Hmmm, ok I suppose that is possible. I have done this with an external FAA
certified flight dynamics model, but I am letting the flightgear code
compute the final longitude and latitude and altitude and just passing that
over. This has worked as recently as 2 weeks ago. I don't know that I've
tr
On 08/25/2008 02:45 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Can you further explain what the bug involves? In my experience, placing
> the aircraft on the glide slope several miles out and flying the glide slope
> all works fine, or am I missing something here?
In my experience, the "glideslope" initializati
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:12 AM, James Turner wrote:
>
> On 25 Aug 2008, at 03:25, Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > I think this was all done intentionally because it's quite common to
> > want to start a flight simulator on a 5 or 7 or 10 mile approach so
> > you can practice ILS landi
On 08/24/2008 01:53 PM, James Turner wrote:
> Doing this, I came across something which seems counter-intuitive to me:
I agree, it's counterintuitive, to say the least.
> default azimuth to offset by is the *reciprocal* runway heading. This
> means to start 10nm 'out' from the threshold, one c
On 25 Aug 2008, at 03:25, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I think this was all done intentionally because it's quite common to
> want to start a flight simulator on a 5 or 7 or 10 mile approach so
> you can practice ILS landing.
>
> The start-offset-m value I believe was added later to ac
Hi James,
I think this was all done intentionally because it's quite common to want to
start a flight simulator on a 5 or 7 or 10 mile approach so you can practice
ILS landing.
The start-offset-m value I believe was added later to account for the
difference in aircraft size. A starting position
On Friday 02 May 2008 18:36, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * LeeE -- Friday 02 May 2008:
> > I am curious about why using the tail location as the visual
> > reference point is abusing the FDM's internal reference
> > system but using the nose is not.
>
> That's a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that one
* LeeE -- Friday 02 May 2008:
> I am curious about why using the tail location as the visual
> reference point is abusing the FDM's internal reference
> system but using the nose is not.
That's a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that one place is OK,
and another is an abuse. What I meant to say is
On Friday 02 May 2008 08:50, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * Syd -- Friday 02 May 2008:
> > I see some commited from Melchior that suggest he might be
> > working on a solution, just not sure what that is yet :)
>
> Sorry, no. I'm not working on anything like that. Just fixed the
> missing-unit-suffix bu
Markus Zojer wrote:
>> I wouldn't want a helicopter placed
>> 30 m away from the edge of a helipad.
>>
>>
>>
> Ah, I forgot about the helipads, how could I ;)
>
>
>> What's wrong with using a property that defaults to 5, and that
>> aircraft developers can set to whatever they feel like?
> I wouldn't want a helicopter placed
> 30 m away from the edge of a helipad.
>
>
Ah, I forgot about the helipads, how could I ;)
> What's wrong with using a property that defaults to 5, and that
> aircraft developers can set to whatever they feel like?
>
>
I guess nothing, that sounds goo
* Markus Zojer -- Friday 02 May 2008:
> Since the existing preset/offset seems not to be designed for that, I
> strongly suggest to follow syds proposal to change the value to -30 as
> it helps to solve the existing inconsistency.
Fiddling with constants that are better in some cases and
worse i
> The simplest solution would be to allow defining an offset that's
> by default 0, and let fgfs add that to the reference point for
> positioning.
>
> m.
Since the existing preset/offset seems not to be designed for that, I
strongly suggest to follow syds proposal to change the value to -30 as
* Syd -- Friday 02 May 2008:
> I see some commited from Melchior that suggest he might be working
> on a solution, just not sure what that is yet :)
Sorry, no. I'm not working on anything like that. Just fixed the
missing-unit-suffix bug. (Though the distance should really be
in meters internally,
* dene maxwell -- Monday 05 June 2006 23:34:
> And this is the question when I generally get flamed ;-] ..is the nasal
> script able to be used in 098a?
Yes. If not, then it's only the missing definition of props.copy().
You can safely copy that from the cvs version of $FG_ROOT/Nasal/props.n
And this is the question when I generally get flamed ;-] ..is the nasal
script able to be used in 098a?
:-D ene
>From: Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions
>
>To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re: [Flig
* dene maxwell -- Monday 05 June 2006 23:18:
[http://members.aon.at/mfranz/flightgear/ac_state.nas]
> Is this specified on a per airport basis ie if I park up at NZWN then
> next-time start at NZPP where will I be?
At NZWN, of course. How could the aircraft suddenly be at NZPP when
you left it i
Is this specified on a per airport basis ie if I park up at NZWN then
next-time start at NZPP where will I be?
And if you leave the lights on does the battery go flat? ;-)
:-D ene
>From: Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: FlightGear developers discussions
>
>To: flightgear-devel@li
18 matches
Mail list logo
