Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I could bind a toggle for the brakes to the indicator. I think it's fairly likely somebody might click on it Yep great idea. Is the at-startup-parking-brake working? I couldn't seem to make it work last night. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
Jim Wilson writes: Yep great idea. Is the at-startup-parking-brake working? I couldn't seem to make it work last night. No, there's some kind of a bug (it might just be that JSBSim is overriding the initial setting), and I'll have to investigate. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
David Megginson wrote: If Curt and the rest of you hate this change, I'm happy to roll it back out, but I've been hearing some very strong arguments against putting 0.7.9 out with engines off by default and no arguments in favour. Since this is a config-file change rather than a change to the code base proper, I hope no one minds slipping it in. We can always reverse this after the release of 0.7.9, if wanted. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
David Megginson writes: I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even if you specify a different airport). No C++ code changes are necessary, other than a small bug-fix to JSBSim.cxx; I've just changed some properties in the default settings for the c172, c182, and c310 so that they now all start at an idle (you'll note that the C-310's idle is too high, but we'll have to fix that after 0.7.9). If Curt and the rest of you hate this change, I'm happy to roll it back out, but I've been hearing some very strong arguments against putting 0.7.9 out with engines off by default and no arguments in favour. Since this is a config-file change rather than a change to the code base proper, I hope no one minds slipping it in. I'm not entirely sure I like it, but I acknowledge that starting on the runway with engines off is not very realistic. We do need to make sure that proper engine start modeling doesn't get lost because no one is testing it anymore ... Hopefully after 0.7.9 is out someone will take it upon themselves to create several default positioning options. I think all the pieces are there, it's just a matter of assembling them in the right order. Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
Curtis L. Olson writes: David Megginson writes: I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even if you specify a different airport). No C++ code changes are necessary, other than a small bug-fix to JSBSim.cxx; I've just changed some properties in the default settings for the c172, c182, and c310 so that they now all start at an idle (you'll note that the C-310's idle is too high, but we'll have to fix that after 0.7.9). If Curt and the rest of you hate this change, I'm happy to roll it back out, but I've been hearing some very strong arguments against putting 0.7.9 out with engines off by default and no arguments in favour. Since this is a config-file change rather than a change to the code base proper, I hope no one minds slipping it in. I'm not entirely sure I like it, but I acknowledge that starting on the runway with engines off is not very realistic. I think its probably for the best, certainly for 0.7.9, if only because the obvious way to work the magnetos - left mouse clicking round and then holding down for the starter - doesn't work yet, and the full set of items to check isn't done yet anyway, such as master power and fuel selector switches. We will undoubtably get a lot of how? posts from users if we leave the engines unstarted, especially as we don't currently have a checklist that can be brought up from the menu. Of purely historical interest, ProPilot99 started on the runway with engines off. I hated it at first, since I was used to MSFS and had to actually read something to get in the air! However, once I got used to the sequence and managed to remember it I liked the fact that it had forced me to learn it. We do need to make sure that proper engine start modeling doesn't get lost because no one is testing it anymore ... I'll still be testing it :-) Cheers - Dave -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I am convinced that we're best off starting with the engines idling rather than off, since our default start is always on a runway (even Is there a way to set the parking brake at startup so that the plane doesn't roll down (or off) the runway as soon as it loads? I tried a couple things and they didn't work. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
Curtis L. Olson writes: I would think that if we are going to have the engine running at startup, we really should have either the parking brake set, or the sim come up paused/frozen. Perhaps, but if we get the idle speeds reasonable, it won't be too bad. Having the brakes on by default would be a bad thing, since first-time users might have trouble figuring out how to release them. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Engines start at idle (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] for the upcoming release)
Jim Wilson writes: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Curtis L. Olson writes: I would think that if we are going to have the engine running at startup, we really should have either the parking brake set, or the sim come up paused/frozen. Perhaps, but if we get the idle speeds reasonable, it won't be too bad. Having the brakes on by default would be a bad thing, since first-time users might have trouble figuring out how to release them. True, but for that matter first time users might have trouble figuring out how to open the throttle :-) Sounds like we need to organize a focus group. :-) I'm worried though that if the new user goes scooting off down the runway at 40 knots before they get a chance to focus in on what is going on, that will leave a negative impression just as much as starting with the engine off or anything else that diverges significantly from the 'expected'. We always manage to save a few glaring wart suprises for the final release so maybe we'll just have to live with whatever we end up with here? Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
