[Flightgear-devel] Here's a worthy web site
http://www.chuckyeager.com/ Jon Chuck Yeager.com.url begin 600 Chuck Yeager.com.url M6T1%1D%53%1=#0I05-%55),/6AT='`Z+R]W=WN8VAU8VMY96%G97(N8V]M M+VEN95X+FAT;6P-@T*6TEN=5R;F5T4VAOG1C=71=#0I54DP]:'1T#HO M+W=W=RYC:'5C:WEE86=EBYC;VTO:6YD97@N:'1M;`T*36]D:69I960]03`T 1-D0V-D)%14)0S$P,3DR#0H= ` end ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem report on release 0.7.9
From: Michael Basler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Hi, I just received a problem report from a German user on the released version 0.7.9 which I - unfortunately - was able to confirm in part. 1. Start at CL77 Santa Cruz leads to an immediate crash. 2. He reported a crash at Munich EDDM at start (e010n40 installed) which I could not confirm. 3. However, Start at Innsbruck LOWI gave me an immediate crash, too. OK. Has the NTSB been called to the scene[s], yet? :-P Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem report on release 0.7.9
OK. Has the NTSB been called to the scene[s], yet? They are not responsible for accidents on European territory ;-) I don't think they are *responsible* for _crashes_ anywhere! :-P Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Priorities
-- I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. Hey. Are you paying royalties on that quote! ;-) Actually, my quote was that we wanted to be plausible, off-nominal, meaning in outer-envelope flight we wanted to be believable in our modeling. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] JSBsim C310 crashes the sim on gear retraction.
Where in the code is the gear position (i.e. relative to retracted or extended) calculated and managed? Curt. The gear forces and moments are calculated in individual instances of FGLGear. The ground reactions as a whole are managed in FGGroundReactions. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Crash when KMYF not KSFO
I didn't mean to evoke a defensive response. [That's just how I write, sometimes. I wasn't being defensive - though it came across that way - just argumentative. :-)] The question is, who should be updating the values inside of FGInterface (which are really inside the JSBSim class since JSBSim inherits from FGInterface.) This is what JSBSim is using for runway elevation and is what is not getting updated when starting at KMYF. OK. Well, that sort of sounds like something we should be doing inside of JSBSim.cxx (FGJSBSim), since we declared ourselves keepers of that code sometime ago. I guess I should've looked at JSBSim.cxx first, or waited for Tony and/or David to make a comment since they have been spending more time recently in that code than I have. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Another documentation correction
Ha! Actually, when we get around to it, we do want to be plausible off-nominal, too. Jon Jon, I read that sentence, digested it and promptly started snickering insanely. What a quote. I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! *rofl* ?? Maybe I've been around NASA types too long. ;-) What I meant was that we'd like to have at least *believable* flight dynamics when flying in off-nominal conditions (spin, hammerhead, etc.) But I am glad I made you laugh. :-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] 0.7.9pre2
Hmm, I have two issues: Ctrl+U gives an exception c310 doesn't work for me right now. Refresh my memory: what's wrong with the C310? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release
Christian Mayer wrote: To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the runway it's IMO very unrealistical that the engine isn't running. Y'know, folks, this is actually a really (really) good point. :) Hilarious. That's right. Why would anyone be on the runway, ready to take off, with the engine off. Put the aircraft on the taxiway? ;-) Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] C310
David M.: do you see a problem with the C310? I can't fly now - my big machine is in the shop. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] DC-3, textured
A worthy aircraft to model (the DC-3): http://www.douglasdc3.com/amaze/amaze.htm Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release
Would you want to mention the switch to JSBsim as default FDM? Didn't that happen with 0.7.8? And maybe the c310 model addition? Yes, I think this is new. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Observations on latest cvs flightgear
One of the problems is that JSBSim does its own output outside of the SG_LOG infrastructure. We'll need to modify JSBSim to allow custom logging interfaces, and that might be a bit of a tedious chore. No really. If we want JSBSim to have no output log, simply set JSBSIM_DEBUG=0 I don't think it would be too hard to add an API call to JSBSim to turn off logging at runtime. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [OT] NASA Aerospace Blueprint Report
This is a fascinating report to read: http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/aero_blueprint/index.html JON BERNDT Project Engineer LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE OPERATIONS Office: (281) 483-0342 Pager: (281) 527-6598 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] NASA Aerospace Blueprint Report
Hey. Who hijacked my thread? ;-) Jon Vallevand, Mark K writes: Where is the Lino airpark? I've been in Lino Lakes for 11 years. I've never heard of it. Does it show up on MapQuest (or whatever mapper you use)? I drive by the seaport regularly. I can't think where the ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Nits
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) The runways at KEDW appear to have no texture - they are pure white. Hmmm, looks like no one ever created textures for 'dirt' runways. A couple/few of those are supposed to be concrete, I believe. Can someone create dirt runway textures before the next release? Or, tell me how to do it? :-| 2) The date at bottom left on the screen flickers between todays date and the 15th of February. Weird. Tile loading appears to do this, although I cannot see anything in the tile loader that has anything to do with time. It doesn't bother me; just thought someone should know. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities
Aside from stabilizing our current flight models, I think that the absolute top priority for 0.8 should be at least a minimal level of runway lighting. While the general scenery lighting makes night flying nice (and makes roads look great), landing at night is too hard Does this include airplane landing lights? I am ignorant on whether this is even possible, but I have felt many times that this would be helpful if it was. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] LinuxTag 2002: Call for Papers
Anyway, have a look at http://www.karlsruhe.de/Tourismus/index.php3 Nice web site. Someday in the not-too-distant future we hope to visit Germany. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] LinuxTag 2002: Call for Papers
Great! We've got a volunteer for LinuxTag 2003 then? CU, Christian Probably 2005 or 06! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] CVS trouble
I am again trying to compile the CVS version of FlightGear. I *think* I am following instructions! I have not had any trouble building the version 0.7.8, but with CVS I get the following compile error: Did you do a build of plib first, followed by Simgear, then FlightGear? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] CVS trouble
No. That was going to be my next guess. Thanks, I'll try that! Mark I've got a perl script (and I believe Norman also has a script) that automates that whole process for me, in the corret order, with dependencies. If you do a checkout of flightgear, you should also do a checkout of Simgear and plib. FGFS depends on SimGear which depends on plib. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] CVS trouble
The latest stable Plib (1.4.2 I believe) should also work (It does for me). It shouldn't be necessary to keep checking out CVS Plib. It takes about 2 minutes (maximum) to check out and build on my machine. I always do it to avoid (and rule out) any build problems. This is one reason why I no longer have many build problems. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] The bouncing plane
I don't see why not as long as you #include GUI/gui.h Note This Dialog Box requires the user to click a button for it to go away Also note that in this case, ie the plane has crashed, I would prefer to see a data member in FGInterface that was set appropriately by the current FDM. Then in fgMainLoop() we could check this variable I like what I read, here. I'll have to read it again when I get home and have some time to really digest it. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Problem in FGPiston
Compilers complains : delta_T_exhaust used without having been initialized Why the '-=' in the else case of calculation of delta_T_exhaust ? What is its previous value ? Oy! Good catch. I screwed up. Fix to be committed shortly. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] B2 Cockpit VR view.
You might want to notice a few things: 4) the lens distorts the perspective a little, the lower left and right side panels are perpendicular to the flight deck Maybe I am not understanding what you mean. The panels with instruments to the left of the pilots left arm are what I am referring to (I thought this was what you were initially referring to). There are two of them, the upper left side panel is not vertically oriented, it is canted out from the vertical perhaps about 20 degrees. The lower left side panel is canted about 20 to 30 degrees, as well. It's the same thing on the right side. The comment I made about the shuttle cockpit panels being similar is due to having spent *lots* of time in the training simulators (usually in the middle of the night, as they were reserved for astronauts during the day). The picture you supplied doesn't show the flight deck to the point you would be able to fully realize the similarities. Try these: http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/press/meds/meds01b.jpg http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/press/meds/meds15b.jpg and compare with this: http://209.41.125.134/Sightings/Icons/B2Lores.jpg I wonder if this general arrangement might be pretty standard, so I should not be surprised at the similarity. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] MacOS 10 build instructions
Darrell: Any more (current) issues with Mac builds with JSBSim? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] C-310 does NOT have counter-rotating propeller
Did anyone notice my post? The propellers on the 310 are not counter rotating. If they are, the aircraft must take off like a Frisbee! The props are identical. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 2:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] c310 Panel Hmmm, we might want to actually double check this someplace. The other night, one of my pilot friends insisted that the c310's props spun the same direction and were *not* counter rotating. I think your friend is right. I just checked several pictures of the 310. In all the pictures the props have the same pitch sense. I noticed that some of them have 3 blades! I think the data I have is for the '62 C-310. Jon ___ 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] RFC: Keybinding Changes for Powerplant
I proposed that as an example, but you need to design in the ability for expansion now or you might wind up ripping out a lot of code later. IMHO you need to start worrying about weight and balance now, before some of the other items on the table. I don't see anything to account for # of pax and crew, cargo/luggage, fuel load, and tips. Fuel load, tanks, fuel drain, etc. are accounted for. Additional weighted objects are not a problem. Seriously, the class heirarchy and design of JSBSim allows for expansion already quite well. We are always open to suggestions, which is one reason the design we have is so open. Modeling more complex systems is not a geometric progression, it may not even be exponential, NP? Sorry, I'm preaching to the choir. Given the design we have evolved to this point, modeling more complex systems really ought to be fairly painless. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] RFC: Keybinding Changes for Powerplant
I suppose we ought to create a list of priorities and basic capabilities we are lacking and go for those before we go on to the finer details like realism and random failures. You think? I proposed that as an example, but you need to design in the ability for expansion now or you might wind up ripping out a lot of code later. IMHO you Oh, I forgot to add this: modeling realism and malfunction code isn't really too bad. This feature specifically won't require much in the way of rework or anything even if we wait. I've had this in mind for some time (I have modeled malf.s for shuttle training simulators, USAF, NASA, etc. so this is very familiar territory). To model malfunctions properly, however, the correct behaviour has to first be there. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] ANN: Cessna 310 twin-prop
Would this be of help?: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/products/engines/540.html I provide this link because I suspect the IO540 is the engine we want(?) Jon -Original Message- From: John Check [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 4:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ANN: Cessna 310 twin-prop First item on my list is correct style throttle, pitch and mixture controls. Where can I get engine specs so I can redo the gauge faces? TTYL J On Friday 30 November 2001 3:42 pm, you wrote: David, John, Good work on the initial panel and model. Minor nit (before even trying to take off) The engine will not even crank if the mixture is pulled all the way out. Push in the mixture and the engine cranks (and starts) just fine. Thanks, Curt. David Megginson writes: For those of you who haven't been following the discussion on flightgear-model, we have a new JSBSim aero model available in CVS. The Cessna 310 is a low-wing six-seater, twin-prop piston-powered aircraft with funny fuel tanks on the wingtips. It has a range of 800-1000nm (depending on configuration), and can cruise around 160-180kt. The aerodynamics are not right yet, but the plane is flyable (be careful to hold the nose down on climb). We don't have a proper 310 panel ready, but John Check has kindly modified the 172 panel to add instrumentation for the second engine in the mean time. You can download a 3D model of a 310 from Wolfram's site if you to watch the flight from the outside: http://home.t-online.de/home/Wolfram.Kuss/FGFS1/FGFS1.htm To try out the C310, make sure you have the latest CVS code for FlightGear and the base package, then do fgfs --aircraft=c310 --prop:/sim/panel/path=Aircraft/c310/c310-vfr-panel.xml You'll need to start each engine separately. By default, the joystick throttle will move the throttle for both engines. Major Caveats - - Most of the aero coefficients are still for the C172 rather than the C310, so lift, drag, etc. are not quite right. - The plane is using the wrong propellor model. - There is not yet any way to control propellor pitch, cowl flaps, or landing gear (which is always down but creates no drag currently). - Single-engine flight doesn't cause any yaw (I suspect a JSBSim bug here). Despite these caveats, this plane can fly a lot faster, higher, and further than the C172, and it should be a lot of fun even before we start fine-tuning the model. Enjoy, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] ANN: Cessna 310 twin-prop
Doing a new build with the the C310 code and latest CVS (Wednesday- noon) during compile FGReportState complains about a missing FGAerodynamics::GetNlf(); At runtime everything normal until error msg: FGState::GetParameter() - No handler for parameter height/span Is Wednesday (11/29/01) late enough? any ideas? No, it is not late enough. I made a fix to JSBSim.cxx (now in JSBSim CVS) that you need. This file has apparently not been committed to FGFS CVS, yet. Get all the files from JSBSim CVS and put those in your flightgear tree. Put the aircraft and engine files into the appropriate base directory. Then, you should be set to go. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] ANN: Cessna 310 twin-prop
then I should replace the FGState.cpp code from the C310 package?? JW If I were you I'd grab it all from JSBSim CVS now. It's all in sync and works - it is *very* fresh. This new version requires the latest config files. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] new files
The current version of JSBSim in JSBSim CVS is now completely syncronized with several bugs squashed. The intense efforts of the FlightGear and the extended JSBSim team have given us a new vehicle to fly, the Cessna 310. As David Megginson mentioned in his release announcement, there are still a few quirks. I have a complete NASA report on the aerodynamics of an aircraft which - if it is not the Cessna 310 - is very close to it. I will be supporting the addition of this data where applicable into the model as David, Tony, and others refine it. There are a few JSBSim bugs still remaining for the multi-engine model, but it is quite flyable as I am told. Curt: Can you grab the latest stuff from JSBSim CVS and place it into the FGFS CVS? And also, John, can you grab the latest and place the aircraft models into the appropriate Aircraft/* directories? The config file version identifiers have been change inside these files and they need to be placed in the proper repositories simultaneously. If there is a better way to distribute these files to both of you (Curt and John) let me know. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim
This does not yet work with JSBSim. But it used too :-) When? I've tried it over the years many times and never had it work for me. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: JSBSim cp2fg script and Makefile
contributions are just being ignored (my improved cp2fg script still hasn't made it into CVS yet!!!). Yes, it has. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: JSBSim cp2fg script and Makefile
OK. Started with a fresh JSBSim checkout. The Makefile.linux is pretty out-of-date, and basically, broken. The attached patch gets things moving a bit further, but basically, I don't think this system is anywhere near as flexible as automake, so I'll be concentrating on that from now on. However, this patch out to be committed, as it still represents a step forward. Perhaps, Jon, you could grant user 'rossigee' commit access which would speed things up a bit, and make me feel less like my contributions are just being ignored (my improved cp2fg script still hasn't made it into CVS yet!!!). OK. Your Makefile.linux patch has been implemented and committed. You will need to deal with Tony if there is any fallout. :-p I'd like to ask why you are using (why *anyone* is using) Makefile.linux anymore, anyhow. I have used Makefile.solo for both systems forever. It is an improvement over Makefile.linux at least in that it also takes into account header dependencies. The makemake.pl script stored in JSBSim CVS creates the Makefile.solo file. I run this script and make a new Makefile.solo file every time there is a major change in code that alters dependencies. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: JSBSim cp2fg script and Makefile
Also, automake is getting confused between JSBSim.cpp (which contains main()), and JSBSim.cxx (the FDM interface). At link time, it creates the JSBSim.o, then overwrites it when it compiles the next one. Could one or other of these files be renamed for clarity? No chance. First (but not the greatest), is that we would lose CVS history on the file[s]. The automake/autoconf setup for FlightGear works very nicely, so I assume you are talking about an automake/autoconf setup for JSBSim development only. There is no need to even *look* at anything with a .cxx extension when dealing with JSBSim development. The JSBSim.cxx file is not compiled into the libJSBSim.a library in FlightGear compilation, either. Ignore this file. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: JSBSim cp2fg script and Makefile
In the past, we've talked about removing JSBSim.cxx from the JSBSim distro completely, especially since it cannot be compiled there (much less tested). Yep. Right now we are in sort of a Mexican standoff situation. JSBSim.cxx exists only to support JSBSim. However, JSBSim.cxx is not compiled by anything other than FGFS. But ... but ... It's a chicken and egg thing. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: JSBSim cp2fg script and Makefile
Sorry :-) JSBSim.cxx is the interface (a.k.a. The Bus) that acts as the conduit for data trasnfer between JSBSim and FlightGear. It is not used in teh standalone version of JSBSim. JSBSim.cpp is the driver program that instantiates and runs JSBSim standalone. It is not used with FlightGear. Jon JSBSim.cxx, JSBSim.cpp? what's in a name?? and here I was thinking I was losing my mind. Spent last evening looking at the FDM code to scope out ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] [OT] B2 cockpit
Here is the only picture I have seen of the B2 cockpit. http://www.link.com/b2atd.html Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
