RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote:
Sent: 27 July 2004 20:03
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I have run several traces on fuel.nas, and I can see the
/consumables/fuel/tank[0]/kill-when-empty being set, despite not
appearing anywhere (I searched the entire directory) other
than once
in fuel.nas, and certainly not in my configuration file. Hence my
original question.
That's just bizarre, and if true points to something really
scary like a memory corruption issue or reference goof in the
interpreter and/or property system. Can you send the trace
output? Are you sure you can do this repeatably? If this is
real, then the solution is
*ABSOLUTELY* not to hack around with Nasal code to make it work. :)
It is repeatable.
Here is my trace:
Tank: Upper
lbs: 0.05162055521023967
t.getBoolValue(selected):
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty):
Tank: Lower
lbs: 257.9001210153514
t.getBoolValue(selected):
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty):
Tank: Upper
lbs: -0.04993153503164649
t.getBoolValue(selected):
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty):
t.getBoolValue(selected): 1
Tank: Lower
lbs: 257.9018100355301
t.getBoolValue(selected):
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty):
Tank: Upper
lbs: -0.04279845859855413
t.getBoolValue(selected): 1
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty): 1
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty): 1
outOfFuel: 1
Tank: Lower
lbs: 257.8590115769315
t.getBoolValue(selected):
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty):
Tank: Upper
lbs: -0.001188846072182059
t.getBoolValue(selected): 1
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty): 1
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty): 1
outOfFuel: 1
Tank: Lower
lbs: 257.8578227308593
t.getBoolValue(selected):
t.getBoolValue(kill-when-empty):
Here is a dump of the property tree at the same time:
consumables {NONE} = nil
consumables/fuel {NONE} = nil
consumables/fuel/tank {BOOL} = 1
consumables/fuel/tank/name {UNSPECIFIED} = Upper
consumables/fuel/tank/level-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 0
consumables/fuel/tank/level-lbs {DOUBLE} = 0
consumables/fuel/tank/density-ppg {DOUBLE} = 5.9956915326
consumables/fuel/tank/capacity-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 55.8390941939
consumables/fuel/tank/selected {BOOL} = 1
consumables/fuel/tank[1] {NONE} = nil
consumables/fuel/tank[1]/name {UNSPECIFIED} = Lower
consumables/fuel/tank[1]/level-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 42.97630687451017
consumables/fuel/tank[1]/level-lbs {DOUBLE} = 257.8578227308593
consumables/fuel/tank[1]/density-ppg {DOUBLE} = 5.9956915326
consumables/fuel/tank[1]/capacity-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 43.0043530412
consumables/fuel/tank[1]/selected {BOOL} = 1
consumables/fuel/tank[2] {NONE} = nil
consumables/fuel/tank[2]/level-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 0
consumables/fuel/tank[2]/level-lbs {DOUBLE} = 0
consumables/fuel/tank[2]/capacity-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 0.01
consumables/fuel/tank[2]/density-ppg {DOUBLE} = 6
consumables/fuel/tank[2]/selected {BOOL} = 1
consumables/fuel/tank[3] {NONE} = nil
consumables/fuel/tank[3]/level-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 0
consumables/fuel/tank[3]/level-lbs {DOUBLE} = 0
consumables/fuel/tank[3]/capacity-gal_us {DOUBLE} = 0.01
consumables/fuel/tank[3]/density-ppg {DOUBLE} = 6
consumables/fuel/tank[3]/selected {BOOL} = 1
consumables/fuel/total-fuel-gals {DOUBLE} = 42.97630687451017
consumables/fuel/total-fuel-lbs {DOUBLE} = 257.8578227308593
consumables/fuel/total-fuel-norm {DOUBLE} = 0.4347481767751226
Kill-when-empty is NOT in my configuration file as you can see.
If there isn't a problem here, I don't know of a better example.
I can also see outofFuel being set, and the engine being cut when
tank[0] is empty and tank[1] has plenty of fuel in it.
Once again: this is not a bug. By your original explanation
(correct me if I'm wrong): tank[1] is never selected, and
simply feeds tank[0]. If it's not selected the engine won't
feed from it. If tank[0] is empty, the engine will get no fuel.
I'm sorry, but it is a bug. Both tanks are selected as you can see.
Can you try being really, explicitly verbose about your
problem? Leave out the Nasal bugs and analysis. Just give me
the behavior you want to see from the two tanks and two fuel
selector switches.
Extracts from the POH are posted at:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/vmeazza/FlightGear/Fuel%20System.JPG
And
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/vmeazza/FlightGear/Fuel%20System%20Diagram.JPG
I think the description and diagram speak for themselves, but if you have
any further queries, get back to me soonest.
All that is required, is that fuel.nas works in accordance with its logic.
When it does everything is OK. If you are too busy, I already have a
solution.
Sorry for the bother, and thank you for your response.
Regards,
Vivian Meazza
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Megginson Sent: 26 July 2004 23:41 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend to avoid it if at all possible. I don't intend to try it either. The propeller should keep windmilling, of course, but I don't see how the cylinders would fire once the fuel supply was cut off. Even if there's still a trickle for a few seconds, the mixture would probably be too lean to ignite. Perhaps there would be some surging and roughness, as pockets of fuel separated by air fed into various cylinders. There is a strong possibility that air will be drawn into the fuel supply as the last of the fuel runs out from a tank (which is why it is good practice to disconnect empty fuel tanks.) Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. That's not an uncommon occurrence on low-wing planes, from what I hear: when Cessna pilots rent low-wing planes, you sometimes get forced landings with one tank full and one empty (that happened in Toronto Harbour last fall, with no injuries, fortunately). I think our sim should cater for that, otherwise our realism is degraded. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Matthew Law wrote Sent: 26 July 2004 23:41 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend to avoid it if at all possible. A nice-to-have anyway, although I think I could fix it if we agree that we want to go down that route. Very definitely low on the list of priorities. Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. If it were implmented, may be some of the code could be used for a carb-ice scenario? Where application of carb heat would hopefully bring the engine back up to full power again. This is a feature that I would love to see working well in FG - especially when the conditions are ripe for carb ice (which sadly, is most of the year in the UK). Would this need to be done seperately for each FDM/engine combo? I don't think that's intrinsically very difficult to simulate right now. When certain conditions are met, if carb heating is off, weaken the mixture over time (until the engine stops?). If carb heating is on enrich the mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions are actually aircraft and engine specific, I think, but a general solution might be near enough for government work. It could be very quickly implemented with a nasal script, but this might not be the best way to do it. Pitot head icing is another candidate. Actually it's so obvious, I wonder if someone will tell us that it is already an intrinsic function? My feeling is that we should address this idc. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: Pitot head icing It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ... Erik (Is that already implemented?) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Erik Hofman wrote: Sent: 27 July 2004 08:37 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: Pitot head icing It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ... Erik (Is that already implemented?) Lol. I suppose if you fly the Spitfire with the canopy open ... I don't think I'll bother to implement that. On the other hand goggles icing up ... Didn't someone mention windscreen icing ... Forget it. I've enough problems with doing blow-in flaps for the Spitfire. Mastered the Spitfire yet? Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: Mastered the Spitfire yet? Yes. It's a marvelous aircraft to fly! Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Erik Hofman replied Sent: 27 July 2004 09:29 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: Mastered the Spitfire yet? Yes. It's a marvelous aircraft to fly! Good. It'll be better when the engine problems are sorted. On legacy code it's down on power, I think, although that probably makes it easier to fly. I was wondering because people seem to have had problems starting it. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: Matthew Law wrote If carb heating is on enrich the mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions are actually aircraft and engine specific, I think wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly ... didn't know that so far, would definitely recommend to create some kind of summary for each aircraft and place it as a textfile into each aircraft's folder. Many such things aren't that obvious, and even if they are it's interesting how these things are implemented or what workaround is being used to resemble a certain functionality. On the other hand such a detailed description of the implementation could also provide some insights for other user who want to create their own aircraft, or simply extend pre-existing aircraft. - Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on really
resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly ... didn't know
that so far, would definitely recommend to create some kind of summary
for each aircraft and place it as a textfile into each aircraft's folder.
Many such things aren't that obvious, and even if they are it's
interesting how these things are implemented or what workaround is being
used to resemble a certain functionality.
On the other hand such a detailed description of the implementation
could also provide some insights for other user who want to create
their own aircraft, or simply extend pre-existing aircraft.
Things like carb ice may be a hinderance to the casual user (having it
disabled by default would probably be the way to go) but since there
are so many aircraft and pilots lost to it, it's fairly important for me
even in a sim. Does Nasal do timers? If so maybe something like this
would work:
while (engines_running)
{
If (engine rpm 40% OAT 4 deg C OAT 15 deg C)
{
if (carb_heat_enabled == false)
{
lean_mixture_by_increment; // lean mixture by a small value
from user selected value
}
else
{
enrich_mixture_by_increment; // richen mixture by a small
value until equal to user selected value
}
}
else
{
enrich_mixture_by_increment; // as above, but by a smaller amount,
for higher power settings ?
}
sleep 20 secs;
}
Please excuse the pseudo code - I've never done any nasal at all. I
can't remember what temperature range carb ice most commonly occurs at
and I'm not sure that after partial icing, a higher power setting would
clear the ice... probably not.
How does this seem?
All the best,
Matthew.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: I don't think that's intrinsically very difficult to simulate right now. When certain conditions are met, if carb heating is off, weaken the mixture over time (until the engine stops?). If carb heating is on enrich the mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions are actually aircraft and engine specific, I think, but a general solution might be near enough for government work. With carb ice, the engine dies from an excessively rich mixture (all fuel, no air), not an excessively lean one. The best way to simulate an ice blockage would be to reduce maximum available manifold pressure and let the piston engine model work out the rest. When there is no actual carb ice, carb heat makes the intake air hotter, and thus thinner, so the mixture also becomes richer (more fuel, less air), but in this case not usually rich enough to stop the engine. The normal rule of thumb is that applying carb heat will decrease your power, but that's not true for those of us who fly lean of peak. Pitot head icing is another candidate. Actually it's so obvious, I wonder if someone will tell us that it is already an intrinsic function? We don't actually have code to create pitot ice (or melt it when pitot heat is on), but you can simulate pitot icing by setting the /systems/pitot/serviceable property to 'true'. You can also use /systems/static/serviceable to simulate a static-port blockage, /systems/electrical/serviceable to simulate an electrical failure (battery and alternator, I guess), and /systems/vacuum[n]/serviceable to simulate a failure of a vacuum pump. All of the instruments should respond more-or-less realistically to the failure. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Carb ice (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire)
David Megginson wrote: I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like reduced visibility anyway. I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? - from what I've read and understood on my PPL course and in the UK CAA leaflets the major component of carb ice is the humidity and temperature combination. We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in power (below the green arc) on the C152 and C150 and in/near precipitation if icing is suspected. I've never read the POH for these, I just do what my instructor tells me. Carb icing is common on humid days in certain Continental engines such as the one in the Cessna 150 and the old (pre-1967) 172, but it is very rare in engines like the Lycoming O-320 (used in the Warrior and post-1967 Cessna 172's). The warnings in the later 172 POH's about using carb heat at low power are left over from the old Continental O-300 days -- the Warrior has essentially the same engine, but my POH does not recommend carb heat for low power operation unless I suspect actual icing. We lost a C150 last week to suspected carb ice. The engine stopped dead on base leg when the pilot (a recent PPL graduate) throttled down to descend for landing. The 'landing' appears to have been rather hard as the 'plane is a write-off. Thankfully he's OK... I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Carb ice (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire)
David Megginson wrote: I don't think we should disable any systems, period, but we can put users by default in situations where carb icing is unlikely (i.e. a clear, dry day). Once you get into situations where carb icing is likely, users are going to be dealing with other problems like reduced visibility anyway. I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? - from what I've read and understood on my PPL course and in the UK CAA leaflets the major component of carb ice is the humidity and temperature combination. We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in power (below the green arc) on the C152 and C150 and in/near precipitation if icing is suspected. I've never read the POH for these, I just do what my instructor tells me. Carb icing is common on humid days in certain Continental engines such as the one in the Cessna 150 and the old (pre-1967) 172, but it is very rare in engines like the Lycoming O-320 (used in the Warrior and post-1967 Cessna 172's). The warnings in the later 172 POH's about using carb heat at low power are left over from the old Continental O-300 days -- the Warrior has essentially the same engine, but my POH does not recommend carb heat for low power operation unless I suspect actual icing. We lost a C150 last week to suspected carb ice. The engine stopped dead on base leg when the pilot (a recent PPL graduate) throttled down to descend for landing. The 'landing' appears to have been rather hard as the 'plane is a write-off. Thankfully he's OK... I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Carb ice (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire)
Matthew Law wrote: I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? Yes -- we report it, and I'm pretty sure that we use it in density altitude calculations (so that it affects both true airspeed and engine performance). We're drilled to use carb heat before making any major reduction in power (below the green arc) on the C152 and C150 and in/near precipitation if icing is suspected. I've never read the POH for these, I just do what my instructor tells me. The Continental engine on the C150 (and presumably 152) and the older 172s and 182s is often referred to by pilots as an ice maker: it has about the worst possible design for carb ice, so you absolutely should be using the carb heat for any power reduction, even if the OAT is 25-30 degC. As I mentioned, 172s built after 1967, and Cherokees, do not have the same kind of problem. We lost a C150 last week to suspected carb ice. The engine stopped dead on base leg when the pilot (a recent PPL graduate) throttled down to descend for landing. The 'landing' appears to have been rather hard as the 'plane is a write-off. Thankfully he's OK... I think my Vans RV-9 will have a diesel engine :-) Sure, or a fuel-injected engine, or (as I mentioned) a Lycoming O-320, which has a great record. Of course, we're all waiting for the big hydrogen engines (I'll take 25 liters of water, please). If I were building my own plane right now, I'd probably go for a fuel-injected engine like the IO-360, so that I could add Gamijectors and even out the fuel/air distribution for a nice smooth, quiet engine. Of course, hot starts in a fuel-injected engine are quite a challenge ... Avoid Rotax engines -- they're so advanced that they do not even need carb ice to stop running (the flight school next to our flying club has three Katanas: they've already had two forced landings bad enough to result in TSB reports, and who knows how many uneventful ones on runways; no serious injuries, though). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Megginson Sent: 27 July 2004 12:39 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: I don't think that's intrinsically very difficult to simulate right now. When certain conditions are met, if carb heating is off, weaken the mixture over time (until the engine stops?). If carb heating is on enrich the mixture over time until power is restored. The conditions are actually aircraft and engine specific, I think, but a general solution might be near enough for government work. With carb ice, the engine dies from an excessively rich mixture (all fuel, no air), not an excessively lean one. The best way to simulate an ice blockage would be to reduce maximum available manifold pressure and let the piston engine model work out the rest. When there is no actual carb ice, carb heat makes the intake air hotter, and thus thinner, so the mixture also becomes richer (more fuel, less air), but in this case not usually rich enough to stop the engine. The normal rule of thumb is that applying carb heat will decrease your power, but that's not true for those of us who fly lean of peak. Pitot head icing is another candidate. Actually it's so obvious, I wonder if someone will tell us that it is already an intrinsic function? We don't actually have code to create pitot ice (or melt it when pitot heat is on), but you can simulate pitot icing by setting the /systems/pitot/serviceable property to 'true'. You can also use /systems/static/serviceable to simulate a static-port blockage, /systems/electrical/serviceable to simulate an electrical failure (battery and alternator, I guess), and /systems/vacuum[n]/serviceable to simulate a failure of a vacuum pump. All of the instruments should respond more-or-less realistically to the failure. I knew someone would know. Yes of course carb icing makes the mixture over rich - leaning it was a quick stab at reducing the power. Your suggestion is obviously the way to go. Much more realistic. Thanks. I think we could easily extend the existing pitot stuff to be a bit more realistic with some nasal. Bit of a roundtuit I'm afraid though, I really ought to finish the Spitfire first. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Matthew Law wrote
Sent: 27 July 2004 11:55
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Boris Koenig wrote:
wow, I am just about to notice how much work some people spend on
really resembling all the various aircraft subtleties properly ...
didn't know that so far, would definitely recommend to create some
kind of summary for each aircraft and place it as a
textfile into each
aircraft's folder.
Many such things aren't that obvious, and even if they are it's
interesting how these things are implemented or what workaround is
being used to resemble a certain functionality.
On the other hand such a detailed description of the implementation
could also provide some insights for other user who want to create
their own aircraft, or simply extend pre-existing aircraft.
Things like carb ice may be a hinderance to the casual user
(having it
disabled by default would probably be the way to go) but since there
are so many aircraft and pilots lost to it, it's fairly
important for me
even in a sim. Does Nasal do timers? If so maybe something
like this
would work:
while (engines_running)
{
If (engine rpm 40% OAT 4 deg C OAT 15 deg C)
{
if (carb_heat_enabled == false)
{
lean_mixture_by_increment; // lean mixture by a
small value
from user selected value
}
else
{
enrich_mixture_by_increment; // richen mixture by a small
value until equal to user selected value
}
}
else
{
enrich_mixture_by_increment; // as above, but by a
smaller amount,
for higher power settings ?
}
sleep 20 secs;
}
Please excuse the pseudo code - I've never done any nasal at all. I
can't remember what temperature range carb ice most commonly
occurs at
and I'm not sure that after partial icing, a higher power
setting would
clear the ice... probably not.
Yup, all do-able in nasal no probs. David Megginson recommends adjusting the
manifold pressure to simulate icing. That's probably more realistic.
Regards,
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Carb ice (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire)
David Megginson wrote: Matthew Law wrote: I agree totally. Does FG define humidity at all? Yes -- we report it, and I'm pretty sure that we use it in density altitude calculations (so that it affects both true airspeed and engine performance). METAR reported humidity is also used. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. Is that not how it works for you? Out of fuel is a transient property. If you put fuel in the tank, the fuel management code sets it to false... Granted, I haven't had time to test any of this. But I guess I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your complaint is: trying to draw fuel from an empty tank *should* kill an engine. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: David Megginson wrote: Vivian Meazza wrote: Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though That's not an uncommon occurrence on low-wing planes, from what I hear: when Cessna pilots rent low-wing planes, you sometimes get forced landings with one tank full and one empty I think our sim should cater for that, otherwise our realism is degraded. But... it does. For each of those scenarios (fuel selectors with a both mode and ones which kill the engine when the selected tank runs dry). I'm getting really confused here. What's the bug again? Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote: Granted, I haven't had time to test any of this. But I guess I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your complaint is: trying to draw fuel from an empty tank *should* kill an engine. OK, try this: I'm flying on the left tank in my Warrior and not switching. The tank goes dry and the engine stops. I switch to the right tank, and as long as the prop is still windmilling, the engine springs to life again in a few seconds. Is that the way things will work right now? All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
David Megginson wrote: OK, try this: I'm flying on the left tank in my Warrior and not switching. The tank goes dry and the engine stops. I switch to the right tank, and as long as the prop is still windmilling, the engine springs to life again in a few seconds. Is that the way things will work right now? Yes, exactly. Or at least, as intended. The out-of-fuel property is set, explicitly, every fuel iteration (5Hz I think), to the current value as computed from the set of selected tanks. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 08:37, Erik Hofman wrote: Vivian Meazza wrote: Pitot head icing It might be a bit early, but I seriously read pilot head icing at first ... Erik (Is that already implemented?) Perhaps I should look into it for the Swift;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:38:43 -0400, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: When there is no actual carb ice, carb heat makes the intake air hotter, and thus thinner, so the mixture also becomes richer (more fuel, less air), but in this case not usually rich enough to stop the engine. The normal rule of thumb is that applying carb heat will decrease your power, but that's not true for those of us who fly lean of peak. ..pulling carb heat on flying lean of peak, should produce more carburtation heat and push the mis-firing limit a bit leaner, but does anyone do this? At some stage, it will get too cold. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it feeds on the lower tank? How would that affect balance? Are the tanks exactly above each other? All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
David Megginson asked Sent: 26 July 2004 12:37 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it feeds on the lower tank? How would that affect balance? Are the tanks exactly above each other? All the best, David Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower, smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper, larger tank. As the fuel is expended the CofG should move forward and down. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower, smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper, larger tank. For strict accuracy, then, drawing from one tank first and then the other will not result in exactly the same flight characteristics. The different may be too small to notice, though. Andy's suggestion of moving fuel every few minutes is definitely better, but it would be good to model flow-through tanks properly. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
I wrote Sent: 25 July 2004 22:32 To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Andy Ross wrote Sent: 25 July 2004 21:07 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At present both tanks feed into the engine. What should happen is that the upper tank feeds the lower tank which feeds the engine. Is there any built-in way of doing this? One way to do this is to always make sure the lower tank is selected, and the uper one is not. Then have a Nasal timer fire at some sane frequency (mayby 5Hz) or whatnot that takes fuel out of the top tank and adds it to the bottom one according to the current pump configuration. It's not hard, really. You can look at the existing fuel.nas code for examples. The only gotcha I can think of is that the frame rate isn't constant: you want to use the time-elapsed property to calculate the amount of fuel to transfer, instead of assuming a constant amount per iteration. Thanks Andy. I have already put together a Nasal script, using fuel.nas as a model. It wasn't hard, once I had figured out how to make it re-iterate. Nasal is a delight to use: doing exactly what we want. The script tries to model the fuel system. Both tanks are connected to the engine, and there is an open pipe connecting them, so fuel is transferred from the upper to the lower whenever there is room in the latter until the former is empty. So good so far - that bit works. The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty, rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a way around that without tinkering with the logic of fuel.nas. That said, the logic of fuel does seem a little odd. Have I got my analysis of the logic wrong? Where is kill-when-empty set? I can easily adjust fuel.nas to work for the Spitfire, but of course I don't want to rot up any other model. How to proceed? I think that something is going wrong in the fuel.nas script. At line 72 kill-when-empty is being set to true for tank[0] on the first pass through after it runs out of fuel, thus setting out-of-fuel to true and stopping the engine. I don't think that this is intended in the script, despite the comment at line 53! I attach a revised script which stops this happening, but I had to resort to some pretty inelegant programming to do it. Is this a NASAL bug, or something local? Regards, Vivian fuel.nas Description: Binary data ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
David Megginson wrote Sent: 26 July 2004 13:27 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: Not exactly. They are both on the centerline, but the CofG of the lower, smaller tank is slightly forward of the upper, larger tank. For strict accuracy, then, drawing from one tank first and then the other will not result in exactly the same flight characteristics. The different may be too small to notice, though. Andy's suggestion of moving fuel every few minutes is definitely better, but it would be good to model flow- through tanks properly. I think I've cracked it. I've written a NASAL script which transfers fuel from the upper to the lower tank with the same frequency as the main fuel script runs. At the same time the fuel script draws fuel from both tanks. This is as described in the Pilot's notes. Now I have fixed up the fuel script, I think it runs OK. There are still some snags. The engine cuts out very abruptly when the fuel runs out: I would like some run down as the last of the fuel runs through the system. Once out-of-fuel is set, it cannot be reset connecting a tank with fuel in it. Finally, the fuel script disconnects an empty tank. I can see why this is needed by Andy's clever script, but realistically it should be disconnected by operator action. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty, rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a way around that without tinkering with the logic of fuel.nas. No, there's actually a feature for exactly this situation: That said, the logic of fuel does seem a little odd. Have I got my analysis of the logic wrong? Where is kill-when-empty set? By you, in the aircraft configuration. That's the property that tells the fuel code to kill the engine when the tank is empty. If you don't set the property, then the tank will only be deselected when it is empty. But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's basically the same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the bottom tank runs out. Am I misunderstanding the problem? Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote: But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's basically the same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the bottom tank runs out. Am I misunderstanding the problem? I think he might want some sputtering for a couple of seconds. From reading accident reports, sometimes the engine does just stop cold, though. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote Sent: 26 July 2004 18:05 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty, rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a way around that without tinkering with the logic of fuel.nas. No, there's actually a feature for exactly this situation: I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly. When the top tank is empty the logic requires that, if kill-when-empty is not set, for it to be simply deselected. This isn't working: the kill-when-empty is being set somehow, and the engine dies. That said, the logic of fuel does seem a little odd. Have I got my analysis of the logic wrong? Where is kill-when-empty set? By you, in the aircraft configuration. That's the property that tells the fuel code to kill the engine when the tank is empty. If you don't set the property, then the tank will only be deselected when it is empty. It's being set, for tank[0] on the second pass (I think) through the code after the deselection pass, thus setting outofFuel and killing the engine while there is still fuel in the lower tank. But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's basically the same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the bottom tank runs out. Am I misunderstanding the problem? Slightly. Either, none, or both tanks can be selected to feed the engine, but there is also an interconnecting pipe. No problem, I have done the Nasal code: pretty straight forward. I have also posted a slightly amended fuel.nas which works around this mysterious kill-when-empty issue. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly. When the top tank is empty the logic requires that, if kill-when-empty is not set, for it to be simply deselected. This isn't working: the kill-when-empty is being set somehow, and the engine dies. Then the proper fix is to find out what is setting /consumables/fuel/tank[0]/kill-when-empty at runtime. This is a configuration property, it shouldn't be modified by code, ever. The proper fix is certainly not to hack at fuel.nas trying to make it work. So far as I can see, that code is working fine. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
David Megginson wrote Sent: 26 July 2004 18:34 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Andy Ross wrote: But, since you only *have* one selectable tank, that's basically the same thing; the engine is supposed to die when the bottom tank runs out. Am I misunderstanding the problem? I think he might want some sputtering for a couple of seconds. From reading accident reports, sometimes the engine does just stop cold, though. I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend to avoid it if at all possible. A nice-to-have anyway, although I think I could fix it if we agree that we want to go down that route. Very definitely low on the list of priorities. Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. Regards Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote Sent: 26 July 2004 22:20 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: I was thrown at first by the comment, but on further analysis the logic is fine, but the code doesn't seem to work correctly. When the top tank is empty the logic requires that, if kill-when-empty is not set, for it to be simply deselected. This isn't working: the kill-when-empty is being set somehow, and the engine dies. Then the proper fix is to find out what is setting /consumables/fuel/tank[0]/kill-when-empty at runtime. This is a configuration property, it shouldn't be modified by code, ever. The proper fix is certainly not to hack at fuel.nas trying to make it work. So far as I can see, that code is working fine. I have run several traces on fuel.nas, and I can see the /consumables/fuel/tank[0]/kill-when-empty being set, despite not appearing anywhere (I searched the entire directory) other than once in fuel.nas, and certainly not in my configuration file. Hence my original question. I can also see outofFuel being set, and the engine being cut when tank[0] is empty and tank[1] has plenty of fuel in it. I can't work out WHY this is happening, but I CAN produce a slightly modified version of fuel.nas which works, and does not modify a configuration property. I deduced from the foregoing, but could be well wrong, that the fault lies in the nasal coding. Perhaps my version is corrupt somehow? Changing one line fixes it, but there are a couple of other consequential changes to make sure that it all works safely. There might be a bug in nasal, that would be the logical conclusion, but that is beyond my competence. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend to avoid it if at all possible. A nice-to-have anyway, although I think I could fix it if we agree that we want to go down that route. Very definitely low on the list of priorities. Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. If it were implmented, may be some of the code could be used for a carb-ice scenario? Where application of carb heat would hopefully bring the engine back up to full power again. This is a feature that I would love to see working well in FG - especially when the conditions are ripe for carb ice (which sadly, is most of the year in the UK). Would this need to be done seperately for each FDM/engine combo? All the best, Matthew. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: I think I would expect an engine running out of fuel to rapidly lose power and wind down, not stop abruptly as it would if you opened the magneto switches. I have to say that is based on motor racing rather than aviation experience. Haven't tried it while airborne, and intend to avoid it if at all possible. I don't intend to try it either. The propeller should keep windmilling, of course, but I don't see how the cylinders would fire once the fuel supply was cut off. Even if there's still a trickle for a few seconds, the mixture would probably be too lean to ignite. Perhaps there would be some surging and roughness, as pockets of fuel separated by air fed into various cylinders. Slightly higher would be the suggestion that out-of-fuel should not be terminal though, since pilot error can end up with a full tank not connected to the engine. In real life - reconnect - problem solved (or nearly). So far as I can see that is not an option in our sim. That's not an uncommon occurrence on low-wing planes, from what I hear: when Cessna pilots rent low-wing planes, you sometimes get forced landings with one tank full and one empty (that happened in Toronto Harbour last fall, with no injuries, fortunately). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At present both tanks feed into the engine. What should happen is that the upper tank feeds the lower tank which feeds the engine. Is there any built-in way of doing this? One way to do this is to always make sure the lower tank is selected, and the uper one is not. Then have a Nasal timer fire at some sane frequency (mayby 5Hz) or whatnot that takes fuel out of the top tank and adds it to the bottom one according to the current pump configuration. It's not hard, really. You can look at the existing fuel.nas code for examples. The only gotcha I can think of is that the frame rate isn't constant: you want to use the time-elapsed property to calculate the amount of fuel to transfer, instead of assuming a constant amount per iteration. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Andy Ross wrote Sent: 25 July 2004 21:07 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At present both tanks feed into the engine. What should happen is that the upper tank feeds the lower tank which feeds the engine. Is there any built-in way of doing this? One way to do this is to always make sure the lower tank is selected, and the uper one is not. Then have a Nasal timer fire at some sane frequency (mayby 5Hz) or whatnot that takes fuel out of the top tank and adds it to the bottom one according to the current pump configuration. It's not hard, really. You can look at the existing fuel.nas code for examples. The only gotcha I can think of is that the frame rate isn't constant: you want to use the time-elapsed property to calculate the amount of fuel to transfer, instead of assuming a constant amount per iteration. Thanks Andy. I have already put together a Nasal script, using fuel.nas as a model. It wasn't hard, once I had figured out how to make it re-iterate. Nasal is a delight to use: doing exactly what we want. The script tries to model the fuel system. Both tanks are connected to the engine, and there is an open pipe connecting them, so fuel is transferred from the upper to the lower whenever there is room in the latter until the former is empty. So good so far - that bit works. The gotcha is that the engine stops when either tank is empty, rather than when there is no fuel in any tank. I can't see a way around that without tinkering with the logic of fuel.nas. That said, the logic of fuel does seem a little odd. Have I got my analysis of the logic wrong? Where is kill-when-empty set? I can easily adjust fuel.nas to work for the Spitfire, but of course I don't want to rot up any other model. How to proceed? Thanks again. Regards, Vivian http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Vivian Meazza wrote: Sent: 23 July 2004 20:15 To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Jim Wilson wrote: Sent: 23 July 2004 16:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Very nice! Ok if I borrow the pilot dude for the p51 cockpit? Please do - but note that he's wearing RAF blue serge trousers (pants :- )), and 1940's pattern life jacket (vest) and the wrong flying helmet/goggles. I expect some smarty pants will notice. I'm going to animate him shortly. Now, should it come up running like the other A/C? My personal preference is to not, but I think in the past folks have prefered aircraft already started. Tough one, because when I get the propeller sorted there should be the possibility that the aircraft will nose over if started on full throttle. FWIW (after release) I think a preset e.g. --auto-start that defaulted to true, and was overridden as true automatically for mid air starts, but otherwise could be set false by the user so aircraft never come up running on the ground would be nice. Along this line it should be possible to have aircraft running after reset as well if --auto-start was enabled. I like it - it's the way that Flight2 does it. Personally, I like to start with the engine shut down. It forces pre-start checks, and makes the whole thing more realistic. I was also following the example of the Bo105. I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At present both tanks feed into the engine. What should happen is that the upper tank feeds the lower tank which feeds the engine. Is there any built-in way of doing this? Advice would be most welcome, otherwise I guess it's some fairly complex NASAL? Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Sent: 24 July 2004 18:58 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Can't you make it so that the engine feeds off the upper tank before it feeds on the lower tank? Regards, Ampere On July 24, 2004 01:42 pm, Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm just working on the fuel gauge for the Spitfire, when I ralised that I haven't modeled the fuel system correctly. At present both tanks feed into the engine. What should happen is that the upper tank feeds the lower tank which feeds the engine. Is there any built-in way of doing this? Advice would be most welcome, otherwise I guess it's some fairly complex NASAL? Regards, Vivian That is of course equivalent, and might well be the way to implement it in practice. How? Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire
Jim Wilson wrote: Sent: 23 July 2004 16:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Tried the Spitfire Very nice! Ok if I borrow the pilot dude for the p51 cockpit? Please do - but note that he's wearing RAF blue serge trousers (pants :-)), and 1940's pattern life jacket (vest) and the wrong flying helmet/goggles. I expect some smarty pants will notice. I'm going to animate him shortly. Now, should it come up running like the other A/C? My personal preference is to not, but I think in the past folks have prefered aircraft already started. Tough one, because when I get the propeller sorted there should be the possibility that the aircraft will nose over if started on full throttle. FWIW (after release) I think a preset e.g. --auto-start that defaulted to true, and was overridden as true automatically for mid air starts, but otherwise could be set false by the user so aircraft never come up running on the ground would be nice. Along this line it should be possible to have aircraft running after reset as well if --auto-start was enabled. I like it - it's the way that Flight2 does it. Personally, I like to start with the engine shut down. It forces pre-start checks, and makes the whole thing more realistic. I was also following the example of the Bo105. Regards, Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
