[Flightgear-devel] Re: Van's RV-7 Model
* Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-04-02 09:44]: Looks quite nice. An RV would be a nice addition to FG. A chap I know just finished building himself an RV-6 and it moves! About 145 knots at 50% power with a 160hp O320. Thanks! I'm modelling this on G-SEVN (See www.rvuk.flyer.co.uk). The owner took me up in it a while ago and I was blown away by the whole experience. I might be ordering the first part of the kit later this year even though my fiance tells me she will kill me if I do - and if I survive that, I'd better learn to fly tailwheel pretty quick too! All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Van's RV-7 Model
I've been learning Blender and trying my hand at modelling an RV-7. Progress has been slow due to work, family and the learning curve but here are the results so far: http://www.matthewlaw.plus.com/RV-7.jpg I turned on sub surfaces on the fuselage for the render. The actual model looks like this: http://www.matthewlaw.plus.com/RV-7_actual.jpg As you can see, still a long way to go yet. I'm planning on creating a 3D cockpit too. Once the model is OK I'll make a few changes to create the RV-7A and then stretch the wings to get the RV-9/9A. I also have the beginnings of a Slingsby T67 which I'll finish when the RVs are done. All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] v1.0 musings (was: Aircraft included in base package)
* Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-20 15:30]: 4. We need to do some work on the fgrun front end to make it more user friendly. Frederic and Bernie (and others?) have done a *lot* of great, difficult, and tedious work on this tool to bring it to where it is, but there are still some gaps and things that could be much improved to make the tool work for new users. There are also some human factors/feedback issues with fgrun and launching flightgear that (again are hard but) would be nice to address. Would it be preferable then, to package the windows version of FG with fgrun and centre the docs around using fgrun while still catering for 'more advanced' command line usage in the documentation? I think it's fair to say that there are a lot more linux users now than there were just a couple of years ago who have come over from Windows. These people would also benefit from a GUI too... I am not trying to open the can of worms marked 'default GUI for FGFS'. I merely think that Curt is absolutely right. You can use the command line interface if you wish but one or more GUI options is an absolute requirement and when it comes to documentation, it may be that to cut down on work we may have to adopt one GUI interface and only document that. All the best, Matthew (Donning flame suit as we speak ;-) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Announce v0.9.8
Is anyone doing a gentoo ebuild? - I can submit one but it'll have to wait until the weekend. If someone else can get one in quicker then please do. All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Yet another blender modelling question...
Hello again, although my free time has been in short supply recently, I've been plodding on with some Blender models. I've noticed a lot of the tutorials available for blender use sub-surf techniques to get smooth results on curvy forms like cars and aircraft. Can this be used for FGFS models which will be exported to AC3D or is the sub-surf lost? - as I understand it the sub-surface algorithms are just a type of mesh smoothing operation. Or am I way off the mark here? All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet another blender modelling question...
I googled around on the subject and I believe that the sub-surface version of the model is only a kind of visual thing done inside blender. The objects within the model itself remain in their lower poly form through out. I've just thought that I might be able to get a really nice smooth but higher poly model by using nurbs surfaces to model half of the fuselage, say. Then I'll convert it to a mesh and duplicate, mirror and join it to make the whole thing. Does this sound reasonable? All the best, Matthew. * David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-06 14:10]: On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:26:58 +, Matthew Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello again, although my free time has been in short supply recently, I've been plodding on with some Blender models. I've noticed a lot of the tutorials available for blender use sub-surf techniques to get smooth results on curvy forms like cars and aircraft. Can this be used for FGFS models which will be exported to AC3D or is the sub-surf lost? - as I understand it the sub-surface algorithms are just a type of mesh smoothing operation. Or am I way off the mark here? I don't know, to tell the truth, but all that goes out to AC3D format (and all that plib can use) is polygons, colours, and textures (one texture per object). All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet another blender modelling question...
* David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-06 15:00]: I experimented with stuff like that early on, but in the end, I found the most success just building my meshes by hand. For the fuselage, I usually start with a mesh square in front view, then I split edges and move vertices until I have a cross-section of the widest part; next, I switch to side view and duplicate that square forward and backward, adjusting its height to fit the fuselage side profile; then I go back to front view and adjust the shapes of the cross-sections (also from top view, usually), then I connect them all up. A similar approach works for the wings and horizonatal stabilizer or stabilator. Thanks, I'll give both techniques a try and see which one works out best for me. All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] OT: Mustang
I happened across this while looking for blender inspiration: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=189884 Although the quality will not be seen in FGFS for a very long time, I think you'll agree that this guy is very talented indeed! All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GUI Improvements was: Things to do to improve Flightgear
* Thomas Frster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-17 10:20]: So giving the user a choice is probably the best way to go, i.e. using a QT-based one on Linux, a native Windows GUI on Windows, no GUI at all in a real simulator setting. IMHO, there would be just as much work involved in creating a native user interface for each platform (Remember there are many, many variations on platform and toolkit that FG runs on...). The one strength of PUI is that it is GL based. If flightgear is running, it's safe to say that the user has OpenGL :-) Personally, I'd prefer to see a nice OpenGL based GUI like some of the other simulators and, dare I say it, games. With this method you can throw out native look and feel and just have a very nice looking functional user interface that works on any platform with OpenGL support. All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Video card recommendations
Curt, Given the budget and assuming the prices over this side of the pond aren't too different to you, I'd go for something like this: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69123E0A I like Gainward cards. They usually use better quality, slightly faster RAM which allows them to be clocked up a little while still remaining stable. All the best, Matthew. Curtis L. Olson wrote: I hope this isn't too off topic ... I am involved with a project where we are going to setup a multi-channel visual system running flightgear. (3 PC's, 3 monitors.) We can budget about $150-200 for the graphics cards, but the landscape has changed so much since I last shopped I'm not sure what to do. We are committed to buying something nvidia/GeForce based. The new 6800 cards are still way out of our price range. The 5900/5950 cards are probably a bit high right now too. But I see there area 5200's, 5500's, 5700's. and you can still find the older ti4600/4800 cards floating around too. I know that some of these varients were designed more as low end/cheap consumer cards, and I'd like to get something with the best capability/performance I can within our budget. Does anyone have any recommendations? Thanks, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Stall warning
I just tried this on a freshly updated CVS build: Take off in the 172 (I used the c172r-3d) and climb to say, 2500'. Trim the aircraft and with the wings level, pull the power back to idle. Hold the nose up to allow the speed to decay and enter the stall. The stall warner goes off as expected at about the right speed, IMO. Now drop the nose a little and let the air speed build to above Vs still with idle power. I repeatably get the stall warner to well over 70kt indicated. Are other people seeing this? Is it normal? (I've never just dunked the nose on a 150 or 152, but I'm sure the stall warning would go as soon as the flow re-attached to the wing... I tried looking in the property tree to see what the fdm was using but I didn't manage to sustain the attitude and airspeed without a joystick I'm afraid. All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] OT: Another FGFS PPL :-D
After 18 months and 49 hours flying I finally passed my PPL skills test today. I can quite confidently say that I would never have tried flying at all if it wasn't for the adventures of David M and a few other people on these lists. I'd also like to say a big thank you to everyone who has contributed to FGFS. It has without a doubt saved me lots of lessons and allowed me to run through some things I found difficult until I nailed them. IMHO FGFS is the best 'fly it like it is' simulator around. All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Blender question
Thank you all. I'm now making some progress on my model using the measure, scale and extrude technique. It's not fit to be a flyable model but it will make nice EGNF furniture for the moment :-) Better to learn to taxy before you fly, eh?! All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Blender question
I'm having a Blender issue that I thought someone on this list might know the answer to. I'm trying to model some simple aircraft for use as 'airfield furniture' in Blender. I have some 3-views to use but I can't find a sensible way of having them available in Blender to use as a guide. If possible, I'd like to texture some cubes with each of the 3-views and be able to see the texture in Blender as I model. This seems to be the method many people use in other apps like 3DS Max. Is this the right way to go in Blender? What methods do other people use and how do you get guide images in there to model with? Apologies if this is OT to some, but I thought it relevant and I know there are people here that use Blender for FGFS stuff ;-) All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Runway distance remainingsigns+placementscript done.
It's the same with forced landings. Making an approach into a field of sheep is usually safe (my instructor has done it twice!). Making an approach into cows probably isn't. They're not guaranteed to move out of the way and in a small aircraft, hitting a cow would be bad :-) A while ago, a girl skydiving at my dropzone landed off the airfield in a field of sheep. It was the middle of the lambing season and when she stooped down to pick up here canopy she was butted in the chest and ended up in intensive care with a badly broken sternum. All the best, Matthew. * Giles Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-09 14:00]: I'm aware that when ballooning, it is always preferable to land in sheep, rather than cows; cows are intensely curious, and so, although when the balloon lands, they scatter, after the envelope is deflated, they will approach and start trampling on it, and licking it with sandpaper-like tongues. The sheep just stay well away. :) -Original Message- From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 September 2004 12:22 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Runway distance remainingsigns+placementscript done. On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:40:53 -0400, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: One thing we could add, at least for my part of the world, are animated groundhogs all over the airport -- also flocks of birds near the threshold. I also heard a story recently of cows eating the fabric covering of a tube-and-rag airplane. ...that kinda realism might haven an impact on both the 3d model and the fdm's. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Beacons
David Megginson wrote: Has anyone ever seen beacons on a tall tower like that in real life? I saw one at Eloy, AZ a few years ago when I was there skydiving. It wasn't a very tall tower though - around 40ft or so I'd say. All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yasim strangeness
David Megginson wrote: I cannot reproduce it on my system: fgfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] --aircraft=j3cub I put on the parking brake (who'd have thought the J3 Cub had a parking brake?) and tried moving all of the control surfaces. They had no effect on the aircraft, either with the engine on or with the engine off. I'm not surprised you couldn't replicate it. I found a pesky old .fgfsrc file containing: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll get my coat :-/ All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yasim strangeness [was Taildragger takeoff and landing]
David Megginson wrote: Andy Ross wrote: Uh... YASim doesn't model wash effects, so there really isn't any process by which a pure control input would generate force. Are you sure you weren't just sitting in a stiff wind? Can anyone else replicate this? I cannot reproduce it on my system: fgfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] --aircraft=j3cub I put on the parking brake (who'd have thought the J3 Cub had a parking brake?) and tried moving all of the control surfaces. They had no effect on the aircraft, either with the engine on or with the engine off. Then maybe wind has crept in there somehow... I'll check tonight. All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .RV-9?, was: Carb ice (was Re: Tried the Spitfire)
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:09:24 +0100, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) ..you have a kit started? Which diesel? Arnt, I'm sending a reply off-list to prevent me getting seriously off-topic :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .RV-9?, was: Carb ice (was Re: Tried the Spitfire)
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:09:24 +0100, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) ..you have a kit started? Which diesel? Arnt, I'm sending a reply off-list to prevent me getting seriously off-topic :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .RV-9?, was: Carb ice (was Re: Tried the Spitfire)
Lee Elliott wrote: Hello Matthew, I don't know if it's just me but you seem to be posting everything twice. That is, I seem to be getting two copies of everything you post. That doesn't mean that you're necessarily posting everything twice, but it's a bit odd. LeeE Hi Lee, I use thunderbird and imap and for some reason it keeps telling me that it fails to send a mail when it really has - but not all the time. I'm looking at other imap clients (must be both windos and linux or BSD compatible) to replace this one if the bug continues. I know it makes me look like a cretin... you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not. Honest ;-) All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Yasim strangeness [was Taildragger takeoff and landing]
David Megginson wrote: That shouldn't be from my change -- can you do it with other YASim planes? I see the same issue with elevator on the c172-3d-yasim but not aileron. Again with the pa28-161 -looks to be about 5-10 deg judging by the attitude from inside the cockpit... All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yasim strangeness [was Taildragger takeoff and landing]
I see the same issue with elevator on the c172-3d-yasim but not aileron. Again with the pa28-161 -looks to be about 5-10 deg judging by the attitude from inside the cockpit... Also, try side slipping any of the cessnas or the pa28. It seems that in this flight regime the rudder seems to lack authority, at least compared it to the 150's and 152's I've flown where you need quite a bit of aileron to counter the opposing roll of the rudder when the controls are 'well crossed'. Is this the case or is side slipping a particularly tricky thing to get right in the FDM? All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really
resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly ... didn't know
that so far, would definitely recommend to create some kind of summary
for each aircraft and place it as a textfile into each aircraft's folder.
Many such things aren't that obvious, and even if they are it's
interesting how these things are implemented or what workaround is being
used to resemble a certain functionality.
On the other hand such a detailed description of the implementation
could also provide some insights for other user who want to create
their own aircraft, or simply extend pre-existing aircraft.
Things like carb ice may be a hinderance to the casual user (having it
disabled by default would probably be the way to go) but since there
are so many aircraft and pilots lost to it, it's fairly important for me
even in a sim. Does Nasal do timers? If so maybe something like this
would work:
while (engines_running)
{
If (engine rpm 40% OAT 4 deg C OAT 15 deg C)
{
if (carb_heat_enabled == false)
{
lean_mixture_by_increment; // lean mixture by a small value
from user selected value
}
else
{
enrich_mixture_by_increment; // richen mixture by a small
value until equal to user selected value
}
}
else
{
enrich_mixture_by_increment; // as above, but by a smaller amount,
for higher power settings ?
}
sleep 20 secs;
}
Please excuse the pseudo code - I've never done any nasal at all. I
can't remember what temperature range carb ice most commonly occurs at
and I'm not sure that after partial icing, a higher power setting would
clear the ice... probably not.
How does this seem?
All the best,
Matthew.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Carb ice (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire)
David Megginson wrote: I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like reduced visibility anyway. I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? - from what I've read and understood on my PPL course and in the UK CAA leaflets the major component of carb ice is the humidity and temperature combination. We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in power (below the green arc) on the C152 and C150 and in/near precipitation if icing is suspected. I've never read the POH for these, I just do what my instructor tells me. Carb icing is common on humid days in certain Continental engines such as the one in the Cessna 150 and the old (pre-1967) 172, but it is very rare in engines like the Lycoming O-320 (used in the Warrior and post-1967 Cessna 172's). The warnings in the later 172 POH's about using carb heat at low power are left over from the old Continental O-300 days -- the Warrior has essentially the same engine, but my POH does not recommend carb heat for low power operation unless I suspect actual icing. We lost a C150 last week to suspected carb ice. The engine stopped dead on base leg when the pilot (a recent PPL graduate) throttled down to descend for landing. The 'landing' appears to have been rather hard as the 'plane is a write-off. Thankfully he's OK... I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Carb ice (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire)
David Megginson wrote: I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like reduced visibility anyway. I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? - from what I've read and understood on my PPL course and in the UK CAA leaflets the major component of carb ice is the humidity and temperature combination. We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in power (below the green arc) on the C152 and C150 and in/near precipitation if icing is suspected. I've never read the POH for these, I just do what my instructor tells me. Carb icing is common on humid days in certain Continental engines such as the one in the Cessna 150 and the old (pre-1967) 172, but it is very rare in engines like the Lycoming O-320 (used in the Warrior and post-1967 Cessna 172's). The warnings in the later 172 POH's about using carb heat at low power are left over from the old Continental O-300 days -- the Warrior has essentially the same engine, but my POH does not recommend carb heat for low power operation unless I suspect actual icing. We lost a C150 last week to suspected carb ice. The engine stopped dead on base leg when the pilot (a recent PPL graduate) throttled down to descend for landing. The 'landing' appears to have been rather hard as the 'plane is a write-off. Thankfully he's OK... I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Carb ice
David Megginson wrote: Alex Perry wrote: That's a point. Once the engine stutters/quits due to carb ice, you have to make it take a while for the ice to go away again. ... and it takes quite a while ... Once the engine quits, it's too late for carb heat, isn't it? If it's only a partial blockage, we can simulate the effect of water moving through the fuel system as the ice melts. Not necessarily too late. The extent of the ice would decide if it would/could be melted before a _safe_ restart was impossible. It only needs to reduce enough for the engine to run long enough to add the heat properly and accelerate the melting process - obviously it needs to produce enough power to maintain height at a safe speed. Whereupon hopefully the ice would start to melt! I've heard stories of large chunks of carb ice and impact ice on the inner cowl coming off and getting jammed in the venturi stopping the engine dead with no possibility of a restart. I had my engine run rough once and suspected carb ice, but it smoothed out the second I put on carb heat, so it obviously wasn't ice -- I was probably just a little too lean. Are you sure? :-) There was a paper published here recently that contraversially recommended that carb heat be applied constantly and systems re-engineered to remove the issues due to the air filter being bypassed on lots of engines with the heat applied. I'm not quite qualified yet, so obviously I have nowhere near the experience of you guys, but I'll _always_ use carb heat when descending, landing and for 10-15 secs every five minutes or so in the cruise on every aircraft I _ever_ fly if it has one. I can't see the harm of a temporary and slight decrease in power compared to what could go wrong if I didn't use it... It would be useful for FG to catch us out once in a while. Stay frosty (pun intended!). All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Taildragger takeoff and landing
David Megginson wrote: I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub (--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled with the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a good solution. Finally, today, I had a DUH! moment. On non-aerobatic planes, the horizontal stabilizer is set at a negative angle of incidence so that it will not stall before the wings (tail stalls are rarely recoverable). I set the hstab on the J3 Cub and DC-3 to -3 degrees of incidence, and the tendency to nose-over has virtually disappeared. The takeoff roll of the DC-3 is a joy, and for both planes, I can now use the technique described in STICK AND RUDDER for taildragger wheel landings -- just as the wheels touch the pavement, push the stick or yoke full forward. It seems much, much better to me. However, I can sit at minimum power with the brakes on in nil wind and rock from one main wheel to the other using the ailerons. I can also lift the tail off the ground at minimum power. I'm not sure if that is a side effect of what you've done, but I'm sure that shouldn't be the case :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend to avoid it if at all possible. A nice-to-have anyway, although I think I could fix it if we agree that we want to go down that route. Very definitely low on the list of priorities. Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. If it were implmented, may be some of the code could be used for a carb-ice scenario? Where application of carb heat would hopefully bring the engine back up to full power again. This is a feature that I would love to see working well in FG - especially when the conditions are ripe for carb ice (which sadly, is most of the year in the UK). Would this need to be done seperately for each FDM/engine combo? All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] UK VFR Charts up for grabs.
The new UK CAA charts are coming out so I currently have last years 1:500,000 Southern England/Wales/NW France chart up for grabs. Shortly to be followed by the Northern England/Scotland chart. I'll give these away free to anyone here who is willing to cover the postage whether you are UK-based or not. If you want both charts then I will wait a while until the Northern chart is issued and send them both to save on postage. First-come, first served of course :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Slightly OT: Vector math question(s)!
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..be adviced the guys here torched me for suggesting redoing FG in C, so I guess you by C really meant C++, no? ;-) No I really did mean C :-) I'm not suggesting redoing anything, just writing an app which may be useful to real pilots and FG pilots too. AFAIK (and I don't know much!) the free palm development tools for linux are all C-based. All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Slightly OT: Vector math question(s)!
I'm about to start writing something in C to calculate the heading required to maintain a track and the resultant ground speed given a wind vector. This is destined to be a simple flight planner for my Palm but I'd like to make an interface to FG so that in theory you could save a real flight and replay it in FG with the same conditions. I envisage creating a struct to hold the the polar co-ords of each of the vectors involved i.e. magnitude and angle from 0 deg. Given that the processor in a palm is not that beefy should I be storing and calculating the vectors this way or using the cartesian system? I'm a total C newbie so please go easy on me :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 2004 Linux User Developer Expo
Lee Elliott wrote: It sounds as though things went really well - round of applause to all concerned. I wish I could have got up there, if only to visit but sadly, there wasn't any way I could make it. Ditto. I'll definitely try and be there next year. Well done guys! All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tables and images and borders ... oh my
Style sheet? tried something like img name=foo src=/images/foo.jpg border=0 ? All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] tables and images and borders ... oh my
Jon S Berndt wrote: No, I don't think so, because the previous version worked. To be more descriptive, I am redesigning the left hand side panel at the JSBSim web site, because we have a different set of pages now in-place than before, and because all the items were not previously viewable. Each of the buttons was 18 pixels high. Now, the new buttons are 17 pixels high. I have reset the height and width attributes, and so on. But there is still a gap between images. Jon, that sounds like the table has a height attribute which was calculated from the size of the old images, or the height is a percentage which is more than the sum of the image heights... ? All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Slightly OT: Is Simgear dead?
I'm not getting any response for simgear.org or cvs.simgear.org. Is anyone else having this problem? All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] New YASim fuel code
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:17:00 -, Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do we handle fuel in lbs and account for Avgas/JP4? Avgas and Jet A1 have different specific gravities. I can't remember what the Sp.G of Jet A1 is but Avgas here is quoted as 0.7 - i.e. (0.7 x The equivalent volume of water). You'll basically get differing quantities of each for the same weight. Sorry if this isn't what you were asking :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AC3D
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:17:20 -0600, Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had the impression that AC3D was a free program, but after visiting their site I seem to be mistaken. True? Jon Some of the older non-Linux and non-win versions are free I believe. All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Settings Dialog; Setting the Altimeter
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:57:20 +, David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: millibars or inches? Can FG be set up to use millibars/Hecto Pascals for the Altimeter pressure setting and imperial for the rest of the units as we use in the UK? All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Settings Dialog; Setting the Altimeter
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:07:34 -0500, David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a (relatively) simple matter to make instruments calibrated in millibars instead of inches of mercury; localizing dialog boxes will be a bit trickier, though. In general, I think that our policy should be to follow the nationality of the callsign or markings of each aircraft's 3D model: North American aircraft (like the default 172 and my Warrior model) should use inches of mercury; European aircraft should use millibars. If or when we model old Soviet aircraft, we might need to calibrate the airspeed indicators in kilometers per hour and the altimeters in meters as well (I'm not certain). Eventually, then, someone will need to do a repaint of some of the common aircraft with UK markings and a slightly different panel. All the best, David It would be nice to eventually be able to map the relevant instruments to any of these units. In the interests of internationalisation, you understand :-) Incidentally, I believe that Eastern block aircraft flown here have to have an altimeter in feet/millibars onboard. All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument Settings Dialog; Setting the Altimeter
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:19:52 +, David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: eg one-zero-one-three-decimal-two You can probably drop the decimal point for millibars. This makes UK flying a lot more realistic now. Thanks :-) All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Spitfire Hurricane manuals
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:52:04 -0500, David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And psychological warfare. From what I've read, the German flight crews were much more frightened of the Spitfires (and British RADAR guidance for interceptions made it look like there were many more planes than the British actually had). Also, I'm not certain about this, but I believe that often the Spits would concentrate on engaging the fighters so that the Hurricanes could get at the bombers. Obviously, the Spits would rack up many fewer kills themselves that way, but I'm not sure how well the BoB would have gone if Britain hadn't been able to deploy a fighter well-matched with the ME-109. From what I've seen on TV and read, the hurricanes usually fared better against cannon equipped aircraft because they have a lot of fabric on their airframe. The cannon rounds would pass straight through many parts of the airframe causing a minimal amount of damage (minimal seems the wrong word to use!). Whereas the spitfires monocoque conventional structure took cannon rounds quite badly in comparison... There was a series of TV documentaries here recently called 'Spitfire Ace' which I thought was very good. I think you can buy the accompanying book from Amazon.co.uk. One of the quotes from a German pilot was with refernce to the 8 browning machine guns on the spitfire...it was something like 'if he gets you at the right distance with all 8 guns you will be caput!'. Whichever way you look at it they were brilliant, brave pilots on both sides. All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Spitfire Hurricane manuals
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:29:38 -, Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that pointer. Unfortunately, it's the wrong Mark - IX I think from the canon armament, although some real expert will undoubtedly identify it instantly, and, more importantly, it doesn't show the underwing arrangements of flaps and gear doors. Finally, I need some colour and camouflage references. I expect they are all out there somewhere. I had real problems finding accurate line-drawings of the Pilatus turbo porter I'm working on. In the end I asked Pilatus themselves and they provided my with an engineers drawing which I scanned sections of and assembled with the gimp to use as background images. If you are modelling one of the carburettor-engined spitfires it would be nice if the engine cuts-out under negative G :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] A load of YASim engine stuff
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:53:34 -0500, David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It varies with throttle and mixture. At 75% power, mine indicates about 5 psi running lean of peak or about 7 psi running rich of peak. I don't remember what it indicates in a full-rich, full-power climb. Is it usual to make the approach or initial climb-out with the mixture set full rich and prop fine in your aircraft? I'm just wondering because it's part of the downwind and pre-take off checks for the aircraft I fly (although I skip over the prop check because it's not CS). All the best, Matt --- # Begin Script to show all SCO IP in linux #!/bin/bash # End Script to show all SCO IP in linux ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] PC Pilot Review
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:31:30 -0600, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This month's edition of PC Pilot (http://www.pcpilot.net) has a nice 6 page review of FlightGear. They include tons of screen shots and say a lot of nice things. I *think* you can find PC Pilot in large bookstores like Barnes and Noble, or you can order online from their site. I saw this in my *tiny* corner shop today. I would've bought it but I only had five quid and I was on a mercy mission for painkillers and chocolat :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Baby
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:55:40 -0600, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, quick announcement ... baby! Amelia Esther, 8lbs 1oz, born 6:12am this morning, less than 1 hour from first contraction to delivery. 12 minutes from arrival at the hospital to delivery. Everyone is doing good. I'll be pretty much offline for a couple days. If I have any pending business, patches, etc. (Fred, Jim, etc.) I will have to get back to it this weekend. Regards, Curt. Congratulations to you all and best wishes for the future. We're right behind you (literally)! All the best, Matt. -- # Begin Script to show all SCO IP in linux #!/bin/bash # End Script to show all SCO IP in linux ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] SVFR
Straight out of the manual: --- Special VFR allows the relaxation by ATC, in certain circumstances, of some restrictions to facilitate the operation of a flight without lowering the flight safety to an unacceptable level. SVFR is usually applied by ATC in Class D or E Control Zones, when weather and traffic conditions permit to allow private pilots access to aerodromes within them. SVFR flight will not however, be permitted outside of Control Zones. A flight plan is not required for an SVFR flight but ATC approval is. A request for a Special VFR clearance may be made in flight, but it may not necessarily be granted by ATC. Authorisation for an SVFR flight is a concession granted by ATC only when weather and traffic conditions permit. An SVFR clearance absolves the pilot from complying with: - the full requirements of IFR; and - the requirement to maintain a height of 1500ft above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the aircraft if the height limitation specified in the clearance makes compliance with this requirement impossible. --- The bottom line is it isn't just for getting in and out below minimums. It is a required clearance before you will even be allowed into your destination if it lies within a class D or E CTR. In my *very* limited and mostly theoretical experience, SVFR clearances are given at fairly low altitudes 1000-2000ft to allow SVFR and IFR traffic to continue in the same control zone but obviously the SVFR flights are kept well away from the IFR ones. In most of the busy CTRs more often than not you will be refused an SVFR crossing and vectored around the edge of the CTR under a Radar Advisory Service by ATC. That is certainly the folklore anyway. AFAIK, (again, I may be wrong...) big airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester do not allow SEP aircraft to land at all and will not accept non-IFR flights in or out. I've just looked at Southern England on my chart and most of it is class A above 2500' in the vacinity of the airports and class A from 4500' + due to the density of airways converging on the TMAs of the various big airports. Manchester in the North is famed for not permitting movements anywhere near it. SVFR or not. They provide a small low level corridor between Liverpool John Lennon and Manchester Int. which is marked NOT ABOVE 1250' Manchester QNH. This is meant to avoid the sizeable extra distance you would have to travel if routed around them. I've heard that often it is so congested that it's better to go around and pay for the fuel and hours rather than with your life... On the one hand, I am lucky because I live and fly further north where there are hardly any restrictions apart from airways which start at FL85+ (we are allowed to request crossing an airway but only at it's base FL and at 90 deg to the airway). On the other hand, I get very little experience of clearances and procedures coming from an untowered airfield. To try and combat this my flight school make sure we do a qualifying cross country which sees us cross lots of Military Air Traffic Zones (MATZs) and also land at Humberside international airport which is class D, I believe, and allows SEP aircraft and students too :-) There is an excellent piece in this months Flyer magazine which disproves some of the folk lore about refused clearances and makes for interesting reading. If you plan on flying here then I recommend getting hold of a copy and reading it. All the best, Matt. On 21:58 Fri 06 Feb , David Megginson wrote: I love visiting the UK, but it doesn't sound like a fun place to be a pilot with all those costs and restrictions. Outside of the occasional temporary flight restriction (TFR) in the U.S., I'm aware of nowhere in North America below FL180 that you need an instrument rating and IFR clearance to fly. Sometimes pilots have to reserve landing slots at the busiest airports like KLAX, but typically you just show up, and the fees are usually very low (some big airports, like Philadelphia, have no landing fee at all for a piston single). ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
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. I _will_ be going to France and the Netherlands but it's extra expense and hassle that I don't want to get into just yet. There is a minimum number of P1 hours you must have before applying for issue of the IMC which is to stop people doing exactly what you are advising against - going straight from a PPL to an IMC, which wasn't really my intention anyway. I'll be interspersing my x-countries with a few hours of dual IMC training until I'm ready for the tests. I figured this would be a good balance since it should help stop me developing any nasty habits once I'm not being watched ;-) I'm looking forward to meandering up to Scotland and around the Peak District and Yorkshire Dales. The problem is that many of these places are also full of Danger Areas on the charts as they are used extensively by the RAF. The IR in this coutry is unachievably expensive for me. The IMC is a safety rating that I'd like to pursue to help me fly more than I normally would in VMC only. I'm also aware that it's nowhere near as complete as an IR and pilots die believing that their IMC will get them through the scariest of weather. Anyways, this could be a while away yet. I might even convert onto a 172 then the Firefly first and get some basic aerobatic training since sharpening my stall recovery and general handling can't be a bad thing either... All the best, Matt. On 15:39 Thu 05 Feb , David Megginson wrote: Your situation is different, of course, but in Canada or the U.S. I'd suggest getting some real cross-country experience (with flight following, if available) before getting too serious about the rating. It's hard to know much about weather until you've flown a few medium-length (300 mile) cross-countries through different weather systems. I found the weather part of the IFR oral (pre-flight) test laughable easy, because I had already bet my life on being able to read and understand those forecasts quite a few times, and had spent long mornings or afternoons studying them, deciding whether I could safely get home that day. It's also good to get used to planning and flying trips without an instructor around. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] SVFR
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 partially waive some of the visibility criteria normally required but not the requirement to glide clear of a conurbation in the event of engine failure. Like I say, I'll check this tomorrow as I have a feeling that there may b emore to it than I stated, and I really should know having just done the exams :-/ All the best, Matt. On 19:18 Fri 06 Feb , David Megginson wrote: SVFR means something entirely different in North America. SVFR is a clearance to land or depart VFR in controlled airspace in conditions below VFR minima for a control zone. For example, let's say that I screwed up my preflight planning and was coming home to Ottawa with an icing layer of clouds at 2000 ft and 2 miles visibility. I cannot ask for an IFR clearance, because minimum vectoring altitude around the airport is 2500 ft, which would would put me into the ice; I cannot land regular VFR, because I don't have the minimum 3 miles visibility required in controlled airspace. What I can do is request SVFR from Ottawa Terminal (who will coordinate with Ottawa Tower), and if they allow it, I can scud-run in at 1500 ft, trying to avoid any towers that poke up that high. Of course, people die this way. Another use of SVFR is breaking off an IFR approach once you're below the ceiling and cancelling IFR to proceed to another nearby airport. For example, Gatineau airport, which has VOR and NDB approaches, is only a couple of miles from Rockcliffe airport, which doesn't; assuming that you were IFR above an overcast layer, and ground vis was less than 3 SM (or the ceiling was a bit low), one way to get down through a cloud layer and land at Rockcliffe in MVFR would be to follow the Gatineau VOR or NDB approach until below the clouds, then request SVFR (cancelling IFR) and fly across the river to land at Rockcliffe. Extremely busy airports like KSFO typically do not allow SVFR, since it makes a lot of work for the controllers and screws up the traffic flow. You do not need SVFR to land at KSFO or any other airport in its zone as long as visibility and ceiling are at or above the VFR limits for controlled airspace: people land VFR at KSFO, KLAX, KLGA, and other major U.S. airports all the time without an SVFR clearance. I still do not understand exactly what SVFR is in the UK, but it sounds like it's something very different. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Commercial Ticket..
Well Done! All the best, Matt. On 16:11 Wed 04 Feb , 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). The hardest part of the checkride was trying to get the aircraft back into the hanger without hitting anything. The area in front of the hanger was shear ice. As for the written test, I got a 92. Ryan ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [OT] Commercial Ticket..
There's also various scenarios of asymetric thrust - two running engines but one running roughly or not developing as much power for a plethora of possible reasons. These incidents have killed many pilots on take off as they think they have plenty of power, and they do, but the situation easily gets out of hand and shortens the flight :-) All the best, Matt On 20:57 Wed 04 Feb , Jon Berndt wrote: Aha! OK, I would call that engine-out experience. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
No not yet. I have about 25hrs and need to sit the written exams for Flight Planning, Nav, Met, Human Factors and Aircraft Technical. I have sat and passed RT written and Practical and Air Law so far... Hopefully I'll get my PPL sometime later this year but I'm in no rush really. Also, like Curt I have an imminent 'family enlargement event' which will slow everything down a little - especially anything involving money :-) I'll let you all know when I do get my PPL, since I probably wouldn't be doing it were it not for this list. I've already discussed starting IMC training almost immediately after I get the PPL :-) All the best, Matt. On 16:33 Wed 04 Feb , David Megginson wrote: So you have your PPL, then? If so, then double congrats and welcome to the skies. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
I was sitting my RT Practical. It's a basic test of skill on the radio and ability to request and act on clearances along a preset route etc. Hence the near failure for not requesting SVFR into a zone at or before 15miles/5 min. All the best, Matt. On 16:36 Wed 04 Feb , David Megginson wrote: SVFR must mean something different in the UK, unless you were doing your practical with less than three miles visibility or a very low ceiling. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
Thankyou all, I passed btw :-) All the best, Matt On 17:07 Tue 03 Feb , David Luff wrote: Good Luck! (Although you probably should have set off by the time this hits your inbox given the traffic in the UK these days!) Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
Hi Dave, thanks for the info - I'll mess with the density and see what that yields. Do the AI aircraft appear at small UK airfields? I was planning on doing a basic collision detection between the AI aircraft and the user aircraft. Initially not between AI planes until you were finished working on them, hopefully to prevent it causing you problems :-) Where is each AI aircraft's (object's ?) position data stored and would it be easy to enable your code to crash or spiral the aircraft to the ground upon detection of a collision? - obviously, I'm not looking for explosions and structural failures. Even a message to stdout reporting the collision would be a start I suppose. I'm a very novice C++ programmer so my code may be full of bugs, memory leaks and a latent lack of object style. Hopefully this won't get in the way too much, but help and guidance is always gratefully received ;-) I have a friend who is a games programmer and he might give me the minimal of help with the physics involved. The simplest, very crude way I imagine would be to calculate a bounding box around each model and look for overlap of two or more boxes each frame. If it's quicker it might be prudent to only calculate the bounding box if the two aircraft are within a certain distance of each other. This is still fraught with issues and I'm not that familiar with the FGFS codebase yet so I think that I may end up making changes all over. But we'll see... What are people's thoughts on this? Do we even need collision detection? Disclaimer: I have a very long list of things to do on FG and a lack of time generally so this might never happen but I would like to have a crack at it... I'll let you know off list of my adventures with the Radeon card. Hopefully it won't be too bad. All the best, Matt. -- reply snipped On 15:53 Wed 04 Feb, David Luff wrote: They're not meant to be that dense, honest :-) I think the problem with KEMT is that it's the only airport with proper exits and taxiways defined, but these are defined for the ends of the runway only. In real life one can apparently turn off the runway at any point (avoiding lights) as soon as the landing roll is finished (and indeed is encouraged to), but I didn't realise that at the time. Hence the AI aircraft taxi to the end of the runway bl%dy slowly, and all the other traffic winds up going around and flying the circuit before eventually getting to do their own slow march down the track, thus perpetuating the situation. At the other airports AI traffic is removed at the end of the landing roll, thus largly avoiding queueing and going around. There could be some screwy stuff going on with the random number generation though - Melchior has reported a whole convoy of aircraft near KCCR in the bay area before, but I've not been able to reproduce it yet. FWIW, --prop:/sim/ai-traffic/level=1 will drop the traffic level. (1 = light, 2 = default, 3 = dense). I've got a horrible feeling that there's nothing simple about collision detection ;-) The current code is *very* beta. My current feeling is that the best thing to tune first is better in-air separation - getting the AI planes to extend the downwind to avoid the user and other AI on straight-in's, and varying speed on straight-in and circuit to avoid overtaking the user, and to gradually open up over-small separations. Also traffic warnings from tower to user. Collision detection between 3D models isn't really my thing! I would be *extremely* interested in your experiences on Linux with this card. They really look to be the best bang for the buck at the moment, but the uncertaintly over reliable ATI drivers on Linux is putting me off. Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
BTW, what does the 'S' stand for in 'No SVFR' that's printed next to KSFO and some other large international airports on the VFR charts? 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 much larger airports. IIRC Manchester Woodford is a good example - right next to Manchester International. In the context of KSFO I would assume it means no SVFR available direct to KSFO or any closeby fields in their CTR. All the best, Matt. PS: I hope that's right. I passed Air Law only last Sunday! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
Thanks :-) I thought it was the hardest of all the exams so far and I just got through with 87.5% (pass is 75%). Since you are under the JAA you will also have to learn the semi-pointless and brain numbing Chicago convention stuff too... I have my Radio Practical exam in a couple of hours :-/ Good luck with yours, Martin. On 15:17 Tue 03 Feb , Martin Spott wrote: Congratulations! This is the next checkpoint for me and I must admit that I'm a bit worried ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Hi Mally, I wasn't aware that you were an MSFS developer and since I currently do a bit of x-country practice in MSFS with the VisualFlight scenery I'd like to congratulate you on an awesome job! I for one would be elated to see a commercially available version of the getmapping derived scenery for FGFS not only for extra realism that it presents, but commercial recognition could only be positive for the project as a whole. As Dave said, I would also be willing to pay for the scenery even if it was a little more expensive to offset the lower demand. It would be wonderful if VisualFlight permitted purchasers to use the textures in FGFS, but realistically that probably won't happen...yet. It's human nature to try and maximise what you have available in this way but I don't want to infringe anyone's EULA or put anyone - especially the 'small guy' out of pocket either. I think the FGFS community is a little more open and honest in this respect. I'm leaving this well alone until it becomes acceptable to do so or I can buy the scenery 'for FGFS' :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
I'm interested in how you did this as I thought of extracting the files from the MS FS VFR scenery discs I have and somehow stitching it together for use in FGFS..? In theory you should be able to get at the data as Reiser should still be able to give you everything since the last time it wrote the journal file. Maybe you have a disk controller issue or the drive is caput? All the best, Matt. On 11:14 Thu 29 Jan, mat churchill wrote: Had just slightly improved this method after advice from Curt on how to stop the tile edges cutting into inclines. But have had loss of fat on my hardrive (linked to powercut I think). If anyone knows of a good file recovery solution that will work with reiser fs would like to recover contents of drive. Off topic I know, but it is all my flight / terragear stuff ! as well as the rest. Mat ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
The ones I have are from www.visualflight.co.uk and are about 20GBP per region. I bought the regions aroung my airfield to help with VFR practice in MSFS but I'd like to see them in FGFS much more :-) An extension script to rip these into FG for people who have purchased the images would be useful... I believe they are taken from an aircraft at about 5000ft so the detail is much better than sat images. I don't know of anything in the US done in a similar way though. All the best, Matt. On 13:15 Thu 29 Jan, Russell Suter wrote: Does anyone know where one can obtain images of this quality for the southwestern U.S.? Not necessarily free but reasonably cheap... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery
That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped from the MS Scenery add-ons? All the best, Matt. On 23:31 Wed 28 Jan , Erik Hofman wrote: But I must also admit that after looking at the new screen shots from Mat Churchill I might want to change my mind: html http://www.simscreens.net/index.php?sub=categoriespt=al=cntr=sim=14motif=type=keyword=cnt=15sort=1from=0static=yesempty=yes /html ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: UK Linux Expo 2004
Hi Curt, I can be there for one of the days, possibly two if the accomodation isn't too expensive. I can also bring my PC (17 TFT; Gentoo; Athlon 2500XP; FGFS CVS and GeForce Ti4200-128 with pedals and joystick), but I'd need help getting it and me there - I don't want to risk public transport. Alternatively, if anyone is attending who lives reasonably near to Sheffield and wishes to car share I'd be happy to take a car and drive down with them to cut costs. All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Fwd: Linux User Developer Expo 2004]
Curt, Let me check with the lady first :-) All the best, Matt. On 09:28 Wed 14 Jan , Curtis L. Olson wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear has been offered free .org booth space and a possible speaker slot at the Linux User Developer Expo 2004. This is Oct 20-21 at the Olympia Exhibition Centre in London, UK. You don't necessarily need to be a developer to help with the booth, but a moderate working knowledge of FlightGear (and for this show, Linux) is always helpful. Are there any UK people who might be interested in staffing a booth, bringing a pc, etc.? Anyone looking for an excuse to visit London next October? This should be a great opportunity for a European FG developer's meeting (or sort of that), We need to know as soon as possible if any one (in addition to Jon) can commit to being at this conference and can commit to helping with the booth so we can apply for and (hopefully) get booth space before it is all gone. I think if we could get another one or two people to say they are pretty certain they can be there, then we could go ahead and lock in some booth space. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Autocoordination
As David said, there is very little adverse yaw from aileron input on modern aircraft designs. Now, I have no experience of anything but Cessnas but on an A320 for example, I would be surprised if the aileron input required to perform say, a 20 deg. bank turn would require *any* rudder input at all to maintain balance. It may even be taken care of by the flight computer... flameproof jacket on So maybe the problem could be with the FDM representing the wrong adverse yaw amount for that aircraft? /flameproof jacket on All the best, Matt. On 14:04 Thu 08 Jan 2004, Hof Markus wrote: I'm not sure of this, but I think you are right! I'll think about. I tried on A320 to fly turn at 25?BNK an ball was never centered! even if BNK did'nt change. Anyway: to keep the ball centered, as you said, I'll need a rudder due to adverse yaw (and maybe some other things :)) ). I just want to write rudder functions (components in flight modell) to keep the ball centered. I think the best way to get an error for trigger functions is to take accel. of y-axis and keep it to 0. The trigger holds accel-y-axis to 0, and so the ball should always be centered? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC Talk
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. The possible problems which can be introduced by a conversation in effect being translated twice are huge. OK, they may be far less than if everyone was speaking the same language, but it still holds potential for serious errors. It just goes to show that we'll probably never reach an ideal state of affairs with respect to communication. Since the furthest I've flown is 30nm and I don't live in the SE of the UK then this doesn't really affect me at the moment. So I'll shut up ;-) All the best, Matt On 09:06 Mon 29 Dec 2003, David Megginson wrote: Actually, I think that's a serious problem. One of the benefits of using a common ATC frequency (instead of some kind of direct plane-to-plane comlink) is that we can all hear ATC talking to other aircraft and form an idea of what's happening around us. ATC *does* make mistakes, all the time, and almost always pilots catch those mistakes (just like ATC catches ours). If a non-native pilot cannot understand the other chatter on the radio, we lose that safety layer. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATC Talk
On 03:15 Mon 29 Dec , Ivo wrote: Or we could have multiple people around the world recording the sentences, so we'll hear the right accent when approaching for example New Delhi or Mexico City or Frankfurt. Maybe even bilingual, though I don't know if they use their native language (for example for domestic flights) or that they use English worldwide. 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. This sounds like a cool idea but the work involved is immense. The majority of it is non-technical (recording sound samples etc) so it could end up being much more authentic than MS FS if we were to use our diverse user-base :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Contribution to flightgear
Hi Prabhu, Please read and digest the docs on the flightgear website and the documentation on scenery editing at the simgear website (see the link to simgear from the flightgear site) before getting started. If you still have questions there are plenty here who will help once you've read the documentation ;-) Also, please post messages to the list in plain text. All the best, Matt On 19:57 Mon 29 Dec 2003, Prabhakaran Arunachalam wrote: htmldiv style='background-color:'DIV class=RTE PHi,/P PI'm new to flight gear. I had downloaded the source code and builtnbsp;them usingnbsp;cygwin in Windows./P PIt is working fine and looks good./P PI would like to contribute to flightgear. My area of interest would be creating 3d models and terrain./P PCould anybody help me proceed in these areas?/P PThanks./P PPrabhu./P ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Trim position and speed to external hardware
How do I export the trim position and IAS to a serial port? I'd like to use these values to drive some stepper motors which crudely simulate control load and trim effects. All the best, Matt. --- A merry xmas and a happy new year. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Adding a runway to runways.dat
On 02:34 Fri 19 Dec, Ivo wrote: Also check: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-December/023555.html After adding the runway manually, you could use TaxiDraw to add the taxiways. As for the bug I mentioned in that thread, David Luff sent me a debug-enabled version and I tracked it down to being a locale thing. If you're running a localized version of Linux in a country that uses a comma as a decimal separator, you have to start taxidraw as follows: LC_NUMERIC=POSIX ./taxidraw I thought I mention it here, so it gets archived for the time being. Probably this will be fixed in the next version. Thanks. TaxiDraw is working fine for me atm (Well done Dave!). I'm having issues with our taxiways since it's a grass field and they aren't really marked just 'known' :-) I've also not been able to successfully compile terragear yet but I'll keep trying. I've got a few more things to try before I will be asking for help. All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building
On 12:42 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote: Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation between the pedals 4 seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have 2 in and 2 out for the 4 total, but can easily shorten it up, feels like I'd have a foot in the engine. That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much throw is available on his aircraft? All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building
On 14:52 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote: Also I'm assuming the yoke on most planes has a bit more throw than +-2, but that's about the limit of what's practical with my current hardware so it'll probably do ok. I could get 6 travel or so max, just gets a bit more trouble to do. It's 16-18cm from full down to full up elevator on the couple of C152's I've measured and roughly +-90 degrees of roll axis. BTW, I'm not anal. Honest! I'm just building a yoke of my own so I measured these recently. If you're in the right ball park for these figures IMHO you'll be just fine. As David quite rightly said, it's the feedback from the controls which varies according to many parameters that is by far the hardest thing to simulate. I'm going to use elastic cotton-covered 'bungee' cord to centre and resist on my yoke. Mainly because springs are quite difficult to come by and can be noisy to boot. All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Adding a runway to runways.dat
On 00:42 Fri 19 Dec , Matthew Law wrote: What are the fields? I'm guessing at some here: Sorry. I just found the doc on the FGFS site. I've got to start RTFMing more often :-) All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Adding a runway to runways.dat
To my detriment I haven't been following past discussions on scenery editing. I would like to add the missing 18/36 runway to EGNF. I have gunzipped the runways.dat file and found the following line for EGNF: R EGNF 06 53.316990 -1.196100 60.00 1476 118 NAVNN 00 00 The AIP shows clearly the missing runway: http://www.matthewlaw.plus.com/EGNF.gif I'm assuming that I just add a new line under this with the correct values. What are the fields? I'm guessing at some here: ICAO ID, HEADING, LAT, LON, WIDTH, LENGTH... If these are correct, I make the width and length a little wrong. All the best, Matthew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Kool site of the day ...
On 14:53 Tue 16 Dec , Erik Hofman wrote: Kool Sites are informative, weird, stylish, offbeat or unique So, what exactly is the FlightGear site? I'd go for Informative, stylish, and unique ;-) All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Video card recommendation
On 18:08 Fri 05 Dec , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 and this card works perfectly with flightgear under Linux. Me too. Using the latest drivers i still see the sky flash from blue to black occasionally... All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] (OT) Kid's day at work
On 22:13 Tue 02 Dec , David Culp wrote: I brought my son to work for a day, and he had a wonderful time. http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/kidsday.jpg At least he didn't have to hold on for much longer :) All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Grass Runway Textures
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 17:46, Julian Foad wrote: Matthew Law wrote: Speaking of which, would it be possible to change the texture above a certain height AGL? We could have a texture with more detail for low altitudes and a shinier, more gaussian texture for higher altitudes... Just like real grass and short crops. Grass rarely reaches more than one meter AGL :-) Different textures for grass growing at different altitudes AMSL would make some sense, but I think you are talking about changing the material properties of the ground cover according to the aircraft's height AGL ... but that shouldn't make a difference to the shininess or the sharpness of the specular reflection (which is what I am guessing you mean by more gaussian; do I misunderstand?). I didn't explain myself very well and I've had some more thoughts on this: When you are sat on the runway you can see more detail in the grass itself. This could be conveyed with a different texture (since modelling grass blades would be a tad expensive!) which would change to another texture with less detail further away. 'Further away' as in distance; having thought about it, since even when you are sat at ground level you can't see detail in the grass a few hundred metres away. I also agree that all foliage should change with variations in altitude and latitude but that's a big change I would have thought... The reference I made to specularity was that to my eyes anyway, grass looks slightly 'shinier' at lower altitudes. This is especially so when it's wet of course. This is apparent when descending under a parachute since you spend a lot of time concentrating on the landing area which is usually grass. I don't seem to see the same effect with straight distance at ground level. Does this sound familiar? or is it just my eyes and I'm talking rubbish here... ;-) All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Playing with textures
On 09:56 Tue 02 Dec , Curtis L. Olson wrote: This is something that has been considered, but it will be a massive amount of work to do this and preserve all the existing functionality. Massive might be slightly overstated, but it probably means tearing everything down and rebuilding it piece by piece. That's a big job, and it is made more complicated if we want to keep the current cvs head runnable. ...and maybe move to SDL too ?! All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Grass Runway Textures
One of the problems with these type of photographs is the fact that they cover a very small area. When using these for textures you would end up with a hight degree of very annoying repetitiveness. Another problem is the fact that they aren't shot straight down, making the textures look weird when used for textures. But they are always very useful for comparing textures with the real world to see if it looks at least a bit like expected. Speaking of which, would it be possible to change the texture above a certain height AGL? We could have a texture with more detail for low altitudes and a shinier, more gaussian texture for higher altitudes... Just like real grass and short crops. All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest stupid helicopter trick
On 07:50 Thu 27 Nov , Martin Spott wrote: The first is correct, the latter is not (see above). Pilots love this helicopter because of his outstanding manouverability. It's even capable of doing serious aerobatic - up to inverted flying (AFAIR with a modified gear box lubrication), Check out the Westland Lynx. I've seen these at a couple of airshows this year and the pilots did manage quite a bit of inverted flight during their routines. These too have a rigid rotor head with elastomeric bearings and the blades are intentionally made more rigid to prevent tail strikes during high-G and sharp stop maneuvers. Impressive engineering in all modern helos I think you'll agree :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG logo Slovenian flag
On 10:47 Thu 27 Nov , Erik Hofman wrote: Yeah, but then you'd get a fight over which flag is put in first and which flag is shows just for 0.1 usec (e.g. the last flag) ... Erik Maybe randomise the order ? All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest stupid helicopter trick
On 14:48 Thu 27 Nov , Jon Stockill wrote: I remember seeing the army display team at RAF Waddington a couple of years ago - 4 gazelle 1 lynx all lined up in the hover, then the lynx pilot backflipped the aircraft out of the lineup. The first time you see it you really can't believe what you've just seen. Yes, that was one of the airshows I saw this year. I think they were called the Sharks. IIRC at one point they had a Lynx barrel rolling (with a portion of inverted) around a line of other aircraft. They also did loops and other crazy stuff that helicopters clearly can now do. Very cool. Were it not for the ridiculous costs, I would've much rather learned to fly rotary wing than fixed. As one of my work mates puts it: 'Yeah, even when the engine stops they still fly, cos they're still ugly and the earth still repels them!' All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Grass Runway Textures
On 18:49 Tue 25 Nov , Erik Hofman wrote: So 75x75 textures of these types of surfaces are required, then? I might have a go at these during my attempts at modelling EGNF. Are there any restrictions to the making of textures that I need to be aware of oether than size and color depth? Not really. It's something I an to get rid of a long time. What would be needed is a tileable (or seamless) texture covering the surface type, just like the rest of the textures. Now that I'm thinking about it, does anybody know if the dirt/grass/lakebed runway are modeled directional like the concrete and asphalt runways (e.g. the textures would only need longitudinally be seamless)? I've looked at these and the grass textures look like green-tinted gaussian noise. The dirt runway looks quite like a filter I've seen somewhere before... ;-) It seems quite reasonable to me but it isn't quite symetrical and the X and Y join lines are visible up close. What sort of 'nice textures' are we looking for? I know this is an odd question to ask, but a lot of games and sims just can't get grass right and these are by no means the worst textures I've seen around for this sort of material. If I get some pointers to nicer textures I'll do my best to produce similar versions for use under the GPL. All the best, Matt ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: First real flight
Given the difficulty of getting in and out of a 152 on the ground it's probably impossible at our circuit height of 800ft to survive a bailout. A larger aircraft at 1000ft and reasonable speed, say 100kts, would be quite survivable. The key is the airspeed. You'd get a far faster deployment at 100kts than from stall speed. Unfortunatley, most emergency aircrew parachutes I've seen are pitifully old or badly maintained. Modern square reserve parachutes of the type used by skydivers are very fast to open and very, very reliable if the mandatory inspection and repack cycle is adhered to. I use one of these too: http://www.cypres2.com just in case ;-) Regards, Matt. On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 12:39, David Megginson wrote: I know that's a joke, but I wonder what the odds of successfuly exiting a falling 152 would be -- assume that you're already well below circuit altitude by the time your brain has processed the failure. You'd probably be better to stick with the plane unless the structural failure were total (i.e. a lost wing rather than just a bent one). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: First real flight
Congratulations, Lee! Will you be carrying on and getting a glider license? Turbulence sucks: when I'm flying, I usually try to climb out above it. Turbulence often means thermals and updrafts, though, so I imagine that soaring types actually go looking for it. The gusts disappear usually a few hundred feet above the ground. The turbulence disappears anywhere between 1,000 and 10,000 feet above the ground, depending on all kinds of factors. I agree :-) In a C152 with one aboard it certainly gets a little bumpy around the circuit even nauseous sometimes. The worst turbulence I've been in so far was just beneath a bank of fluffy cumulus clouds. I thought the airframe was going to fail and for the first time since I started flying I wished I had my parachute on! Approach and landing was not what I'd expect either - stick out the airbrakes while still several hundred feet in the air and then dive down to the ground, level off and flair. Sadly, there are powered-plane pilots who try to do the same thing, even through flaps aren't exactly air brakes. Mmmm. Sorry that's me. Getting better though. Sorry this is OT but there isn't anyone else who'd really understand. On the contrary, it was an excellent posting. I agree :-) It probably helps foster ideas and can only be good for FG if people share their experiences. All the best, Matt. PS: I passed my RT exam this week with 97%. Would have been even cooler had the guy next to me not got 100! One down, 7 to go... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: I am new here/ helicopter flight model
I've dabbled with a couple of model helicopters, owned a couple of model heli sims and flown an R22 for 15 minutes. A better description for the un-initiated would be 'like juggling water with forks' IMO. Far more difficult than a C152 ;-) Cheers, Matt. On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 12:44, Richard Bytheway wrote: A quote I once heard: A helicopter is not an aircraft, it is ten thousand spare parts flying in close formation. Richard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: web site updates
Yes, towards the end of February we are expecting a little bundle of joy. :-) We are expecting our second child on April 30th. I share your thoughts too, Curt! Best wishes, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] gear door sequencing
Am I correct when I say : Slat are in front of the wing, Yes, but they can be on the trailing edge where the terms 'slat' and 'slot' can be used interchangeably. Generally in the UK they refer to them as 'leading edge slats'. Most modern aircraft include the 'slots' within the flap design (slotted flaps) but some older, weird and wonderful aircraft had them all over the place so it's worth noting the difference! Speedbrakes are on the top of the wing ( the extrados ? ) and can be used flying, On civilian aircraft and gliders this is usually the case. Military types can have them in different places - such as the F16 (on top of the fuselage?), the Buccaneer (opening tail cone) etc. Reverse are small doors on the engine nacelle that open once the plane is landed and try to stop before the end of the runway. On all the planes I have seen, yes. I believe some of the older ones would allow you to engage reverse thrust while in flight. With potentially disastrous circumstances... Hope this helps, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: What is Everybody Doing
C-152 Pilatus Turbo Porter C-208 Grand Caravan Maule MX-7 None of which are in a demonstrable state, but I hope to publish the 152 and Porter by the end of the year. Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Slightly OT: Crosswind landings and turbulence.
I thought I'd share this with the list since to replicate it in FGFS would be very cool for training purposes! I experienced my first bout of real fear yesterday doing my second hour of solo circuits. I was operating from 06/24 and after a precautionary couple of circuits with my instructor he let me loose in a crosswind situation. The wind was initially 220/10-12Kt, but by the end of the hour was 180/10-18kt. With the wind in this direction, there are Hangers and buildings causing turbulence around the numbers, so I took heed of what my instructor had said and aimed to touch down just after the numbers with plenty of speed to aid in controlling the aircraft. I found myself putting in some pretty big yoke and pedal deflections to keep anywhere near the runway. This kind of unnerved me more and more as the flight went on. I slammed it in almost every time. At one point it seemed to me that I was running out of right rudder at the end of the flare to keep the aircraft down the runway as the wind was trying to 'weather cock' me into it. This was mainly bad technique on my part, but got me thinking if it would be hard to code in automatic and realistic turbulence near upwind buildings in FGFS? Or even better, how about modelling the cover from the wind of a building near the runway - so that when you emerge from the cover of the building you are immediately hit by the full force of the crosswind? This would help me get some practice in on crossed controls landings and make me feel more at home - just like a lightly loaded 150/152 in a high, gusty crosswind :-) Eventually my instructor took pity on the poor 152 and asked me to return to the apron...then changed the circuit to runway 18 :-) Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Shadows and maybe a GPS?
There has been some chat of late about shadows. I don't really understand the issues reagarding shadows in flightgear/plib. Can anyone briefly let me in on why they are so difficult and what are the issues with implementing them in FlightGear? Also, what are people's views on having a GPS actually built into FGFS? I know Atlas does a pretty damn good job of mapping and route history, but I'd like to have a GNS430 to play with ;-) Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: OT: First Solo
David Megginson wrote: I'm curious -- your airport is a very short grass strip, but it has a control tower? Yes, but is still a Radio only airfield with no ATC. The tower is a small affair that I'm sure isn't capable of observing the entire circuit since it's 800ft AAL and downwind extends behind all manner of buildings - I'll ask to have a look in the tower next time I'm there to confirm this. It's manned occasionally during busy periods and when there are lots of students and non-radio microlights etc in the circuit and although they shouldn't, the tower does occasionally tell pilots to hold outside the circuit or expedite departures etc. for safety's sake. It sounds like you did fine. Were there any post-solo rituals? Not really. I offered to buy people beer (I had to buy lots of beer when I did my first freefall 8 years ago!) but they were all working and settled for Orange juice instead. One cool thing did happen: as I was discussing the flight and future stuff with my instructor the Red Arrows passed in formation about just north of the ATZ and turned on white smoke until they cleared the area. I see them quite a lot as we aren't that far from their base at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire. Superb! If you have my luck, you'll have nothing but clear weather when you decide to start instrument training. I'm planning on doing the IMC and Night ratings at some point. I'll never do a full IFR - the price to get and keep one here is astronomical. For me, the first solo cross-country was the best part of training. First solo was an important moment, of course, but it wasn't until I left the familiar airspace behind and started actually flying to a different city that I felt like a pilot. I'm sure I'll be the same. Since I'm used to very laid back procedures with movements and radio I'm going to intentionally do some cross countries well into and past the busy airspace around London once I'm confident with shorter local flights. My club is very supportive and has an active 'hard core' of home builders which I may also get involved with (two guys just flew from Netherthorpe to Oshkosh and back in a KIS!). Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: OT: First Solo
Alex Perry wrote: Congratulations. What are you training in ? Thanks! Mostly 152's but I've done a couple hours in a 150 too. From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] For me, the first solo cross-country was the best part of training. First solo was an important moment, of course, but it wasn't until I left the familiar airspace behind and started actually flying to a different city that I felt like a pilot. Yep; meeting new pilots, and (once) having to hold short of the runway for a harrier jump jet that was doing touch-n-goes in the pattern ... Wow! Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] OT: First Solo.
I'll try to keep this short since it is OT but... I did my first solo this evening after almost 13hrs. After a few touch and go's and practice forced landings he asked me to come to a full stop and said I'm fed-up of flying with you so I'm going to sit in the tower for your last circuit. I wonder how many variations there are on it's time for you to go solo?!. I was a little late retarding the throttle for landing which led to some 'braking' in the almost calm conditions (6kt 60deg x-wind). And they held off all the traffic waiting to join until I'd landed! In summary, it went OK. I can't wait for the cross countries, but I'm sure the inclement UK weather will impede those a little :-( That's when the FGFS CVS comes to the rescue :-) Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Instrument help
If ther eis a switch for CHT .. would this be so you can manually adjust the temp if needed? No. Cylinder Head Temp is usually used to help you assess the health of your engine. If it is running too hot it is likely to shorten the life of the engine. If it is running really hot then it's probably about to die very soon. IIRC, running lean at high power settings increases CHT. Running rich decreases it since there is more fuel to help dissipate heat. In the context of a racer, CHT is helpful in knowing if you can push your engine a little harder without blowing it I suppose. Then again, I might be totally wrong! Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fokker 50 turboprop commuter
Agreed - Initial attempts at using it left me wondering what sort of substances the people who designed the UI were abusing, but once you get the hang of it it's rather productive. I'm just trying to get my head around the UV editor now. Can you guys recommend any tutorial resources for the likes of myself who have a little 3DS Max experience but are still cluless when it comes to Blender? Anyone feel like doing a FGFS-only aircraft modelling with blender tutorial by any chance? Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] RE: OT: First solo!
Congratulations! I'm sure the rest of the training will be over in no time and it's good to hear that FG is proving helpful. I'm intending on investing in a yoke and pedals over winter when the weather robs me of some regular training and I've already noticed the realism of the flight models in flightgear over other flight sims. Especially when adjusting final with throttle etc. Unlike you, my last lesson I'd rather forget - second attempt at circuits and first time on runway 18 at EGNF. With a TORA of 382 metres it is apparently the UK's shortest licensed and also feels like the UK's bumpiest too! Oh, and a 30 deg crosswind for good measure!!! I bounced in every time and almost took the far fence with me on one of the touch and go's. I've got a long way to go yet... :-( Hopefully, the short and soft field location will make me a better pilot. My instructor (in a futile attempt to stop me getting downhearted) mentioned that students and low time PPLs from larger airfields often have trouble landing on 18 and that I'd get it eventually. Perhaps I'll be a 100 hour PPL graduate! Cheers, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Windsock Model
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but shouldn't windsock placement be automatic and defined from the airport scenery? Cheers, Matt. Copy the XML file as well, and use windsock.xml after OBJECT_STATIC -- that way it will be animated. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Windsock Model
Is someone undertaking the mamoth task of adding to and correcting Robin's data for the purposes of FlightGear or do we depend upon him for updates to it? Cheers, Matt. On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 12:52, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Matthew Law -- Friday 20 June 2003 13:44: Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but shouldn't windsock placement be automatic and defined from the airport scenery? Yes it should. But show us where in Robin PEEL's airport database you find the windsock position! :- m. PS: I would have recommended the STATIC_OBJECT method rather than the preferences method, if I hadn't tried the former a while ago and found it non-functional. Must have made a mistake back then, although I had used the xml. Now it works great. :-) ___ 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] A320 progress
I'm glad it's not just me, then! I'm struggling with a *very* simplified C152! Cheers, Matt. On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 04:36, Jim Wilson wrote: Don't be embarassed. If it'll make you feel better I'll share with you some earliest screenshots of my 747 :-) Don't hesitate to post pics with questions if you run into trouble. I think we've got at least 4 or 5 good modelers reading the list now, some using Ac3d and some using Blender. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
