Re: My Bad (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities)
Jonathan Polley writes: I tried halving the fog values and got something that looked more realistic, for the long distance visibilities at least. Would it be possible to change the fog equations along with the visibility? This would be for post-0.8.0. You can choose between linear, exp, and exp2 equations. GL_EXP corresponds more closely to heavy fog GL_EXP2 corresponds more to haze http://dmawww.epfl.ch/ebt-bin/nph-dweb/dynaweb/SGI_Developer/OpenGL_Porting/%40Generic__BookTextView/5836;uf=0#X You can use 'z' and 'Z' to adjust the fog on the fly. 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: My Bad (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities)
I tried halving the fog values and got something that looked more realistic, for the long distance visibilities at least. Would it be possible to change the fog equations along with the visibility? This would be for post-0.8.0. Jonathan Polley On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 09:13 PM, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Jonathan Polley writes: I am trying to get a handle on what a KC-135 pilot would experience (out sample flights are about 0.5-0.7 mach). What I will probably do, for now, is set the visibility for 50 statute miles, since more than that gives me the next step down in performance. Right now, I have been flying without the fog (mainly because I like observing the terrain). Eventually, I will probably see if I can control the fog level independently from the visibility, since I prefer a lighter, more hazie(?), fog. You could try switching between exp2 and exp fog and see what you like better. Off the top of my head I forget which is which, but one does better for really low visibility situations (fog) and one does better for better visibility situations (haze). Regards, 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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: My Bad (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities)
Jonathan Polley writes: I am trying to get a handle on what a KC-135 pilot would experience (out sample flights are about 0.5-0.7 mach). What I will probably do, for now, is set the visibility for 50 statute miles, since more than that gives me the next step down in performance. Right now, I have been flying without the fog (mainly because I like observing the terrain). Eventually, I will probably see if I can control the fog level independently from the visibility, since I prefer a lighter, more hazie(?), fog. You could try switching between exp2 and exp fog and see what you like better. Off the top of my head I forget which is which, but one does better for really low visibility situations (fog) and one does better for better visibility situations (haze). Regards, 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: My Bad (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Post 0.7.9 priorities)
So, what you are saying is that my having set the visibility to 90 statute miles was not a good thing? ;) Any ideas as to what I should expect for a worst-case visibility? The reason I chose such a large visibility is because the fog effect looked, to me, more like fog and less like haze. The numbers I quoted were based on what I get in beautiful and sunny San Diego; I suspect the Bay Area (with out default airport) is often worse. Worst I've seen is 100ft in ground fog while taxiing which was really hard, but the worst you'll legally encounter in the USA is one statute mile while in class G airspace. Generally below 1200 ftagl; check a chart for details. Bear in mind that, even in a C172, you're moving twice as fast as a car. Thus, visibility numbers need to be halved to scale for straight line time. Turning radius is about quadruple a car, so for maneuvering you need to quarter the visibility to get comparable effects. Finally, for navigation, a car generally rarely looks more than a mile ahead for the next roadsign, while the visual aircraft is looking between 2 and 10 miles to a feature. There are _good_ reasons why so many student pilots get lost on X-countrys. Flying at 160 mph in 4 mile visibility by pilotage and without ATC support is a high stress navigation challenge and is dangerous around mountains. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
