Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

> Agreed, that's the right question. > > The answer is that the flight dynamics is unrealistic, and has > been for years. Redrawing the aircraft won't help much (if any). > -- The lift curve is unrealistic, which explains the observations > that started this thread. > -- The drag curve is unr

Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

On 12/01/2008 07:52 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: > One should look at the angle of attack value at cruise and see if it's as > expected. True. > The question seems to be whether the flight dynamics is wrong, or > whether then aircraft is drawn right. Agreed, that's the right question. The answer i

Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

One should look at the angle of attack value at cruise and see if it's as expected. The question seems to be whether the flight dynamics is wrong, or whether then aircraft is drawn right. JB > -Original Message- > From: James Sleeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 01,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

Heiko Schulz wrote: > I didn't notice something with the cone at landing- landing speed should be > around 55-60 kias. > > The only thing I aware of is the empty weight seems to be a bit low (1500 in > fdm against 1642) > It does seem easy to sink the tail cone into the ground if you have mu

Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

Hi, > Hi All, > > As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I > think would > increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the > new c172p 3D > model. > > But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose > high. Here > is an interesting video link of a real

Re: [Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

On mardi 02 décembre 2008, dave perry wrote: > Hi All, > > As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I think would > increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the new c172p 3D > model. > > But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose high. Here > is an inte

[Flightgear-devel] c172p pitch at cruise question

Hi All, As we approach a new release, here is a suggestion that I think would increase the realism of our default AC. I really like the new c172p 3D model. But it seems to me that the model cruise pitch is too nose high. Here is an interesting video link of a real c172 in flight. http://w

Re: [Flightgear-devel] stall horn sound

Curtis Olson wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I just commited a tweak to FlightGear cvs that relaxes the check for a > stationary versus moving > view point to account for the moving view offset as the aircraft flies > by. See if things work any > better for your now. > Thanks Curt, This fixed it so the d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance and initialization patch

Hi, On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Yon Uriarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I attach the patch for the airport, airway and navdb loaders. Also included > is the patch to throttle the frame rate while loading the scenery at startup > and to set the gzip input buffer to 64k (was 4k). > I believe

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance and initialization patch

Hi On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM, James Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Yon Uriarte wrote: > > > > > I attach the patch for the airport, airway and navdb loaders. Also > > included is the patch to throttle the frame rate while loading the > > scenery at startup and

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Best cartesian point class to use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 James Turner schrieb: > (following from my recent discovery that Point3D is archeology at > best...) > > What is the 'best' type to be using in new code for Cartesian co- > ordinates? Not for rendering related things, where I assume osg::Vec3 >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance and initialization patch

On 1 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Yon Uriarte wrote: > > I attach the patch for the airport, airway and navdb loaders. Also > included is the patch to throttle the frame rate while loading the > scenery at startup and to set the gzip input buffer to 64k (was 4k). > I believe all of them make sense and

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Performance and initialization patch

Hi, On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yon Uriarte wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Yon Uriarte wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > logstream.cxx: > >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:30:17 +0100, gerard wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > Though, if we are talking about the SR71-Blackbird model, i can say > > ( since i am the author) that it is up

Re: [Flightgear-devel] stall horn sound

Hi Dave, I just commited a tweak to FlightGear cvs that relaxes the check for a stationary versus moving view point to account for the moving view offset as the aircraft flies by. See if things work any better for your now. Curt. On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > On Sun, N

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Change request for atlas.cxx

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Brian Schack wrote: > > "Brian" == Brian Schack writes: > > Continuing in the tradition of responding to one's own posts (I think > it was Durk Talsma who mentioned it before), I'm responding to mine. > > Actually, it's more repetition than response. I made a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:30:17 +0100, gerard wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:28:53 +, James wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 30 Nov 2008, at 19:08, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > > > > As can be see

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Erik Hofman wrote: > James Turner wrote: > > On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:03, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote: > >> For the remaining .rgb files, yes it's also possible to switch them to > >> png though it's going to be a huge commiting work as the f-14 use > >> tenth of different textu

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

James Turner wrote: > On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:03, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote: > >> For the remaining .rgb files, yes it's also possible to switch them to >> png though it's going to be a huge commiting work as the f-14 use >> tenth of different textures. I'll try beginning with the biggest >> textur

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

* Vivian Meazza -- Monday 01 December 2008: > Updating the .xml files is not what is required - it is > the .ac files which need updating to the new textures. Only if you totally ignore "material" animations which are necessary for livery switching. In the real world both *.ac and *.xml must get

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: > James Turner > > > On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:03, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote: > > > For the remaining .rgb files, yes it's also possible to switch them to > > > png though it's going to be a huge commiting work as the f-14 use > > > tenth of different textu

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Change request for atlas.cxx

> "Brian" == Brian Schack writes: Continuing in the tradition of responding to one's own posts (I think it was Durk Talsma who mentioned it before), I'm responding to mine. Actually, it's more repetition than response. I made a request for a change to atlas.cxx, but nothing has been checked

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

James Turner > > On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:03, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote: > > > For the remaining .rgb files, yes it's also possible to switch them to > > png though it's going to be a huge commiting work as the f-14 use > > tenth of different textures. I'll try beginning with the biggest > > textures

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Detlef Faber wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2008, 23:23 +0100 schrieb gerard robin: > > On dimanche 30 novembre 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > > > Durk Talsma wrote: > > > > I just placed the sources and base package for the pending FlightGear > > > > 1.9 release on my we

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:28:53 +, James wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 30 Nov 2008, at 19:08, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > > > As can be seen, there is a huge variation, and some pretty huge > > > planes. I would suggest: > > > - Drop

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On 1 Dec 2008, at 11:03, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote: > For the remaining .rgb files, yes it's also possible to switch them to > png though it's going to be a huge commiting work as the f-14 use > tenth of different textures. I'll try beginning with the biggest > textures. An automatic script, th

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

Yon Uriarte wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Stuart Buchanan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > >I note that the base package size above is 200MB. > We can reduce the on-disk plane footprint. > > I did a quick test compressing f-14b/Models/common2

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

Hi, On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Stuart Buchanan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I note that the base package size above is 200MB. > > I did a quick look at the (uncompressed) size in KB of > each of these aircraft, excluding the CVS directories. > > 5564777-200 > 6208b1900d > 13528 bo

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

> -Original Message- > From: AJ MacLeod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 December 2008 09:06 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate > > On Monday 01 December 2008 08:59:19 James Sleeman wrote: > > > I admit I am

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Best cartesian point class to use

On 1 Dec 2008, at 06:17, Thomas Förster wrote: > Have a look at the Geod/Geoc classes in simgear/math. Possibly I've mis-understood, but that was exactly my issue - Geod and Geoc are for polar co-ordinates - I need to work with Cartesian ones (as well), I think. Both the Geod and Geoc 'toCar

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

James Turner wrote: > On 30 Nov 2008, at 22:23, gerard robin wrote: > > > For instance, yes, the Stampe is easy to fly but not realistic > > regarding the FDM. > > Don't forget we don't make a Game. I think the Stampe has fairly good FDM. From my limited experience, it flies as described here

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

Stuart Buchanan wrote: > I'm not at my main machine right now, so I can't check, but I think > the AN-2 is > about 30MB in size, so probably a bit big for the base package. > Now I look, it is even bigger (about 48meg by my count), better forget the AN-2 suggestion :-) --

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

James wrote: > A "light sport" aircraft or something close would be good, there is a > big gap between the Dragonfly and a 172, this in fact is probably the > biggest growth area of aviation these days so seems a shame to skip over > it. > > Likely candidates (one of): > > Lionceau > Sky

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On Monday 01 December 2008 08:59:19 James Sleeman wrote: > I admit I am not a Camel expert :-) Nor me, though Vivian and I did an awful lot of reading at the time... > I guess I always think of a Camel as having a Gnome in front, which has > no throttle at all as I recall and as such blipping was

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

AJ MacLeod wrote: > On Monday 01 December 2008 08:32:40 James Sleeman wrote: > >> Don't know about the Camel, ... having engine throttle is really not >> realistic etc... >> > > I'd suggest that you do a bit more research on that issue... > I admit I am not a Camel expert :-) I guess

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

- "AJ MacLeod" a écrit : > On Monday 01 December 2008 08:32:40 James Sleeman wrote: > > > Don't know about the Camel, ... having engine throttle is really > not > > realistic etc... > > I'd suggest that you do a bit more research on that issue... Do you mean this is a FAQ ? -Fred -- Frédé

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On Monday 01 December 2008 08:32:40 James Sleeman wrote: > Don't know about the Camel, ... having engine throttle is really not > realistic etc... I'd suggest that you do a bit more research on that issue... Cheers, AJ - T

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

Durk Talsma wrote: > 777ER : Fairly Complete Airliner > [..snip..] > Zero: WW-II Fighter > A "light sport" aircraft or something close would be good, there is a big gap between the Dragonfly and a 172, this in fact is probably the biggest growth area of aviation these