I noticed this in the archives, from Matthew Law:
In the UK it means 'Special VFR' and allows a pilot under VFR and in VMC
conditions to be guided to an airfield which is inside a control zone.
You see it quite a lot in the UK where we have lots of airfields inside
the control zones of
Matthew Law wrote:
Well, the main difference here is the geography. There aren't many
flights (possibly non!) that I could do from my base airfield where
a single leg of 300 miles would leave me still in the UK.
How difficult is it to fly cross-border to Eire?
All the best,
David
Matthew Law wrote:
I'm going to have a look at the Air Navigation Order to check the
accuracy of my original post. As far as I know, without a IMC or
IR a PPl is not permitted into the kind of airspace which would be
home to a airport the size of KSFO regardless of the ceiling etc.
SVFR does
Alex Perry wrote:
His was a good summary. It did not address the pilot qualifications
and currencies needed to use SVFR, which exist in part because SVFR
is often used for scud running ... which is extremely dangerous.
There's a difference between Canada and the U.S.: we have no special pilot
Andy Ross wrote:
That's no doubt true, but hopefully it's more a lack of tuning than it
is a fundamental flaw. For the specific case of YASim: the asymmetric
thrust effects should be more or less correct as-is, because it
applies the force at the location of the engine. The blue line speed
is
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
No, not more respinsive than possible, but I thought that the damping in
FlightGear _and_ in real world was only for display purposes. So maybe
there would be a possiblility to get the signal before it was damped.
After reading the article on the AVWeb site and noting
Jon Berndt wrote:
How do we not work well in this case? Do you notice a specific inadequacy?
Yes -- neither JSBSim nor YASim does a good job generating drag for a
windmilling prop.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
Jon Berndt wrote:
Good point. That's something that's also not too hard to fix.
I tried to fix this problem in JSBSim a year or two ago, and I seem to
recall that no one on the flight model list could quite figure out how to
code it back then. I also took a stab at YSBSim, and failed just as
Andy Ross wrote:
Windmill (i.e. zero torque) speed is 450 RPM.
Windmill drag at that speed is 47N, about 10.5 pounds of force, or
about 5 equivalent horsepower at that airspeed.
When you shut down the engine in YASim, the propeller does not windmill --
it just slowly spins down and stops.
All
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I see the same thing in the JSBSim c172, except that it spins down
rather quickly and stops.
I've never shut down an engine in flight in real life, but from reports I've
heard, you have to bring a 172 almost to the stall to stop the propeller
from windmilling; once
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
1) Increase the responsiveness of the turn indicator. I'm not a pilot
and I've never seen a turn indicator in action so I don't know how
resposive these instruments are, so maybe increasing the responsiveness
isn't a good idea.
Originally, the TC responded instantly --
Matthew Law wrote:
Thanks! - it was my practical. I got 97% in the written :-D
Ironically, I almost failed for not requesting SVFR before the required 15 miles/5 mins to the zone boundary. Which was the subject of the original comment!
So you have your PPL, then? If so, then double congrats
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
So I shouldn't touch the responsiveness then?!. But rather add a new
property with better responsiveness.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the responsiveness should be better?
I've flown briefly behind two small-plane autopilots (one newer, one
older) and they
Ryan Larson wrote:
I just got back from taking my Commercial Pilot, Airplane Multiengine
Land checkride, and I am happy to say that I passed! Doing a single
engine ILS down to minimums is lots of fun! I took the test in a Piper
Aztec (PA23-250).
Congrats!
On a related note, I'd like to
Jim Wilson wrote:
Hmmm...does the KAP140 run right off the gyro? And is the lag in the
realworld turn coordinator by design for smoother indication?
I remember reading that it was, but I no longer remember the source. It
might have been an article about gyros on AvWeb (but then again, it might
Jon Berndt wrote:
for ME practice -- I don't think either of the main FDM's does a very good
job on single-engine, but I don't have any real experience to
compare them with.
?? This is confusing on several fronts. You don't have any single engine
experience?
Not in the context of ME
Carlos Renato wrote:
I am a Windows user and I use outlook, but my ISP is not the
200-101-076-192.bsace7034.e.brasiltelecom.net.br ( as far as I know...)
Thanks for checking. For anyone else who wants the check the host, the best
thing to do is send yourself an e-mail message then view the full
Jon Berndt wrote:
I just discovered that our property metrics/eyepoint-x-ft shows that it is
expected to be in units of feet. However, it is specified in inches in our
config file (in structural frame), and the property is bound to the
GetXYZep() function, which reports the eyepoint in the same
Jon Berndt wrote:
OK. So, where is the pilot viewpoint placed, now? Is it no longer placed at
the CG. Is FlightGear reading and using that value from a file (this would
be good)?
The viewpoint is set in the property tree, and can be moved around at
runtime. Every aircraft's *-config.xml file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available.
This obviously didn't come from Curt (the viruses always forge the return
address); instead, the headers show that it arrived at the FlightGear list from
200-101-076-192.bsace7034.e.brasiltelecom.net.br
1. Does
Alex Perry wrote:
Finally, permanenent lighting is often recessed into the tarmac.
For lights stuck on obstructions/construction, this is not done.
When a long way away, and standing at ground level, the recessed
lights can be invisible so you can only see the ramp edge indication
if it coincides
William Earnest wrote:
I can't give an exact matching case, but here is some info on a
S-TEC System Twenty/System Thirty autopilot in a Piper Warrior II, a
plane in the C172 class.
The STEC is currently the AP of choice for any light aircraft, whether
shipped as a factory option or not.
Jim Wilson wrote:
Just in case anyone was actually wondering...no it wasn't me that sent this.
It did go through the list server though. Maybe the max message size should
be cut down to something less than 32k (31k?) until this current wave blows over.
It amazes me how many people who should
Erik Hofman wrote:
All that would need to happen is for someon to write a plib
reader/writer for the xgl format and then we can begin using it. The
modelers would have to figure out how to output in this format which
could be a little trickier.
Somehow I sense a very load HINT! HINT! here
Erik Hofman wrote:
I don't know:
Blender, Python, XGL
I do know:
C++, plib
Any interpreted language with memory management is going to be significantly
easier than a language without: the choice among Python, Perl, Java, etc. is
a religious issue (and also depends on issues like library
Erik Hofman wrote:
You need version 2.x.x of Python just after you have downloaded
version 1.x.y stable because it was needed by some other package.
The less interpreters available, the easier your life gets.
Yes, Python seems very brittle for version management compared to Perl and
Java. It
Erik Hofman wrote:
I am trying to add some calls to flightgear's main loop in
order to set up shared memory and semaphores, and then remove them
when FG exits. The easy part is the initialization but I can't find a
good spot in the code to do any cleanup, due to the glutMainLoop.
Snyder Adam D Civ AFRL/VACD wrote:
After reading through fg_props.hxx, I found that the most efficient
was to get a property value is to use fgGetNode instead of the fgGet
functions. Is there a more efficient way to set properties, or is that
best way to use the fgSet functions
Yes,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
And I firmly believe that we _should_ use the instrument values
because in my mind using /position/... and /velocities/... would be
cheating, theese perfect values are _not_ available in the real world.
I definitely agree. We should have instrument values well modeled
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
For any of you interested in doing IRC, Nic Fischer has given us a
channel on his IRC server. Just connect up to irc.flightgear.org and
join the #flightgear channel.
IRC is s yesterday. Where's the FlightGear blog?
All the best,
David
p.s. Just joking, of course.
Innis Cunningham wrote:
I could not write two lines of C code to save myself but I found the
XML files quite easy to learn.The main thing to remember with XML is
cut and paste is your greatest friend.You can throw a panel together
quite quickly if you know what code blocks to use.
That's good to
Innis Cunningham wrote:
panel instruments made as proper 3D objects are the way
At the risk of getting into trouble I would ask why. Nearly all
instruments in an A/C are presented as 2D the only real 3D
instrument I can think of is the AH ball and with the introduction
of the glass cockpit even
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Either way, you're building a 3D object, and the level of difficulty
is about the same -- you can just as easily stack and animate 2D
textures using our 3D animation code. The 2D code is a legacy thing
that it would be nice to dump, eventually.
I would have thought
Paul Surgeon wrote:
1. I need an easy way of zooming in and out (scroll wheel?) so that the labels
can be read and instruments adjusted.
For a while, I had +, -, and = assigned to that, with = snapping
back to the default zoom. I think someone else changed it.
I'd be reluctant to use the
Josh Babcock wrote:
I have my wheel set to zoom in view mode, and trim the elevator in
control mode. (or at least I did until I removed the mouse control mode
compltely). Pressing the MMB resets the zoom to default. I like it a
lot, I can zoom in on a small instrument, switch over to pointer
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Did it handle not zooming through panels?
It actually changed the field of view, not the view position, so it was like
looking through a zoom lens.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Victoria Welch wrote:
I'm thinking I want to get into building panels for FG aircraft.
Either I am missing it or the tools for the job are vi, gimp, an
XML reference and all the FG header files ?!?
Actually, the preferred method would be Blender/AC3D, GIMP, and vi/emacs --
panel instruments
Andy Ross wrote:
I just commited a turbulence model that I wrote over the vacation. It
seems to work pretty well, but I'd be curious to see what other people
think. Tuning it is more subjective than I had expected.
Thank you for doing this. I gave the turbulence a test drive with these
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
And BTW: I know that airport lighting can't easily be implemented
in a similar way. Still, turning off all the taxiway lights when
looking from further away might be desirable. :-)
Actually, if you're approaching a runway from about 90 degrees, it's the
taxiway lights that
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Yes, it's a subtle effect and you may not notice it unless you are
looking for it specifically, but all runway lighting in FlightGear is
directional. In other words the lights are brightest when viewed along
the direction they are pointing and dim out as you move
Jon Stockill wrote:
US developers/users need to be careful - you'll be marked as terrorists.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34776.html
The sad part is not the anti-aviation hysteria, bad as it is, but the idea
of a government that encourages citizens to spy on each other and report
JD Fenech wrote:
This is pretty sad.
It's times like this when I start to consider relocating to Canadia to
find a job and live there, much as I bash on it (jokingly, of course; it
really wouldn't do to be bashing our 51st state).
Here's a local (New England) version of the same story, with
Hof Markus wrote:
IMHO this could not be right!
Example: you fly a turn at low bank angle lets say 5°, so you will need no
(or very less) aileron to hold the bank. (aileron = 0)
but at 5° Bank you have to use rudder to fly a correct(!) turn, and
rudder=aileron/ 2 = 0/2 = 0 != rudder needed.
As
Matthew Law wrote:
flameproof jacket on
So maybe the problem could be with the FDM representing the wrong adverse yaw amount
for that aircraft?
/flameproof jacket on
As someone else mentioned, it's simply a matter of implementing a yaw-damper
in the autopilot -- think of it as a device that
Hof Markus wrote:
It depends on A/C aerodynamics wheter the plane starts to turn w/ bank angle
!= 0 or not.
Usually the plane does not, so FCPC is mixing some rudder to make the plane
turn.
Which force would else make the plane turn? And I'm sure Bank Angle does
not, may help a little bit.
In
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Believe it or not, what makes an airplane turn is LIFT... think about it.
Same thing -- one wing develops more lift than the other, the plane banks
and wants to slip sideways, but as it does the horizontal stabilizer
develops (sideways) lift and swings the nose around
Andy Ross wrote:
An aircraft held in a level sideslip will turn, for
example, due to the side forces caused by the slip, no wing lift need
be involved.
In the planes I've flown -- admittedly not a wide range of types -- holding
rudder generally induces a bank before there's a significant change
Victoria Welch wrote:
I've been burried here lately and haven't had a chance to try
someplace else yet, but is there no glideslope on the ils there or
do I have a problem? The glide slope indicator never uncages -
just stays centered (c172, C310).
I have heard of places only having a
Matthew Law wrote:
I agree with you totally. My sentiment was that there have also been many
accidents caused by ATC talking in a foreign language (English) to another
pilot who also doesn't speak English as a first language.
That can often be a problem between a controller and pilot who *do*
Martin Spott wrote:
Do you have to pass an exam on the north American continent for
operating the radio ? In Germay we have to own the Restricted Flight
Radiotelephone Operator's Certificate (this is _not_ my translation,
it's printed on the certificate itself :-) _before_ you are allowed
to
Jon Stockill wrote:
Yeah, fantastic - I've just had chance to try it out - it looks great, and
really shows up how bad my flying is :-)
It might not be as bad as you think -- following a VASIS (or a glidescope)
gives an awfully low approach for a small plane.
All the best,
David
Matthew Law wrote:
According to the ICAO, all ATC comms should be in English. Quite rightly however,
most controllers use their native tongue unless talking to international
flights.
Actually, I think that's a serious problem. One of the benefits of using a
common ATC frequency (instead of
David Luff wrote:
Thanks! To be honest, the need for a webpage with a tutorial on it had crossed my mind,
and I've fired up Quanta and started. Trying to write a tutorial and
some instructions
have made clear to me just how hard it is to write good documentation
though - getting
something
I've just checked in some changes to DC-3 gear configuration, and ground
handling should be a bit more reasonable: the plane isn't quite as bouncy,
and the main gear no longer compresses up to 1 m (!!!). I can now manage
wheel landings, which the old gear configuration wouldn't allow, though I
David Luff wrote:
TaxiDraw-0.1.1 is now available from:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/TaxiDraw-0p1p1-w32bin.zip
Windows binary [383K]
and
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~eazdluf/TaxiDraw-0p1p1-src.tar.gz
Source [85K], requires wxWindows to compile (wxGTK-dev on Linux).
Excellent. I think
Tony Peden wrote:
Airliners aren't that sluggish ... the flare is initiated below 50 ft
AGL and that is definitely over the runway.
I guess that brings us back to the old discussion about round-out vs. flare
(U.S. books seem to distinguish the two). The jets are are nose-high and
slowing about
Paul Surgeon wrote:
BTW : I've seen some MSFS scenery that had street lights along a major road -
it looked incredibly real and is a great navaid at night.
In real life I don't find it all that useful. The places that major streets
tend to be lit are the places that everything else around is
Matthew Law wrote:
That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much throw is
available on his aircraft?
This is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure. I think of the rudder
pedals in terms of pressure rather than movement -- to get that in a
simulator cockpit, you'll
Alan King wrote:
Just a spring return to give some general feedback is all I'm planning
for now. Main use on a simulator is simply to seperate the controls to
the correct actions, don't see much point in going beyond that short of
doing a full cockpit simulation of a particular type, which
Matevz Jekovec wrote:
Yes, I agree with that. Water towers are awfully wierd for Europe:). A
good example of non-appropriate buildings are catholic churches in the
Middle east, high concentration of block of flats and skyscrapers, but
no suberbs in India and China etc.
In my opinion, we should
Jon Berndt wrote:
This story will warm your heart ;-)
A DC-3 flies the northern skies
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660452/
I just took a quick glance, but haven't read the story yet. Last I heard,
those guys were operating three DC-3's out of Yellowknife. Plane fans love
them (of course), but
Manuel Bessler wrote:
A while ago, I read something from the M$FS side of things about
outputting GPS data from the sim to a GPS unit.
Here's a link:
http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topicforum=142topic_id=5559mesg_id=5559page=5
Mentioned was the Garmin GPSMap 196.
Thanks. It looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The result is this aircraft TODO list, i suggest adding this file to cvs
in the data/Aircraft directory, so that new entrys or old entrys can easily
be removed in this file when an aircraft gets upgraded.
Thank you, but instead of adding this to the CVS (so that you
I flew back to Ottawa (CYOW) from Philadelphia (KPHL) today, against a
strong heading (ground speed was 95-105 kt for a true airspeed of about 126
kt). I climbed up to 10,000 ft to stay above all the lake-effect weather in
Upstate NY, and ended up with a nice, sunny, 3.5-hour flight home.
To
Jonathan Richards wrote:
Interesting - I don't often see two (purportedly) equivalent pieces of code
together like that. I put both examples into files: the python is 668 bytes,
whereas the perl is 1074. Is python really that much more terse than perl,
or is it an artefact of the
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I don't think there are hard and fast rules for this. Ultimately real
people spend real time and real money installing real lights. So a
lot of times, smaller airports with smaller budgets have no taxiway
lighting at all. KDEN has all it's taxiways very well lit, and has
David Luff wrote:
How about aprons? Most of the airports already done have edge (and center)
lighting defined for pretty much everything, including the aprons. I'm
assuming that small fields won't have that, but larger commercial fields?
That probably depends as much on the apron as the airport
Jon Stockill wrote:
Have you tried it in demo mode? In that mode it doesn't use any input from
the receiver, and it's actually possible to set the position moving using
the arrow keys on the map screen - if there's any mode likely to take
input from NMEA then this will be the one.
I tried it in
I flew down to Philadelphia from Ottawa today, though unbelievably
favourable conditions: the trip is almost due N-S, and since the low that
dumped all the snow has moved east, I had ferocious tailwinds at altitude
from the retreating side of the system. I throttled back to 65% power (and
Does anyone know if it's possible for a Garmin GPS to take its position
information from external NMEA input, rather than just broadcasting the
position as NMEA output? I wanted to experiment with using my (brand-new)
Garmin 196 slaved to FlightGear, but I have not had much luck yet. This
Seamus Thomas Carroll wrote:
The reasone I would like to know is given an altidude above the ground and
a picture taken at that altitude I would like to know how much ground the
picture covers.
It's controlled by a property, but I find that usually 8-12 degrees down is
realistic for most of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The trim wheel looks in AC3D like this:
http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/object_in_ac3d.jpg, but in FlightGear it is just an ugly
object: http://home.arcor.de/iljamod/dc3-throttle-bug.jpg
The orange mixture stick doesnt look correct too.
That's a plib bug -- any
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Is the Select airport from list menu item supposed to work?
I get a segmentation fault everytime I try using it.
The list works, but warping to a different airport doesn't. I usually end
up with a plane flipped upside-down.
All the best,
David
Innis Cunningham wrote:
There is no way to get directional information to a VOR; instruments
like an RMI have to fake it by comparing the current radial (which can
already be very different from the magnetic [or in the north, true]
bearing from the station).
Without looking up my notes I would
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
As I understand it, the VOR needle swings right and left. If you beyond
(10?) degrees of the selected radial, the needle will always stay pegged
to one side. The needle will move if you are within (10?) degrees of
the selected and it will show you which side you are on and
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Nope, it turns out that bathrooms are typically only on things like
737's and DC-9's and stuff.
Smaller planes have them as well -- on small business jets and turboprops,
one of the seats cushions often lifts up to reveal a small toilet, with a
curtain that you can pull
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Yeah that's because the scenery is pre-rendered. Who said we have to
pre-render the scenery? :)
Rendering in real time would only require a library of geodata which would be
similar in size to the current FG scenery.
In that case, it wouldn't look like TerraScene scenery --
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Looking in the code, if I understand your request correctly, you may
want:
/radios/nav[%d]/radials/actual-deg
No, that is not the right solution. What he needs is a delta between the
inverse of the current VOR radial and the indicated heading on the RMI,
normalized to
Paul Surgeon wrote:
A corridor 100 km wide between Chicago (Illinois) and London (UK) (6378 km)
would require about 311 GB of storage space using S3TC compression with a
texture resolution of 1 meter/pixel.
Probably half, that, actually, since a lot of the trip is over ocean.
All the best,
Paul Surgeon wrote:
I'm sure there will be protesters but this polygonal looking scenery is not
very nice in my opinion. Yes it works but it doesn't even begin to resemble
real life scenery.
Out of curiosity has anyone ever used TerraScene?
(synthetic scenery generation app for Fly! and Fly!2)
Jim Wilson wrote:
Thanks. It was a crash the first try. First I got into a lot of circling
around trying to figure where to land and how to approach it. This resulted
in quite a few near misses with the buildings.
As someone with no helicopter experience, I'll guess that you want to
approach
Erik Hofman wrote:
Here's an idea ... now that FlightGear is deathly quiet, I can't tell
if FlightGear is doing anything when it is starting up or if my
machine has hung. Maybe we could make a progress bar out of the flags
of all the countries of people that have contributed to
FlightGear. (?)
Good news: I've just added a dialog box for selecting a new airport from a
scrolling list.
Bad news: the JSBSim 172 flips upside-down whenever I switch airports.
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
This and your examples (mouse handling, etc.) have totally
won me over! I've already written my first nasal script
I haven't had time to play with NASAL yet, but now that it's integrated and
people seem to like it, it's probably time to start refactoring FlightGear a
bit.
Maik Justus wrote:
Also the rolling tendency in translational lift is missing.
That is a very complicate thing. Allways if I think about I run into
confusion.
Is it just a gyroscopic effect?
All the best,
David
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
I've just hit a milestone in eliminating unnecessary output from FlightGear.
I started a flight with the default airport and C172p, took off, climbed
to about 20 ft, landed, stopped, shut down the engine, and quit the program,
all without a single line of output on the console. Here's the
Maik Justus wrote:
It is very unrealistic. But you can change this very easiely. Just
remove the notorque=true tags in the bo105.xml file (or write
notorque=false). You should also change the min- and maxcollective of
the tail rotor to be unsymmetric (I don't have the original values, I
can just
Andy Ross wrote:
And since the rotor is spinning, it produces all sorts of
non-intuitive behavior like the 90° precession phase shift (try to
roll it left, it tilts forward, etc...). It's ugly. :)
This one happens with single-engine airplanes as well. If you yank the nose
up suddenly, you get
Andy Ross wrote:
Other than the solution output, YASim doesn't generate any text at
runtime. The core files don't include anything from the FlightGear
tree at all, actually. There might be a stray printf or two,
though...
I tested YASim with the J3 Cub and it produced no console output at all.
Maik Justus wrote:
Yes, it is a bit more work flying with those changes. Do you mind if I
check them in?
For me it's ok, but remember, that you than need pedals (or another
analog controller for this axis) to fly helo.
The mouse does fine as an analog controller for the rudder -- I use it often
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But i noticed by using the current CVS version, that
the engines where off after pressing the reset button in the fg menu.
Yes, reset and save/restore are a bit broken in FlightGear right now. I'll
try to fix them when I have a chance, but it will require a bit of
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I definitely need the functionality to set up various initial
positions; in the air, on the ground, relative to different objects,
different headings, initial velocity, etc. etc.
We can accomplish the same thing simply by saving a copy of part or all of
the property tree
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
We can accomplish the same thing simply by saving a copy of part or all of
the property tree and then reverting to it, without creating a separate,
parallel hierarchy of properties for initial conditions.
In this scheme, how would you specify initial conditions? You'd
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
If the sim is running, wouldn't you be competing with the FDM?
Wouldn't it be cleaner to keep a separate area for initial conditions
so you can specify them at your leisure, and then commit when you
are ready? Otherwise if we are writing into the main property tree,
it
Reading Eric Raymond's excellent new book, The Art of Unix Programming,
reminded me of the importance of programs staying quiet unless (a) they have
something critically important to say (i.e. help, I'm about to die), or
(b) the caller explicit asks them to be noisy.
Of all the programs I
Andy Ross wrote:
1. The default log level is now FG_ALERT, or at least, it's supposed
to be (though some FG_WARN messages inexplicably still get
through).
What about the presumptively useful stuff like the JSBSim touchdown
report or YASim solution data? Would it be a good idea to split out
Here's another fun landing:
http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/water-tower.jpg
The hard part, for me, is watching the ground close to the helicopter when
I'm close to the hover. In real life, when I'm flaring for a landing, I'm
usually focussing on the far end of the runway, perhaps a mile or
Andy Ross wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do pilots do this in real helicopters? I
wouldn't think a traditional ASI would work very well at 10 kts...
You could probably build one that did -- after all, the aenemometers that
weather stations use can register down to less than 5 kt. Still, I'm
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Before you get too accustomed to the current fgfs bo105, there's
a little detail that I got wrong: Tthe pilot sits at the right
side in a real bo. :-)
Yes, I know -- I thought about editing the config file, but didn't get
around to it (at least not yet).
All the best,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, I allways wanted to fly the helicopter but i don't know how to start
the engines. I pressed every key kombination but still no luck.
If you have the latest CVS of FlightGear and the base package, it should
start with the helicopter engine running:
fgfs
401 - 500 of 2319 matches
Mail list logo
