Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-08 Thread Erik Hofman
Tiago Gusmão wrote:
Michael Stilmant wrote:
please update the clock of your computer
you send old Email
It's probably just my ISP lagging ;) thanks for pointing that out
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I was using multiple textures on the MD11's fuselage at first but then 
switch to a single gigantic texture (4096X1024).  There is no 
difference between them performance wise.  However, I would advise you 
to use one single texture for the sake of maintance (such as creating 
a new livery).  This is the very reason I switch to using a single 
texture.

Regards,
Ampere
On July 6, 2003 12:53 pm, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
 

Is it better to use a singles texture, or separate fuselage texture from
other pieces?
  

 

For now, i'll be sticking to a single texture, easier to manage and to 
use indeed :)

I'm still very confused with the axis used, and the model is appearing 
behind the actual FDM A/C

values used are:
  AC_CGLOC 921.1  0.0 -18.0
  AC_AERORP921.1  0.0  0.0
  AC_EYEPTLOC  0.0 -30.0 75.0
  AC_VRP   0.0 0.0 0.0
the  3d model has nose at (0,0,0)
I understand it this way, please correct what's wrong:
AC_CGLOC - this is the center of gravity, from which all other points 
are related to
No, the center location (0,0,0) doesn't need to be specified. The CG is 
relative to that location, just like any other locations.


AC_AERORP - aerodynamic reference, should be near the CG, so it has a 
similar value
I don't think that an offset only on the Z-axis (hight above the ground, 
negative sign) does actually work well. Maybe you should make them 
exactly equal, or move the X axis slightly forward.

AC_EYEPTLOC - this is where the view is placed when in cockpit view, 
related to(??) CG (??)
No, related to (0,0,0) which is not specified. If you defined it 
relative to CG right now, then you just have to add the (x,y,z) values 
of the CG to the (x,y,z) values of the EYEPTLOC.

AC_VRP - point related to the CG where the nose of the 3d model should be
Not exactly where to nose should be, but rather the difference between 
(0,0,0) of the JSBSim model and (0,0,0) of your 3D model/

A 3d model with nose made at (0,0,0) in the editor should have a VRP of 
(0,0,0) and this should be enough to position the model properly
This is only true if you put (0,0,0) at the nose in the JSBSim model. 
Looking at the above data, that might be true.

Where did you get these numbers, are they from aeromatic?
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


RE: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-08 Thread Jon Berndt
 I'm still very confused with the axis used, and the model is appearing
 behind the actual FDM A/C

In the aircraft config file, locations are given in structural frame. Structural 
frame
in an aircraft has the X axis pointing backwards, the Z axis up, and the Y axis out the
right side. The origin can, technically, be anywhere. Usually, it is near the nose. The
exact location does not really matter, because *internal* to the FDM, contact point
distances from the CG are computed and used - again: _internal_ to the FDM only the
difference between two points is used.

 values used are:
AC_CGLOC 921.1  0.0 -18.0
AC_AERORP921.1  0.0  0.0
AC_EYEPTLOC  0.0 -30.0 75.0
AC_VRP   0.0 0.0 0.0
 the  3d model has nose at (0,0,0)

 I understand it this way, please correct what's wrong:

 AC_CGLOC - this is the center of gravity, from which all other points
 are related to

Sort of. The CG is the point about which the equations of motion are based - the CG is 
the
point about which the forces and moments act, and about which the aircraft rotates.

 AC_AERORP - aerodynamic reference, should be near the CG, so it has a
 similar value

Yes.

 AC_EYEPTLOC - this is where the view is placed when in cockpit view,
 related to(??) CG (??)

This is just the point where the pilot's eyes are located. I do not think this is used 
in
FlightGear, but it is used in JSBSim to also calculate the accelerations that the pilot
feels. The pilot's sensors are located near his/her eyes, too.

This is given in inches as other measurements are, and in the same coordinate system as
CG, reference point, etc.

 AC_VRP - point related to the CG where the nose of the 3d model should be
 A 3d model with nose made at (0,0,0) in the editor should have a VRP of
 (0,0,0) and this should be enough to position the model properly

This is the point that the 3D modeler and the aircraft flight model designer agree 
upon as
a reference point. From the FDM point of view, really only the CG is of interest - i.e.
the latitude/longitude/altitude that is reported by the FDM refers actually to the
specific lat/lon/alt of the CG. After long discussions some months ago, we decided 
that in
order to make things work out better, the FDM would report the position of some 
common
point that the modeler could easily see. That point was agreed upon as the nose of the
aircraft. So, the VRP is simply the (x,y,z) coordinate (in inches) of the nose of the
aircraft in the same coordinate system being used for reporting the CG, aero reference
point, landing gear locations, etc.

The modeler would then make sure either that their 3D model had its origin at the 
nose, or
that the offset from the origin of the 3D model to the nose (the agreed upon visual
reference point) is given. I forget which file is used to report this 3D model 
offset,
or skew.

The end result of using the VRP is that the FDM always reports the position of the nose
(considering the orientation and position of the aircraft), and if FlightGear places 
the
3D model so that the nose of the aircraft model is at the lat/lon/alt reported by the 
FDM,
then everything works out. But, the camera (I believe) looks at the nose of the 
aircraft,
too, so it appears as though the aircraft rotates about the nose, so there is probably
some adjusting that needs to be done to the camera angle ... I forget, and that's not 
my
area of expertise.

Jon


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-07 Thread Tiago Gusmão
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:09:38 +0200
 Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a few comments below, since I also ran into similar issues 
creating and updating the MD-11 aero file. 

I also had problems using the FG_TURBINE and switched to
FG_SIMTURBINE, is this a good idea?

Yes, this reflects a recent change in JSBSim, which hasn't traversed 
it's way back into aeromatic yet. 

Actually, I did make the change - it should be implemented in 
Aeromatic. I can't test it right now.

The file generated by aeromatic had the AC_THRUSTER inside the
AC_ENGINE tags and it didn't work until i separated them, 
aero-matic bug?

Not really a bug: This how JSBSim expected things to be, until a 
couple of weeks ago. It took me a while to figure this one out. ;-)

I thought I had made a big announcement. If I did not, my apologies.
Jon
The announcement is good, i just didn't look in the right place :|
I 've tweaked the landing gear to the real locations, assuming (0,0,0) 
it's the nose.
In the 3d model, I have the tip of the nose in (0,0,0) and it's been 
scaled to match units with meters and rotated to fit the FG's axis.
In fgrun, the aircraft rotates around the nose, anything i can do to fix 
this without messing with the model itself?
I also noticed that lighting in fgrun is fixed relative to the aircraft, 
shouldn't be the aircraft rotating around and light coming from 
somewhere near eye position?

When i tell it to start from a RWY, it starts in air, sinks and ends up 
in the right orientation, but only the cockpit is above the RWY, the 
rest is before the RWY.
What is the reference point used to align the A/C on the RWYs?
With such model positioning, should i need to use any offsets in the the 
model xml?

If someone wants to take a look at it in-game:
http://tiagogusmao.home.sapo.pt/l1011/L1011-500.zip
the textures are pre-pre-alpha and the model still needs some work ;)
Dont forget to put the RB211 in the Engine folder.
Regards,
Tiago

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-07 Thread Ampere K. Hardraade
I was using multiple textures on the MD11's fuselage at first but then switch 
to a single gigantic texture (4096X1024).  There is no difference between 
them performance wise.  However, I would advise you to use one single texture 
for the sake of maintance (such as creating a new livery).  This is the very 
reason I switch to using a single texture.

Regards,
Ampere

On July 6, 2003 12:53 pm, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
 Is it better to use a singles texture, or separate fuselage texture from
 other pieces?

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-07 Thread Tiago Gusmão
Michael Stilmant wrote:
please update the clock of your computer
you send old Email
It's probably just my ISP lagging ;) thanks for pointing that out
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
I was using multiple textures on the MD11's fuselage at first but then switch 
to a single gigantic texture (4096X1024).  There is no difference between 
them performance wise.  However, I would advise you to use one single texture 
for the sake of maintance (such as creating a new livery).  This is the very 
reason I switch to using a single texture.

Regards,
Ampere
On July 6, 2003 12:53 pm, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
 

Is it better to use a singles texture, or separate fuselage texture from
other pieces?
   

 

For now, i'll be sticking to a single texture, easier to manage and to 
use indeed :)

I'm still very confused with the axis used, and the model is appearing 
behind the actual FDM A/C

values used are:
  AC_CGLOC 921.1  0.0 -18.0
  AC_AERORP921.1  0.0  0.0
  AC_EYEPTLOC  0.0 -30.0 75.0
  AC_VRP   0.0 0.0 0.0
the  3d model has nose at (0,0,0)
I understand it this way, please correct what's wrong:
AC_CGLOC - this is the center of gravity, from which all other points 
are related to
AC_AERORP - aerodynamic reference, should be near the CG, so it has a 
similar value
AC_EYEPTLOC - this is where the view is placed when in cockpit view, 
related to(??) CG (??)
AC_VRP - point related to the CG where the nose of the 3d model should be
A 3d model with nose made at (0,0,0) in the editor should have a VRP of 
(0,0,0) and this should be enough to position the model properly


Thanks in advance,
Tiago
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-06 Thread Tiago Gusmão
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Fri,  2 Jul 2004 22:46:14 +0100
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The L1011-500 uses the Rolls-Royce RB211-524B
take a look here for details:
http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB3.html

I have committed to JSBSim CVS an RR RB211-524 engine.
Jon
The RB211-524B has only 5 pounds of thrust, that one is suitable for 
the H and G models acording to 
http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/product/rb211524.jsp

I have generated a 5 pound version, and I can get TSFC values and 
stuff , but I don't understand those tables below.
I also had problems using the FG_TURBINE and switched to 
FG_SIMTURBINE, is this a good idea?

The file generated by aeromatic had the AC_THRUSTER inside the 
AC_ENGINE tags and it didn't work until i separated them, aero-matic bug?

Now i can get the L1011 working, but if i start from the RWY, it appears 
around 50 meters AGL and starts rotating backwards until it gets under 
the floor and freezes.
If I start it in flight it behaves nice.
What are the conventions for propper positioning of the model?

Is it better to use a singles texture, or separate fuselage texture from 
other pieces?

thanks in adavance :)
Regards,
Tiago




___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-06 Thread Durk Talsma
Just a few comments below, since I also ran into similar issues creating and 
updating the MD-11 aero file. 

On Sunday 06 July 2003 18:53, Tiago Gusmão wrote:
 Jon S Berndt wrote:
  On Fri,  2 Jul 2004 22:46:14 +0100
 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The L1011-500 uses the Rolls-Royce RB211-524B
  take a look here for details:
  http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB3.html
 
  I have committed to JSBSim CVS an RR RB211-524 engine.
 
  Jon

 The RB211-524B has only 5 pounds of thrust, that one is suitable for
 the H and G models acording to
 http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/product/rb211524.jsp

 I have generated a 5 pound version, and I can get TSFC values and
 stuff , but I don't understand those tables below.
 I also had problems using the FG_TURBINE and switched to
 FG_SIMTURBINE, is this a good idea?

Yes, this reflects a recent change in JSBSim, which hasn't traversed it's way 
back into aeromatic yet. 


 The file generated by aeromatic had the AC_THRUSTER inside the
 AC_ENGINE tags and it didn't work until i separated them, aero-matic bug?

Not really a bug: This how JSBSim expected things to be, until a couple of 
weeks ago. It took me a while to figure this one out. ;-)


 Now i can get the L1011 working, but if i start from the RWY, it appears
 around 50 meters AGL and starts rotating backwards until it gets under
 the floor and freezes.
 If I start it in flight it behaves nice.

Aarggg, this sounds exactly like how the MD11 was behaving initially, and 
which I thought was fixed. Moving the main gears forward and backward a 
little bit might help. Try have a look at the MD11 and related threads in 
the FlightGear-Devel mailing archives for some more information (April 
through Jue of this year IIRC). 

 What are the conventions for propper positioning of the model?

 Is it better to use a singles texture, or separate fuselage texture from
 other pieces?

 thanks in adavance :)

 Regards,
 Tiago

Cheers,
Durk

For those of you wondering, I've collected quite a few changes to the MD11, 
but last weeks were fairly busy, so I didn't get a chance to do the final 
polising up and send them out for CVS inclusion. Hopefully this weekend I'll 
get to it.

Cheers, 
Durk


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-06 Thread Jon S Berndt
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:09:38 +0200
 Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a few comments below, since I also ran into similar issues 
creating and updating the MD-11 aero file. 

I also had problems using the FG_TURBINE and switched to
FG_SIMTURBINE, is this a good idea?
Yes, this reflects a recent change in JSBSim, which hasn't traversed 
it's way 
back into aeromatic yet. 
Actually, I did make the change - it should be implemented in 
Aeromatic. I can't test it right now.

The file generated by aeromatic had the AC_THRUSTER inside the
AC_ENGINE tags and it didn't work until i separated them, 
aero-matic bug?
Not really a bug: This how JSBSim expected things to be, until a 
couple of weeks ago. It took me a while to figure this one out. ;-)
I thought I had made a big announcement. If I did not, my apologies.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


RE: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread tiagogusmao
Thank you all for your help and comments :)

I think i can keep the triangles around 8000 for this second version, since the
first version of the model had a lot of redundant triangles, and I forgot to
take that in acount when i said 1!

The editor used was Milkshape, so i will be using .3DS

you can take a look at the wireframe:
http://tiagogusmao.home.sapo.pt/l1011/vert.jpg
You can see almost everything is done by inserting cylinders and doing some
vertex manipulation, perhaps not the best approach, but seems to work :P
The red vertices are redundant, and will be merged later on.

For the texture, I think 1 512x512 will do fine :)

For the FDM, for now i'll stick with JSBSim, since it seems to be the easiest.

Is it ok to exchange files here, or should I learn to use CVS?

Regards,
Tiago Gusmão






O SAPO já está livre de vírus com a Panda Software, fique você também!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread Al West
On Friday 02 July 2004 13:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Is it ok to exchange files here, or should I learn to use CVS?


Probably not a good idea to send the file to list. 

I'm sure one of the guys who has CVS access will ask you to email them the 
files soon, so they can put it into CVS.  Look forward to seeing in the air.

Cheers,
Al

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread Ampere K. Hardraade
On July 1, 2004 10:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi

 I am almost finishing a L1011-500 TriStar 3D model, and i'd like to
 contribute it to FlightGear.

History is repeating itself: two different tri-jets are introduced at the 
sametime. ;-)

 The editor used was Milkshape, so i will be using .3DS

Make sure the extension is in lower case: .3ds

The model looks good, though the area around the windshield seems to need some 
improvement.

By the way, what type of engines do the tristar uses?

Regards,
Ampere

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread Durk Talsma
On Friday 02 July 2004 21:02, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:

 By the way, what type of engines do the tristar uses?

This is a useful website for aircraft data. Unfortunately, it only list data 
for the L1011-100 and not the -500 series. 

http://www.bh.com/companions/034074152X/appendices/data-a/table-6/table.htm

I also refer to this site a lot:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/

Unfortunately, it doesn't list the L1011, but has lot's of useful data to 
build basic Airbus, Boeing, and Douglas Jetliner FDMs using aeromatic. This 
page actually lists FlightGear as one of it's main referrers. :-)

Finally, lots of useful fuel load/tank configuration information can be found 
here: 

http://www.simviation.com/rinfofuel.htm

Cheers,
Durk


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread Durk Talsma
Very nice model indeed. Looks like a nice addition to FlightGear's small but 
continously growing fleet of 3-engined wide-body jetliners. :-)


 For the FDM, for now i'll stick with JSBSim, since it seems to be the
 easiest.

I have good experiences creating a basic FDM for the MD11 using aeromatic. The 
earomatic script creates an xml file that you can later edit to tweak. My 
experience is that you most likely want to change the engine file and fuel 
tank sections a bit to get the overall performance and range in the right 
ballpark, but other than that the default aeromatic does a reasonable job 
(note, I'm neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, so my idea of 
*reasonable* might actually be quite unreasonble :-))


 Is it ok to exchange files here, or should I learn to use CVS?

Unless you're sending out small patches for a second opinion, it's best to 
send your work to one of the developers with CVS write access and ask if 
they'd be willing to add your contribution to cvs. I'm not sure who actually 
have write permission these days. 

Cheers,
Durk


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread tiagogusmao
 History is repeating itself: two different tri-jets are introduced at the
 sametime. ;-)
Indeed!
The MD-11 too is a very nice tri-jet, i'm looking forward to see it in action :)


  The editor used was Milkshape, so i will be using .3DS
 
 Make sure the extension is in lower case: .3ds

 The model looks good, though the area around the windshield seems to need
 some
 improvement.
Yes, the windshield is not very accurate, the L1011 is a very complicated
aircraft IMHO, and my editor doesn't help too much but if after texturing,
something doesn't look right, I'll redo that part


 By the way, what type of engines do the tristar uses?

The L1011-500 uses the Rolls-Royce RB211-524B
take a look here for details:
http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB3.html



 I have good experiences creating a basic FDM for the MD11 using aeromatic. The
 earomatic script creates an xml file that you can later edit to tweak. My
 experience is that you most likely want to change the engine file and fuel
 tank sections a bit to get the overall performance and range in the right
 ballpark, but other than that the default aeromatic does a reasonable job

thanks for the links and info, I've used aero-matic today, the process is very
straight-forward and it's a good way to get started with a working file, it's a
nice tool :)

 (note, I'm neither a pilot nor an aeronautical engineer, so my idea of
 *reasonable* might actually be quite unreasonble )

Me neither, but I've met a few online, if you have any trouble, i can ask them
to enlighten us :)

Regards,
Tiago Gusmão






O SAPO já está livre de vírus com a Panda Software, fique você também!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-02 Thread Jon S Berndt
On Fri,  2 Jul 2004 22:46:14 +0100
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The L1011-500 uses the Rolls-Royce RB211-524B
take a look here for details:
http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB3.html
I have committed to JSBSim CVS an RR RB211-524 engine.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


[Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-01 Thread tiagogusmao
Hi

I am almost finishing a L1011-500 TriStar 3D model, and i'd like to contribute
it to FlightGear.

You can take a look at these screenshots:
http://tiagogusmao.home.sapo.pt/l1011/finalv1.jpg
this one is my first try, there are missing parts, and the tail is horrible.
Current version is this one:
http://tiagogusmao.home.sapo.pt/l1011/tail-hstab.jpg
It's just a matter of finishing the tail, and add small details

It has around 1 tris and 7000 vertices, is that ok for FG?

What are the texture requirements/limits/recommendations for FG?
What technical data do we need to make it fly like the real one?
Any good tips or advice are welcome :)

This is my first time using a mailing list, so if i mess up something, please
warn me :P

Thanks,
Tiago Gusmão






O SAPO já está livre de vírus com a Panda Software, fique você também!
Clique em: http://antivirus.sapo.pt

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


Re: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-01 Thread Jim Wilson
tiagogusmao said:

snip
 You can take a look at these screenshots:
 http://tiagogusmao.home.sapo.pt/l1011/finalv1.jpg
 this one is my first try, there are missing parts, and the tail is horrible.
 Current version is this one:
 http://tiagogusmao.home.sapo.pt/l1011/tail-hstab.jpg
 It's just a matter of finishing the tail, and add small details
 
 It has around 1 tris and 7000 vertices, is that ok for FG?
 

Looks like they (the vertices) have been wisely used.  Nice job, good detail.
If you have a doubts compare to some of the other models.  That many vertices
is a little heavy,  but first impression from the screenshots is the usage is
not unreasonable.  Just make sure you aren't wasting any.

Best,

Jim


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel


RE: [Flightgear-devel] L1011-500

2004-07-01 Thread Innis Cunningham
Hi Tiago

From: tiagogusmao writes

Hi
I am almost finishing a L1011-500 TriStar 3D model, and i'd like to 
contribute
it to FlightGear.
Looks nice what 3D program are you using.
If it is AC3D have you put the model through
the optimise vertices/surface routine to trim
some of the fat.One of the places to start is with
the fuselage.Do you have the center section divided
up onto anymore than one section ifso you can cut it down
to one long section.Also with the wings and tail surfaces you
can quite easely add surfaces that dont realy make a great
difference in the sim
It has around 1 tris and 7000 vertices, is that ok for FG?
Getting a bit on the big side.
What are the texture requirements/limits/recommendations for FG?
One 1024x1024 texture would be getting on the big side
What technical data do we need to make it fly like the real one?
Any good tips or advice are welcome :)
Just the data that is with the aircraft types on airliners.net should
be enough to get you close using the AEROMATIC program on
JSBSIM.It is the one I find easiest to use.

Thanks,
Tiago Gusmão
Cheers
Innis
_
Smart Saving with ING Direct – earn 5.25% p.a. variable rate:  
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;7249209;8842331;n?http://www.ingdirect.com.au/burst6offer.asp?id=8

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel