search which have been modified. If you have cvs working it's as easy as: cvs login cvs -z3 up -Pd materials.xml cvs diff -puRN materials.xml /tmp/materials.diff cvs logout Erik REPLACE THE PREVIOUS WRONG ONE (the disadvantage to have three FG release in //). Open to discussion: Sea Water MINE rolling-friction2/rolling-friction bumpiness0.8/bumpiness Sea Water FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Lake MINE rolling-friction1.5/rolling-friction bumpiness0.5/bumpiness Lake FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.2/bumpiness Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness IntermittentStream MINE rolling-friction4/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness IntermittentStream FG rolling-friction1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.6/bumpiness Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Important Notice to Aircraft Designers: Electrical system updates.
Aircraft Designers: If you are an aircraft designer, especially one that maintains aircraft outside of the FlightGear CVS system, please read this notice carefully! Please feel free to ask questions if something here is not 100% clear. I am about to commit round one of my electrical system work. 1. This turns the electrical system into a proper subsystem so you need an entry in your aircraft's systems.xml file or you will have no electrical system at all. I have added this entry to the generic-systems.xml file (which all aircraft inherit at this point.) I have removed all references to generic-electrical.xml in all the CVS aircraft-set.xml files since this is now picked up from the generic-systems.xml file. Note that all aircraft-set.xml files that specify a custom electrical.xml config file will still work. 2. I have tried to add some functionality to the current data driven electrical system model, specifically to model battery charging and discharging, but in the process of doing this (which is a big hack) I realized how hopelessly flawed and ill concieved the current system is. (I can say these nasty things about the code because I wrote it.) :-) There are additional things I need to add to the model, and basically I can't ... it's just too limited and flawed. Really, we need a better data-driven system to be written by someone. Alex Perry (an electronics expert) has volunteered to assist with the design although he doesn't currently have the time to do all the implimentation work. Do we have any volunteers to work on this? I think there are many elements and ideas from the current system that could be carried over, however they would need to be modified and updated in light of a complete redesign and completely new approach. 3. The current electrical system model was developed before Nasal showed up on the scene. Nasal is a very attractive option for developing aircraft specific subsystem models. In the next day or two I plan to post a reimplimentation of the c172 electrical system using nasal. The nasal version adds some nice things like the ability to do better load modeling, plus the ability to more cleanly impliment battery charging and discharging as well as a cleaner implimentation of an ammeter gauge. I think this is a really interesting/practical example of how nasal can be used to add significantly complex aircraft specific functionality to FlightGear without touching the C++ code base. 4. I propose that we don't use the current system any more to develop new electrical system models. We can leave it in the code base for a while so we don't break existing aircraft designs, but in retrospect it's kind of an embarrasment so eventually it should go. I propose that people needing to develop aircraft specific electrical systems now use a nasal based approach, and I hope to post an example or two in the next few days. 5. I've tried to be careful not to break any existing aircraft with my changes, but hey, mistakes are possible. So if anyone notices any breakage or oddities with the electrical system on any aircraft, please notify me as soon as possible. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Gerard Robin wrote: Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make sense for an aircraft with wheels landing on a beach strip. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:50:18 +0200, Arnt wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:39:21 -0500, Curtis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:14:09 -0500, Curtis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Models/Current/MidwestCitabria/ If you scroll down a bit there's a take off picture (with the tail wheel just coming up) and then two landing pictures (notice the position of the airplane relative to the shadow.) ..but there were other arrivals? ;o) http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Models/Current/MidwestCitabria/Link/IMG_2045.html That's one of my favorite non-flight pictures because of the sun angle. It's taken in my driveway so there was no flying that day. ..those prop tips, ... taxiing? ;o) One of these days it would be fun to rig up a wireless camera on board. I could do several flights with different camera placements and orientations, mix in some ground footage, set to music, and it could come out looking really cool. I've got an ultra cheap wireless video system, but it has horribly short range and horribly heavy batteries, and a really crappy camera so it's not very good for flying (and not much good for anything else for that matter.) :-) ..you're thinking about flying the video? Use those batteries in your 1/4 scale Colditz bath tub and wind up a generator spool and feed it magnetism off your magnetic prop drive flange. Tap that spool thru a diode bridge and a 7805, smooth things with a coupla capasitors each side of the 7805, and hike the 7805's 5.0VDC with a .3V zener diode to 5.3VDC. You want sound too. ;o) ..duh, you bought the Sullivan generator for $79! ;o) http://www.sullivanproducts.com/GenesysContent.htm ..for downlink, a pc-card or usb wifi/802.11 radio with an omnidirectional antenna in the airborne end, for the ground station, an aimed satellite dish feeding a cantenna, will cover miles: http://huizen.deds.nl/~pa0hoo/helix_wifi/linkbudgetcalc/wlan_budgetcalc.html ..how about AoA sensors for the flight computer? This is the only thing I see missing in an optics+gps based flight computer, a wee downwind gust can both break and make a slightly downwind computer landing. ..one way is gut a pc mouse for the diode pairs, electronics and mouse pin wheels, and ball case, cut the ball case in 2 to make 2 vane pin bearing mounts, glue vanes onto each mouse roller pin, and stick both vane assemblies outside the prop blast area, one for each wing. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..duh, you bought the Sullivan generator for $79! ;o) http://www.sullivanproducts.com/GenesysContent.htm Yes, I'm hoping I can rig up an onboard power system based on the genesys. For what I'll be doing, batteries would work fine too, but I thought it would be an interesting avenue to explore. ..for downlink, a pc-card or usb wifi/802.11 radio with an omnidirectional antenna in the airborne end, for the ground station, an aimed satellite dish feeding a cantenna, will cover miles: http://huizen.deds.nl/~pa0hoo/helix_wifi/linkbudgetcalc/wlan_budgetcalc.html I was curious about the idea of removing the case from my Linksys WRT54G wireless router and powering that by battery. Supposedly it's running linux and is hackable, but I haven't played around with trying to hack into it yet. ..how about AoA sensors for the flight computer? This is the only thing I see missing in an optics+gps based flight computer, a wee downwind gust can both break and make a slightly downwind computer landing. That might be important for some airplanes, but the Kadet I've chosen is basically impossible to stall at any speed. ..one way is gut a pc mouse for the diode pairs, electronics and mouse pin wheels, and ball case, cut the ball case in 2 to make 2 vane pin bearing mounts, glue vanes onto each mouse roller pin, and stick both vane assemblies outside the prop blast area, one for each wing. That's an interesting idea. My next step is to get my flight computer up and running and once I do that and get some basic code in place, I can start experimenting with other things. An RPM sensor and a CHT/EGT would also be nice additions. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] poll
Jon Stockill wrote: Gerard Robin wrote: Sand MINE rolling-friction2.O/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness Sand FG rolling-friction0.1/rolling-friction bumpiness0.1/bumpiness That may make sense for a sea plane with floats, but it doesn't make sense for an aircraft with wheels landing on a beach strip. I had my doubts about this also. This requires the JSBSim friction to be altered instead. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I was curious about the idea of removing the case from my Linksys WRT54G wireless router and powering that by battery. Supposedly it's running linux and is hackable, but I haven't played around with trying to hack into it yet. How much space do you actually have? Would a nano-itx or even mini-itx board fit? With one of those you could use a USB wireless interface, giving you flexibility to position it for best signal (radome style bulge under the aircraft? :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
Jon Stockill wrote: How much space do you actually have? Would a nano-itx or even mini-itx board fit? With one of those you could use a USB wireless interface, giving you flexibility to position it for best signal (radome style bulge under the aircraft? :-) Construction pictures here: http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Models/Current/EGN-1/Construction/ You might be able to get some sense of the size from the picts. There's more space in there than in your typical R/C trainer or sport plane, but still, it disappears really quickly as soon as you start adding anything. I'm just going to move forward slowly one step at a time and ignore most of the bright ideas from the mailing list. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
Curtis L. Olson wrote: anything. I'm just going to move forward slowly one step at a time and ignore most of the bright ideas from the mailing list. :-) Probably a wise move :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] New turbo/supercharger code
Andy Ross wrote Vivian Meazza wrote (in a CVS checkin): I've removed all the features that rely on the diff to YASim that I posted recently, I don't expect any reaction from Andy any time soon! I feel a bit inclined to remind him of his rant against Cygwin recently. I'm willing to be favourably surprised. Good grief. If you guys are going to snipe like this, at least keep it out of the public record. And try giving me more than 24 hours to reply next time. Easy stuff I can handle at work while I read the mailing list, but some stuff requires that I get home and actually run the simulator. Ouch! Many apologies and humble grovelling for the public whinge! This is decidedly not a trivial patch*, and takes time to test. No one else reported trying it, so that means I need to manually load up the engine definitions of every turbo/supercharged engine, verify that the plane can't reach the non-physical regime, make sure the solver still completes and that the parameters don't change too much, Already done, but you'll want to check, I expect. only *then* worry about what the new features mean (example: why is there a cutout control? Couldn't that be done more generally by making the wastegate value settable? Did the Hurricane even have a wastegate? What gadget the cutout lever control?) I would do this work if it didn't? :-) * For one, I still hate the boost function that goes negative at high RPM, and am 60% sure it's going to hurt someone somewhere. For another, it's clearly modelling a supercharger; it doesn't correspond well to turbocharger behavior, nor does it provide a sane migration path to a simulation engine that supports both in a general way (or splits them out into separate objects). I have revised the curve: now a Hoerl power function. It's a good fit over the rpm range up to x4 peak power rpm (unnecessary: x3 is too much imho) and tails off thereafter reflecting less output as more of the compressor stalls. The output remains positive for ALL values of rpm, and won't break under any circumstances. I agree that this is optimised for a supercharger. I don't believe that a compromise between turbo and gear driven is possible for maximum realism. On the other hand this is better than the present situation. I have a curve for a turbo up my sleeve. However, it is very definitely art not science, because turbo installations vary, and dealing with throttle opening is complex. A very general model should be possible if it is felt that a near linear response is not OK. It will be necessary to identify turbo or gear driven superchargers. Now, of course, I am out of time before work and won't be able to work on this more until tonight. If you want to help me out, stuff like this would be really useful: + Fit a boost function that is asymptotic in the high RPM regime and doesn't go negative. More than anything else, this is what freaks me out the most about your patch. We discussed a few earlier, for example. Note that it can be piecewise: you don't need just one equation. Already the case: see above. I considered a spline, but the extra complication doesn't really give a better outcome. Asymptotic ... OK up to a point, but at some rpm the compressor goes supersonic (depending on the design) and output falls away. I attempt to model this in a general way, while ensuring that the output remains positive for all rpm values, no matter how unreasonable. I'll put the output on my website so that you can see. I'm satisfied with this solution, but others are, of course, possible. + Try the other turbo/supercharged aircraft in the command line solver and provide output for the before/after case to verify that nothing weird is going on. I had already checked every propeller driven YASim models (supercharger and none, even with legacy code). As I said: so far as I could see there were no adverse effects. I should have been explicit. + Explain better why you want the new CUTOUT control and didn't just make the wastegate setting modifiable at runtime (which simplifies the engine model and seems more general, IMHO). The Merlin (Hurricane, Spitfire and P51d) had a Boost Control which acted on the throttle to control the boost pressure: I briefly considered modelling that, but it is adequately modelled by the wastegate in YASim (as you yourself said here earlier). The Boost Control Cutout bypassed the Boost Control. The CUTOUT control seems to me to be simple to implement, reflects the way it worked in reality, and is applicable to several models. It avoids any complex interaction between it and the supercharger output curve. However, if this change gives you real difficulty, then I suppose setting the wastegate value to a very large value would be the equivalent. Bit of hack though and therefore feels unprofessional when a proper solution is so easy (and available). + Convince other folks to try the changes
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
AJ MacLeod wrote On Monday 13 Jun 2005 15:14, Vivian Meazza wrote: There remains some more eye-candy to do: nav lights, beam approach marker lamps, realistic rad and oil temperature readings etc. In the meantime I would be grateful for any comments, not least that it all downloads and installs correctly! Installed the version from today's CVS and it seems to run fine here (Linux-x86 Nvidia). I have to say I had high expectations after the Hunter and Spit, and you haven't disappointed! There are so many nice touches that I've noticed already. Thanks! One thing (not necessarily a bug) that I've sometimes found with the both Spit and the Hurricane is that they can be incredibly over-twitchy; this might well be directly related to my rather rubbish joystick. It seems that fairly often the stick is flicking about wildly in the cockpit, usually to one side in particular, and no amount of leaning on it is enough to resist that pull. Is this in roll only? The ailerons are much more powerful, but also damped. There shouldn't be any rapid movement in the ailerons, but the stick reflects the input. Look at the ailerons in an external view - are they jumping around too? Is this by design (crosswinds/prop wash, + nervous handling) or is it just that my stick is rubbish (it does give constantly flickering values, even when calibrated correctly) and that the sensitivity is set higher than usual for these planes? I haven't noticed any trouble with the hunter/seahawk etc, I can manage things like carrier landings with these OK. There is the gyro effect of the prop, and the tail is offset to compensate, but it shouldn't be too difficult. Try the rudder trim. What joystick are you using? I have to say that I suspect a hardware problem by your description. I'm on my 4th Logitech (various kinds) - all replaced under guarantee, and all behaving as you describe. Well, 3 of them. So far so good with this one. I'm Looking forward to the next plane already! Sea Hurricane next, when I've done with this one. Then back to re-work the Spitfire and Hunter. Probably a year's work! Did you try the yasim.diff yet (posted to the list earlier) - if you haven't I would be grateful for any feedback - it shouldn't break anything, and enables several other features such as the boost gauge and the Boost Control Cutout. The modified supercharger output should make landing much easier too. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Hurricane
On Tuesday 14 Jun 2005 22:57, Vivian Meazza wrote: Is this in roll only? The ailerons are much more powerful, but also damped. There shouldn't be any rapid movement in the ailerons, but the stick reflects the input. Look at the ailerons in an external view - are they jumping around too? Yes to both - it's in roll only (although once the plane is bucking around like that, pitch starts to become involved as well!) I was wondering if the wind moving ailerons, e.g. at rest on the ground (is that even modelled?) moved the stick but obviously if the stick represents what my joystick input is, then that's the problem. There is the gyro effect of the prop, and the tail is offset to compensate, but it shouldn't be too difficult. Try the rudder trim. Yes, I was assuming that those effects should be controllable fairly easily; although I've certainly not flown a Hurricane or Spit (or anything other than a Bocian, for that matter!) the amplitude of this effect feels entirely out of proportion with reality even as modelled in the rest of the sim. What joystick are you using? I have to say that I suspect a hardware problem by your description. So do I, which is why I was tentatively checking that I'm not just a completely useless pilot (although that's probably still true :-) It's a cheap (and fairly nasty) analogue stick made by InterAct. And it's almost nine years old. Looks like it's time to spend a few quid then! I normally fly the Hunter though and it doesn't show any misbehaviour unless I've forgotten to calibrate the stick first, which is why I've not investigated further before. Sea Hurricane next, when I've done with this one. Then back to re-work the Spitfire and Hunter. Probably a year's work! Still not tempted by a Bucc? ;-) Oh well, one mustn't be greedy! I'm currently attempting a Lightning, using AC3D rather than Blender this time, with tips from the (pretty good) series of tutorials posted here a short time ago. So far I've got a fuselage, tail and 80% of the wing done and looking almost reasonable, which is a whole lot more than I've managed before... whether or not it turns out to be remotely near releasable quality remains to be seen! Are most you (or most people here) using AC3D or something else? Did you try the yasim.diff yet (posted to the list earlier) - if you haven't I would be grateful for any feedback - it shouldn't break anything, and enables several other features such as the boost gauge and the Boost Control Cutout. The modified supercharger output should make landing much easier too. I must confess I didn't, but if I get a chance tomorrow, I'll give it a go. Cheers, AJ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
Jon Stockill wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: I was curious about the idea of removing the case from my Linksys WRT54G wireless router and powering that by battery. Supposedly it's running linux and is hackable, but I haven't played around with trying to hack into it yet. How much space do you actually have? Would a nano-itx or even mini-itx board fit? With one of those you could use a USB wireless interface, giving you flexibility to position it for best signal (radome style bulge under the aircraft? :-) Hmmm. FlightWAP! :) g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Gear jitter
I was looking at the gear jitter in the latest version of FlightGear with the current C172 (JSBSim). I didn't notice much jitter at all - really very little. Is that because winds are off by default, now? Is there a particular setup where I can see it most noticeably? I have a possible fix that I want to try out. Jon -- Project Coordinator JSBSim Flight Dynamics Model http://www.jsbsim.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Gear jitter
Le mardi 14 juin 2005 20:25 -0500, Jon Berndt a crit : I was looking at the gear jitter in the latest version of FlightGear with the current C172 (JSBSim). I didn't notice much jitter at all - really very little. Is that because winds are off by default, now? Is there a particular setup where I can see it most noticeably? I have a possible fix that I want to try out. Jon -- Project Coordinator JSBSim Flight Dynamics Model http://www.jsbsim.org I did notice it, too, after trying to understand why, i made some modifications, on the Aircrafts which where very sensitives. I am not sure that is because of the wind, i use Metar, and i am often in different conditions. -- Gerard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Completely OT (but aviation related.)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:40:23 -0500, Curtis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..duh, you bought the Sullivan generator for $79! ;o) http://www.sullivanproducts.com/GenesysContent.htm Yes, I'm hoping I can rig up an onboard power system based on the genesys. For what I'll be doing, batteries would work fine too, but I thought it would be an interesting avenue to explore. ..according to Sullivan, you can hang 3 of those spools on one magnetic prop flange. You want a battery as backup and load damper. ..for downlink, a pc-card or usb wifi/802.11 radio with an omnidirectional antenna in the airborne end, for the ground station, an aimed satellite dish feeding a cantenna, will cover miles: http://huizen.deds.nl/~pa0hoo/helix_wifi/linkbudgetcalc/wlan_budgetcalc.html I was curious about the idea of removing the case from my Linksys WRT54G wireless router and powering that by battery. Supposedly it's running linux and is hackable, but I haven't played around with trying to hack into it yet. ..workable, especially for a signal relay plane. Also chk those nice nano-itx etc things Jon S suggested, some are _really_ sweet, chk out mini-itx.com/projects.asp and mini-itx.com/news/91875682/ . ..how about AoA sensors for the flight computer? This is the only thing I see missing in an optics+gps based flight computer, a wee downwind gust can both break and make a slightly downwind computer landing. That might be important for some airplanes, but the Kadet I've chosen is basically impossible to stall at any speed. ..lessee when you're loaded all the cool stuff in it. ;o) ..one way is gut a pc mouse for the diode pairs, electronics and mouse pin wheels, and ball case, cut the ball case in 2 to make 2 vane pin bearing mounts, glue vanes onto each mouse roller pin, and stick both vane assemblies outside the prop blast area, one for each wing. That's an interesting idea. My next step is to get my flight computer up and running and once I do that and get some basic code in place, I can start experimenting with other things. An RPM sensor and a CHT/EGT would also be nice additions. ..read the sullivan's AC frequency and the glow plug resistance. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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 Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
