2011/12/23 Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net:
Also, I guess we should have some discussion on where the official version
of some JSBSim aircraft should reside. I think I'll be culling some models
from the JSBSim distribution - models that have been untouched for a long
time. I'd like to
we believe it is intentional.
the final increase in slipstream velocity (over the free stream velocity)
is 2* the increase in velocity at the actuator disk. Which is consistent
with the c172p FDM
-Stuart
Yes, its added twice to avoid the multiplication.
Ron
Ah, yes, found it in
Ah, yes, found it in McCormick's Chapter six. Should we add some
comment in c172p.xml as a reference for future generations? The
computation is not very intuitive at first sight (at least for me).
Torsten
I think that's a very good idea.
Also, I guess we should have some discussion on
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Ron Jensen wrote:
I just noticed the c172p.xml (FDM) in FGData doesn't match the one in JSBSim.
What's your conclusion ?
Conclusion is that the FG c172p FDM is out of date and doesn't include
the latest changes
that Ron made to Add
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I've not committed these changes to the FG c172p FDM.
Sorry, that should be I've _now_ committed these changes to
the FG c172p FDM
-Stuart
--
Write once. Port to
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Ron Jensen wrote:
I just noticed the c172p.xml (FDM) in FGData doesn't match the one in
JSBSim.
What's your conclusion ?
Conclusion is that the FG c172p FDM is out of date and doesn't include
the latest
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Ron Jensen wrote:
I just noticed the c172p.xml (FDM) in FGData doesn't match the one in
JSBSim.
What's your conclusion ?
Conclusion is that the FG c172p FDM
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 10:36 +, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
There IS a script that copies FDMs from JSBSim over to FG to keep them
up to date. However, I don't know if it's working.
It should work properly but is getting increasingly difficult to use
since some models are maintained in JSBSim CVS
I prefer manually syncing and checking that the changes are valid, rather than
blindly over-riding what we've already got.
Hi Stuart,
this
-sin
-propertyaero/alpha-rad/property
-/sin
+
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
I prefer manually syncing and checking that the changes are valid, rather
than
blindly over-riding what we've already got.
Hi Stuart,
this
- sin
- propertyaero/alpha-rad/property
-
Agreed - that's a mistake in my checkin. I will correct it.
-Stuart
OK - one more.
function name=aero/function/velocity-induced-fps
description velocity including the propulsion induced
velocity./description
sum
propertyvelocities/u-aero-fps/property
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Agreed - that's a mistake in my checkin. I will correct it.
-Stuart
OK - one more.
function name=aero/function/velocity-induced-fps
description velocity including the propulsion induced
velocity./description
sum
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 14:50:39 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Agreed - that's a mistake in my checkin. I will correct it.
-Stuart
OK - one more.
function name=aero/function/velocity-induced-fps
description velocity including
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 04:09:35 Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
I prefer manually syncing and checking that the changes are valid,
rather than blindly over-riding what we've already got.
Hi Stuart,
this
- sin
On 14 December 2011 20:07, Gijs de Rooy gijsr...@hotmail.com wrote:
A great source of dimensions is http://gallery.tigert.com/gallery/c172dim
Note that this is a C172N (not P), but there doesn't seem to be much of a
difference
between the two models cockpitwise.
Yeah. That's our club's
Ron Jensen wrote:
I just noticed the c172p.xml (FDM) in FGData doesn't match the one in JSBSim.
What's your conclusion ?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Patrick Callahan wrote:
What can be said about the flight dynamics of the C172P model?
Is it accurate? If not, how could it be improved?
It's currently got a 3 rating. It matches some of the PoH numbers
(cruise speed, rate of climb) for an aircraft fitted with
Patrick Callahan wrote:
What can be said about the flight dynamics of the C172P model?
Is it accurate? If not, how could it be improved?
The response varies _much_ depending on whom you ask :-)
Personally I'm quite confident with FlightGear's flight dynamics, but
there's always room for
Martin Spott wrote:
Note that there are many, many different variants of the real one,
therefore claims like it climbs too fast might be rather moot the
smaller the deviation gets, because it depends much on the weight
(which might depend a lot on the installed equipment) and the condition
Am 18.12.2011 12:02, schrieb Martin Spott:
Personally I'm quite confident with FlightGear's flight dynamics, but
there's always room for improvement and if you know someone who's
flying the real one (maybe you're evn doing yourself), take a
stopwatch, pen and paper and record climb rates at
On Sunday 18 December 2011 04:02:01 Martin Spott wrote:
Patrick Callahan wrote:
What can be said about the flight dynamics of the C172P model?
Is it accurate? If not, how could it be improved?
The response varies _much_ depending on whom you ask :-)
Personally I'm quite confident with
Sorry to respond to myself, but wanted to add some detail:
Mass Properties Report (English units: lbf, in, slug-ft^2)
WeightCG-XCG-YCG-Z
Base Vehicle 1500.041.0 0.036.5
0 Pilot
What can be said about the flight dynamics of the C172P model?
Is it accurate? If not, how could it be improved?
snip
--
Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows
Hello everybody,
I have been looking at improving the Cessna 172p cockpit. I have been mostly
focusing on the instruments. I am creating new 256px textures, and modifying
the geometry and xml files when required. All the work is based on pictures of
Cessna cockpits and pictures of instruments
Hello Stephan,
It looks nice so far! But someone has already improved it, you can find
more info here: http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14t=10187
You don't need to upload it to GIT by yourself, you can pack it in a .zip
and a FGData committer can upload it for you.
If you run a more
Here are some questions:
1. Should I work from a c172p model more recent than on the website?
If so, where can I find the Aircrafts in gitorious?
2. How do I contribute? Do I learn to use git and create a branch? Do
I post the aircraft as a .zip file for someone to look at?
3. Should I
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Fernando García Liñán wrote:
Hello Stephan,
It looks nice so far! But someone has already improved it, you can find more
info here: http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14t=10187
The changes Fernando refers to were applied before the 2.4.0 release, so
Hi all, Stephan in particular,
Stuart wrote:
I currently maintain the c172p. The only other changes I'm aware of are
some significant updates that Gijs was working on prior to the 2.4.0 release.
I don't know whether he's still working on them - Gijs?
Right, I had indeed quite some updates
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Stuart, now we're at it, could you please decrease the cockpit-status-rating
of the
C172P? It really is not complete and does not fit the five-stars category.
For example,
our current model even lacks something as a master switch! Nor does it have
photo-
realistic
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I currently maintain the c172p.
I still don't understand why Heiko was alienated from maintaining the
C172 model
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
30 matches
Mail list logo
