> That's actually a counter-example: this is all information that
> FlightGear will have to have by default, but FDMs like JSBSim will not
> (necessarily) -- since FlightGear owns the panel and the UI, it is the
> component that tracks the position of every switch, stick, and so on.
JSBSim will n
Jon S. Berndt writes:
> > From: Andy Ross
>
> > In fact, this is a good example: a "real" F-16A (Dunno about the C)
> > flight control computer takes its input from a set of gyros and from
> > the position of the stick, and that's it
>
> The F-16 DFCS (beginning with Block 40) - and I su
> Martin.
> P.S.: I _really_ believe it would be wise to separate FDM and FCS using a
> clean interface - but this is different from the above ;-)
In JSBSim it already is. There appears to be a misconception that the FDM
and FCS are inappropriately linked together. In JSBSim the atmosphere
[... Andy Ross wrote ...]
> Here's a plausible black-box model: the FCS subsystem takes its
> control inputs from the /controls/ property tree, and places its
> output into the /fcs/ tree. So, we'd modify the FDM configurations to
> look there instead, and no code change would be necessary.
Aaa
> From: Andy Ross
> In fact, this is a good example: a "real" F-16A (Dunno about the C)
> flight control computer takes its input from a set of gyros and from
> the position of the stick, and that's it
The F-16 DFCS (beginning with Block 40) - and I suspect to some degree also
the F-16A model -
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 17:41, Andy Ross wrote:
> Tony Peden wrote:
> > Andy Ross wrote:
> > > This would be a good feature to look at breaking out of the FDM. At
> > > its most reductionist, a FCS system compares (1) pilot control
> > > inputs and (2) FDM output to produce control surface posi
Tony Peden wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > This would be a good feature to look at breaking out of the FDM. At
> > its most reductionist, a FCS system compares (1) pilot control
> > inputs and (2) FDM output to produce control surface positions.
> > None of that requires access to the internal
On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 18:52, Alex Perry wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 07:19, Christian Mayer wrote:
> > What we really need here is for our resident flight control systems
> > expert to whip us up a program for generating the control law gains
> > based on the config file ...
>
> It's probabl
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 10:13, Andy Ross wrote:
> Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> > Alex wrote:
> > > For starters, can the JSB filters (etc) stuff be used without
> > > JSBSim?
> >
> > The base class of all JSBSim classes - including the FCS classes - is
> > FGJSBBase. So, technically, no.
>
> This w
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> > I don't see why moving the FCS out of JSBSim precludes your ability to
> > run the thing standalone. You could maintain your own tree
> > independant of FlightGear as you do right now (or just keep it in the
> > JSB tree "next to" the FDM). Alternatively, you could
> I don't see why moving the FCS out of JSBSim precludes your ability to
> run the thing standalone. You could maintain your own tree
> independant of FlightGear as you do right now (or just keep it in the
> JSB tree "next to" the FDM). Alternatively, you could place it in
> SimGear, which is de
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > For starters, can the JSB filters (etc) stuff be used without
> > JSBSim?
>
> The base class of all JSBSim classes - including the FCS classes - is
> FGJSBBase. So, technically, no.
This would be a good feature to look at breaking out of the FDM. At
i
Alex wrote:
> For starters, can the JSB filters (etc) stuff be used without JSBSim ?
The base class of all JSBSim classes - including the FCS classes - is
FGJSBBase. So, technically, no. It would be sort of an alternate autopilot,
the way I see it, now. It would be specified in the aircraft conf
> Well, JSBSim theoretically has the building blocks for an autopilot, same as
> for an FCS. I have mentioned before that this is one thing I'd like to add
> in. The caveat of course is not to break anything that currently exists,
> piss anyone off, or preclude some other FDM from working correctl
> What we really need here is for our resident flight control systems
> expert to whip us up a program for generating the control law gains
> based on the config file ...
Well, JSBSim theoretically has the building blocks for an autopilot, same as
for an FCS. I have mentioned before that this is
> On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 07:19, Christian Mayer wrote:
> What we really need here is for our resident flight control systems
> expert to whip us up a program for generating the control law gains
> based on the config file ...
It's probably easier to adapt the autoconfiguration algorithms for PID
On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 07:19, Christian Mayer wrote:
> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > Jim Wilson writes:
> >
> > > Speaking of "lawn darting" there seems to be a problem with
> > > autopilot altitude hold with the c310 under jsbsim.
> >
> > You'll see the same problem with any higher-power pla
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Jim Wilson writes:
>
> > Speaking of "lawn darting" there seems to be a problem with
> > autopilot altitude hold with the c310 under jsbsim.
>
> You'll see the same problem with any higher-power plane in the JSBSim,
> YASim, or UIUC models. The current autopilot is
Jim Wilson writes:
> Speaking of "lawn darting" there seems to be a problem with
> autopilot altitude hold with the c310 under jsbsim.
You'll see the same problem with any higher-power plane in the JSBSim,
YASim, or UIUC models. The current autopilot is closely tuned to the
C172 (which, ironi
> Speaking of "lawn darting" there seems to be a problem with autopilot
altitude
> hold with the c310 under jsbsim. Or at least that's what I'm getting...an
> instant lawn dart (stalls and drops). Tried 2000 and 4000ft. Jsb/c172
still
> works fine. The problem seemed to appear around when th
Speaking of "lawn darting" there seems to be a problem with autopilot altitude
hold with the c310 under jsbsim. Or at least that's what I'm getting...an
instant lawn dart (stalls and drops). Tried 2000 and 4000ft. Jsb/c172 still
works fine. The problem seemed to appear around when the rudder/ae
21 matches
Mail list logo
