David Megginson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:39:49 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North
American market,
Is that out yet?
I don't know if it already made its maiden flight, but the engines are
already mounted
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:57:54 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People doing business in North America usually share the impression
that people 'over there' are commonly a lot more conservative when it
comes to aircraft engines. And they have a strong lobby: One of the
major
David Megginson wrote:
Eventually, we'll have some new piston engines that work well and put
Lycoming and Continental to shame. The problem so far, I think, is
just that North Americans fly differently. From what I understand,
most European private pilots with piston aircraft fly short
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:02:22 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the conversion produces horrible costs this might
lower in the future because the way the engine is being assembled is
going to be changed,
Lowering the conversion costs will help. Another
On Wednesday 05 Jan 2005 15:12, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:02:22 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the conversion produces horrible costs this might
lower in the future because the way the engine is being assembled is
going to be
David Megginson wrote:
Lowering the conversion costs will help. Another point might be
marketing position: right now, I can install a 135 hp Thielert in my
Warrior that will give me more-or-less the same performance as the 160
hp Lycoming currently in it, only burning about 35% less fuel.
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:24:20 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Warrior will never have a load like the 'bigger' ones because it
lacks the reinfoced airframe, not matter which engine you mount,
Is the Warrior's airframe weaker than the Archer's or Arrow's?
All the best,
David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:24:20 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Warrior will never have a load like the 'bigger' ones because it
lacks the reinfoced airframe, not matter which engine you mount,
Is the Warrior's airframe weaker than the Archer's or
David Megginson said:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:44:35 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_high
.jpg.html
The visual model is easy enough but the panel is a different matter.
We can probably manage the left
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote:
We can probably manage the left display.
Maybe ...
That left PFD will probably turn out to be a MFD with lots of display modes
besides just the PFD mode.
Most of the glass cockpits nowdays allow you to direct info to just about any
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 07:04:53PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
increase the useful load by a couple of hundred pounds and make the
plane fly faster, to offset that.
Yes. I understand that you come close to Vne in best economy cruise :-)
Cheers
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp o o
On Sunday 02 Jan 2005 08:59, Paul Surgeon wrote:
That left PFD will probably turn out to be a MFD with lots of display modes
besides just the PFD mode.
Most of the glass cockpits nowdays allow you to direct info to just about
any display on the panel. The entire cockpit is one integrated
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 05:13:14PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the
turbodiesel
engines (includes autopitch etc).
That, I think, would be a much easier problem.
The FADEC is easy as long as everything works normally.
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote:
We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving
map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's
appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some
day.
I forgot to add :
If we
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:03:00 +0200, Paul wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote:
We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving
map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's
appearing in so many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Surgeon schrieb:
|The 3D part is easy -- there are relatively few moving parts to
|animate. The challenge will be creating dynamic textures to show on
|the displays, and that's going to require rolling up our sleeves and
|doing a lot of C++
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Megginson schrieb:
| On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:39:49 + (UTC), Martin Spott
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|
|They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North
|American market,
|
|
| Is that out yet? I'd heard that they were working
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Martin schrieb:
| On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 22:36, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
|
|Interesting aircraft.
|
|On January 1, 2005 04:44 pm, Dave Martin wrote:
|
|The visual model is easy enough
|
|Provided that there are enough data to do an accurate
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:09:09 +0100, Gerhard Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FADEC is easy as long as everything works normally. Things get more
complex if you want to model failures.
Right, but that's true of our piston engine models in general -- we're
not modelling stuck valves, fouled
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:03:02 +0100, Christian Mayer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively
can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software.
If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the
necessary functions in
Here is an alternate idea: instead of writing our own animation class, may be
we can think about making the displays capable of rendering *small* external
OpenGL applications; such as the OpenGC Project.
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb:
| Here is an alternate idea: instead of writing our own animation class,
may be
| we can think about making the displays capable of rendering *small*
external
| OpenGL applications; such as the OpenGC Project.
When we can
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:03, Christian Mayer wrote:
I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively
can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software.
The difference is a powerful text and vector library vs OpenGL primitives.
Have you ever tried rendering true type
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 19:07, David Megginson wrote:
A software-only 2D graphic library isn't going to cut it.
I bet you didn't know that FS2004 uses software rendering to draw all the
complex gauges. :)
They use GDI+
Paul Surgeon writes:
Yeah I know about off screen rendering to textures but I don't know of anyone
who is willing to implement it for us.
There are at least two places this is already done in FGFS
that can be used as examples of different ways of doing this
3D Clouds and the jpeg server.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Surgeon schrieb:
| On Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:03, Christian Mayer wrote:
|
|I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively
|can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software.
|
|
| The difference is a powerful text and
If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the
necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function.
I think that would be a good option.
I think a panel designer should be given a canvas/texture that they can
paint on with easy to use text and vector functions.
Happy 2005 to everyone in the FlightGear community!
Here's a high-resolution picture of the Garmin-1000-based panel on the
new Diamond TwinStar, one of my dream aircraft (it rececently crossed
the Atlantic non-stop from Canada to Spain burning less than USD
200.00 worth of fuel). Anyone aircraft
On 1 Jan 2005, at 17:38, David Megginson wrote:
Here's a high-resolution picture of the Garmin-1000-based panel on the
new Diamond TwinStar, one of my dream aircraft (it rececently crossed
the Atlantic non-stop from Canada to Spain burning less than USD
200.00 worth of fuel). Anyone aircraft
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 17:38, David Megginson wrote:
Happy 2005 to everyone in the FlightGear community!
Here's a high-resolution picture of the Garmin-1000-based panel on the
new Diamond TwinStar, one of my dream aircraft (it rececently crossed
the Atlantic non-stop from Canada to Spain
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:44:35 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_high
.jpg.html
The visual model is easy enough but the panel is a different matter.
We can probably manage the left display. The right display
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 22:13, David Megginson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:44:35 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_
high .jpg.html
Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the
Interesting aircraft.
On January 1, 2005 04:44 pm, Dave Martin wrote:
The visual model is easy enough
Provided that there are enough data to do an accurate model. Is there any
technical document available for references?
Ampere
___
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 22:36, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Interesting aircraft.
On January 1, 2005 04:44 pm, Dave Martin wrote:
The visual model is easy enough
Provided that there are enough data to do an accurate model. Is there any
technical document available for references?
Ampere
Dave Martin wrote:
Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the
turbodiesel
engines (includes autopitch etc).
They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North
American market,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its
Dave Martin wrote:
Even a good diagram of a DA40 would be useful as I believe they share the
same
fusealage aft of the firewall.
To my knowledge they share even the wing but I'm not sure about,
never seen the TwinStar in real life.
Getting papers on the engine control might not be
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:39:49 + (UTC), Martin Spott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North
American market,
Is that out yet? I'd heard that they were working on one because
there's no repair network for the Thielert diesel engine in North
37 matches
Mail list logo
