Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

> From: Stuart Buchanan [mailto:*.*.*] > > I agree with Jon on this - ideally we should be pro-active about > asking for permission, even if we don't like the answer. > > ... > > Jon - could you post the disclaimer text you eventually used? > > -Stuart With JSBSim, our situation is a little d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

I think that a key with all this is that none of the models will be sold for profit. You could argue that even if the models are on a cd that is sold for profit since they are also available freely that the models are not the source of the profit. Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

"Staying beneath the radar" might be effective but do you feel good about it? Is it the ethical thing to do? Unethical? Hoping that ignorance is bliss? Trying to ignore a perceived problem and wishing it would go away because it is too hard to do things the "right" way? OTOH even if a company

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] Jon: I respect your position, but I humbly ask then that you please post or send me your letters for usage permission from Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, Lockheed, Aérospatiale, BAC, deHavilland, McDonnell, Cessna, Fokker,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

From: Curtis Olson Hi Jon, I apologize for being persnickety here, but I am searching for clarity and consistency on this issue. Has the JSBSim project asked permission from all the aircraft manufacturers that you create and distr

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

> I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention > because I'm only going to say this once: > > 7. Do I have to ask permission of the motor manufacturer, the > professional > photographer, or you to make or to publish my work on the internet? > > A. No > B. Yes > > 8. I g

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing

I suspect that msfs and xplane have licensing agreements with trademark holders. It would of course be good to know this! Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T Vivian Meazza wrote: >Chris > >> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: >> > I'm going to set you all a si

[Flightgear-devel] Quiet

It's been quiet here. -- Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Improving the elevator modeling

> Hi, > >... > > The only parts lacking in the JSBSim as best as I can determine are some > numbers to define the elevator aero coefficents, hinge moments as a > function of tail alpha and deflection, and changes in the aspect ratio > of the wing as a function of flap deflections that will be used

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Improving the elevator modeling

Forwarded to the JSBSim-devel list. Jon On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM, wrote: >> Hi, >> >>... >> >> The only parts lacking in the JSBSim as best as I can determine are some >> numbers to define the elevator aero coefficents, hinge moments as a >> function of tail alpha and def

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Calculating free stick position and forces

> > Perhaps downwash and hinge force calculations should be the subject of a > > section in the xml aerodynamics file so that they can be tailored on a > > per-aircraft basis. > > > > Alan > > the xml files should be used to load the respective aircraft data for aero > coefficients, tail geometr

[Flightgear-devel] Building FlightGear with MSVC++ 10.0

I didn't find a project file for building FlightGear with MSVC++ Express 2010. Is there one yet? Jon -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. An

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Vostok-1

I thought I was going to post the first rocket but it looks like you beat me to it! :-) Cool! Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidat

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Vostok-1

What perfect timing for this model too, given the recent 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's first human spaceflight. Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T -- Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Vostok-1

Take a look at the J246 model in the JSBSim distribution or in our CVS browser. That's a hypothetical heavy launch vehicle flight model that is under (slow) development. Jon > -Original Message- > From: AJ MacLeod [mailto:aj-li...@adeptopensource.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 6:2

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Vostok-1

Good description by Durk. If you want to know more about ascent guidance and control, this is an interesting and more basic look at that: http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/06.html And this, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Newsletter - April 2011

Thanks for volunteering to take the time to put this together. Looks great! Jon I'll keep it short this time (as I got some FG work to do myself), so here's the link to the April edition of our monthly newsletter: http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Newsletter_April_2011 Contributio

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim turbulence models: revealing an almost hidden gem

Also, note that ttBerndt turbulence is an ongoing experiment, and I have not tried it in a long time - don't expect much from that. TtMilspec and ttTustin are similar and the most potentially capable, but these are also the newest models and could use some more testing, perhaps. Of course, ttNon

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim turbulence models: revealing an almost hidden gem

Credit the new JSBSim milspec/tustin turbulence model to some great work by Andreas Gaeb last September. Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T Torsten Dreyer wrote: >> Great! Thank you! I really like the turbulence model of JSBSim- feels much >> more realistic than the one from YAS

[Flightgear-devel] Atmosphere

What is the requirement from the FlightGear side for an atmosphere model? I'd like to remove the capability to drive the JSBSim standard atmosphere model from FlightGear, but first I'd like to get a clear picture of how FlightGear users interact with the atmosphere, if at all. Comments? Jon --

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmosphere

> What is the requirement from the FlightGear side for an atmosphere > model? > I'd like to remove the capability to drive the JSBSim standard > atmosphere > model from FlightGear, but first I'd like to get a clear picture of how > FlightGear users interact with the atmosphere, if at all. > > Comm

[Flightgear-devel] Atmosphere heads-up

There is a change coming to the JSBSim modeled atmosphere. A new standard atmosphere class is being completed that models the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1972) all the way up to 1000 km. FlightGear interacts with the FDM atmosphere in a predictable way, since the user may want to set conditions. Curr

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Could We Sync JSBSim for 2.3.0, Please?

> Does the new atmosphere code work well with FlightGear's atmosphere? > I remember we had some issues when fg and jsbsim were fighting for the > correct weather values. > > But you are right - there are some nice new features we should have in > 2.4.0. There will be four weeks starting tomorrow (

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Clarification on YASIM input (actionpt)

> From: syd adams [mailto:adams@gmail.com] > > Does jsbsim ? I've just begun to look into it , so I don't really know > jsbsim's capabilities. It's not automatic - not a natural effect calculated by JSBSim code itself. Like many things in JSBSim, the facilities are present to let the aircraft

[Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Functions for Propwash and Downwash [was: Clarification on YASim input]

Hal, Oops! Sorry I attributed code to you that came from somewhere else. :-) I now seem to recall experimenting with your model at that time - actually replacing the older one in JSBSim cvs with yours, then adding the estimated propwash effects. Hal wrote: These

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSIm, aeromatic, crosswind taxiiing, et cetera

> From: John Denker [mailto:j...@av8n.com] > > On 06/19/2011 06:46 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: > > > Maybe I've gone wrong somewhere here, but something similar might > work. > > Also, in situations like a flat spin or tail slide this probably > falls > >

[Flightgear-devel] JSBSim new atmosphere

I'm working on modifying the interface between JSBSim and FlightGear to work with the new JSBSim standard atmosphere model. There are two or three ways that the atmosphere model can be modified by the calling application: A temperature bias can be added to the entire temperature profile (from sea

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim new atmosphere

Torsten, Eventually, there will be a null atmosphere model that will allow flightgear to completely control the temperature pressure and density. There will also be several other atmosphere models available in future versions of JSBSim. I'd strongly recommend using the JSBSim atmosphere when f

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim new atmosphere

> The way I understand this, the issues are to some degree separate (?). > > I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that what Jon is largely talking about > is the altitude extrapolation of atmosphere conditions, i.e. given that I > specify pressure, temperature and dew point at sea level, how will t

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Data flow from controls to FDM

> -Original Message- > From: Alan Teeder [mailto:***] > > I have some questions regarding how data gets from the joystick, keypad etc > to the fdm. No doubt I will feel foolish when it is pointed out that it is > documented somewhere, but to date I have had to rely on experimentation and >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Turbulence in YASim vs. JSBSim

> Note that the JSBSim environment model is in the middle of a major > overhaul so I wouldn't make too much of it at this point. It would be > more interesting to see how it compares after the rewrite. > > Erik The architecture is, but it should not affect the environment modeling. Also, the new

[Flightgear-devel] More realistic videos

I've noticed sometimes that the videos produced by the flightgear community have some characteristics that make them seem unrealistic - not that they aren't still enjoyable to watch. I look for new ones regularly. I think they could be better, though. There are some things that could be done that

Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear

> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:] > > I think it's grossly unfair to mix these issues: Spaceflight requires > to essentially write a space simulator. One of my first statements in the > forum was: > > "Orbital flights opens a whole new can of worms besides the need for > different renderin

Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear

> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi > To provide the context: I wrote the above in response to pictures of Mars > (from Celestia) being posted and talk about Apollo missions, i.e. having > interplanetary missions in mind. (Jon actually knows that, because I > explained it later in the thread :-) ) - s

Re: [Flightgear-devel] turbine inlet temperature in the seneca (TIT)

> Tuomas, > > I can say for certain that YASim does not model TIT, and I believe > JSBsim doesn't either, though there seems to be a stub for TIT > modeling which may be where that property comes from. Someone please > correct me if I'm wrong about JSBsim and TIT. A developer may have > written cu

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Cessna 172p cockpit improvement

> 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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Earthview - Orbital terrain rendering in FG

> 2) The high altitude FDM problem: > > Our only spacecraft (Vostok) makes just 150 km altitude, apparently to > prevent it from running into a region where the FDM breaks down. This > isn't nearly high enough to see nice orbit scenes without pushing > gigabytes of textures at the problem. I have

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Running Nasal at simulation rate

> Concerning your original issue on implementing an autopilot: a much > better way to do it is to avoid Nasal for the actual autopilot > controller elements (numeric computation). Instead, use XML "autopilot" > rules for the filter, gain, damper, integrator elements: > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Au

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Gear transit times

Jack, Check out the attached message from the JSBSim developer list. Jon From: castle...@comcast.net [mailto:castle...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:52 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Gear transit times Hi, Is it possible

Re: [Flightgear-devel] X-Plane sued for patent infringement

I tried to post, but it appears my post went away. I noticed that one of the comments made a remark about X-plane aerodynamics. I think it might be time for a paper on that which we can use to inform people. Jon From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@flightgear.org] Sent: Sunday, Sept

[Flightgear-devel] FW:Using FlightGear to visualize JSBSim state

ly connected to socket for output ... send: Software caused connection abort send: Software caused connection abort send: Software caused connection abort ... FlightGear immediately core dumps. Any suggestions? Jon > -Original Message----- > From: Jon S. Berndt [mailto:jonsber..

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FW:Using FlightGear to visualize JSBSim state

I found that if I waited a little but longer so that FlightGear was completely started up, and used UDP instead of TCP that it worked. Great! > -Original Message- > From: Jon S. Berndt [mailto:jonsber...@comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 6:03 AM > To:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Quad-copters

If I'm not mistaken, there's already a quad copter flight modeled with JSBSim. Jon From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@flightgear.org] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:05 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Quad-copters Quick question: Do we have a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Quad-copters

Yeah, look here: http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/list?user=0bcj6vzj8r2k0 Jon From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@flightgear.org] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:05 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Quad-copters Quick question: Do we have

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Physics engine of Flightgear

There are two primary ones: - YASim - JSBSim See: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Flight_Dynamics_Model Jon From: kunai...@yahoo.co.jp [mailto:kunai...@yahoo.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:28 AM To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Flig

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fg Fuel System Changes

John, Yes, there were some changes. I’ll try to help out soon, but am limited on time at the moment. You might search the JSBSim mailing list for the “tank priority” terms. Briefly, as I recall, there is now a “priority” element, with priority “1” being the highest. I forget if “0” mean

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fg Fuel System Changes

in the code for conversion to volume, and there is no tracking of fuel density. FGPiston does provide a gal/hr output, and uses 6.0 lb/gal as the conversion factor. FlightGear manipulates the JSBSim tank quantities by converting gallons to pounds in JSBSim.cxx, using a conversion factor of 6.6 l

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FSWeekend 2012...

> ... is already over now, unfortunately. > > For those who couldn't attend but are interested in what it was like > (make sure to join next year!), here are some photos showing the event > and FlightGear booth: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/70866411@N05/sets/72157631926925511/detail > / > >

[Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

I'm running the latest FlightGear (64 bit v2.8.0.5, under Windows 7). I'm driving it from an external instance of JSBSim, and it's working very well except that no terrain is loaded. I can see what looks like a planet below me that is covered in fog. Altitude ranges from about 40kft to 200kft, and

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

Another thing: the Moon descends through the fog and is still visible - there doesn't seem to be any terrain that gets in the way and occludes it. Even when I am right on top of where the runway should be, there is nothing except blue "water". Jon > -Original Message-

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

starting FlightGear. Jon > -Original Message- > From: Jon S. Berndt [mailto:jonsber...@comcast.net] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:59 PM > To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded > > Another th

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

> When the HUD no longer works, make sure you haven't deleted anything in > FGDATA - like the fonts. You don't need to define the path to the base > scenery (within fgdata). If you downloaded additional scenery, in one > or multiple separate directories, you can separate the paths with ":" > (works

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

ernal --airport=KCHS Cannot find Nasal script './data/Nasal/local_weather ... ... Nasal runtime error: non-objects have no members ... Jon > -Original Message----- > From: Jon S. Berndt [mailto:jonsber...@comcast.net] > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:33 AM > To: 'Flight

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

> Am 11.11.2012 17:39, schrieb Jon S. Berndt: > > Also, if I specify only the custom scenery path - as in the command > > line below - I get the errors that follow. Don't know if those are > > revealing or unexpected ... > > > > bin/Win64/fgfs.exe -

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

Well, I've tried all sorts of combinations of pathnames, using different path name specification forms (windows, linux, etc.) and I can get FlightGear to run using several of the forms - and to load the scenery I desire, as well - I cannot get both the custom scenery and the HUD symbology to work a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery not being loaded

> Well, I've tried all sorts of combinations of pathnames, using > different path name specification forms (windows, linux, etc.) and I > can get FlightGear to run using several of the forms - and to load the > scenery I desire, as well - I cannot get both the custom scenery and > the HUD symbology

Re: [Flightgear-devel] (JSBsim) body accelerations

> hi, my two cents, as someone interested in better formation flight. > > First, about using FGAccelerations::GetUVWdot as acceleration, i'm not > sure you will have what you want. i'm trying to do (slowly) something > about the lag ( http://wiki.flightgear.org/Mp-patch ), and i tried to > use UVW

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Synch with FlightGear

> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Torsten Dreye wrote: > > Hi JSBSim and FlightGear lists, > > > > should we sync the latest JSBSim code into FlightGear for the next > > release, scheduled for February this year? > > My vote is not to sync at this point. > > I'd consider a JSBSim sync to be simi

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Synch with FlightGear

> Yes, i had hoped, too. However, as you mentioned, many new features > have been developed and that violates our feature freeze rule, > unfortunately. > That rule has been introduced for exactly this situation: not to raise > some last minute issues (to avoid "bugs" here). > > Sorry - but as we i

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Synch with FlightGear

> > > Sorry - but as we improve our plan with every release, this most > > > likely will not happen again ;-) > > > > > > Torsten > > > > When was the last time that JSBSim was synched with FlightGear? > > > > Jon > > We synced about six months ago just before the last release of FGFS. Outerra wi

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Jsbsim-devel] about fdm properties

I agree that - at least - we should mention it in the documentation. We could hypothetically also accept data in any of the supported frames. Unfortunately, a lot of the data present in technical reports (NACA/NASA/AIAA) that I have seen is ambiguous as to frame for the rotational coefficients.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Synch with FlightGear

tGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Synch with FlightGear On 14 Jan 2013, at 02:57, Jon S. Berndt wrote: When's the next released scheduled after the upcoming one? http://wiki.flightgear.org/Release_plan So, 7 months from now. Whil

Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Synch with FlightGear

> Ok, I have pushed the current JSBSim/CVS version to FlightGear git. > > Please check for and report breakages. In case of aircraft breakages > compare aircraft behaviour before and after the JSBSim update, if > possible, to determine if the breakage is new or not. > > Cheers, > > Anders That'

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Turbulence should affect YaSim and JSBSim the same way

> ..my oversimplification: http://wiki.flightgear.org/YASim "guesses how > it flies from how it looks", while http://wiki.flightgear.org/JSBSim > "knows how it flies and tries to show us how that looks", e.g. "stalls > are assymetrical in YASim but (still?) symmetrical in JSBSim." > > ..if I guess

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Positioning Aircraft: accuracy

> It seems that we have a problem with the FG/JSBSim-interface or it's a > rounding error during JSBSim-initialisation?! > > Summarizing my observations: > - immediately after FG is started the property browser shows the > correct values > - this values hold true as long as the splash-screen appea

Re: [Flightgear-devel] making sign of side-slip consistent between fdm (bug 901)

As in this image: http://dodlithr.blogspot.com/2011/09/airplanes-stability-axis.html Beta is positive when the wind hits the right side of the vehicle. This is the only standard convention I have ever seen. I would recommend strongly against artificially changing the sign of this parameter as out

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 32, Issue 24

> 3) I find that either the torque or P-factor (or both) modeling for > this emulation is unrealistic. When climbing at 75 knots with the Turn > Coordinator (TC) ball centered, the aircraft must be banked to the right > in order to maintain heading. This is unrealistic, and I recall that I > had pr

[Flightgear-devel] JSBSim Propulsion Work

I want to thank Ron, John, and all of you that are discussing the propulsion / flight modeling problems for the C172P and moving that forward. I'm trying to find time to keep up with the discussion. I think that refining the piston model is a good first task in the job of improving the piston-power

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Grr... I am so angry

> What finally broke this camel's back was the thread about release > schedules, but it goes further than that. The idea of release schedules for an open source project struck me as odd, as well. Jon -- ___

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [FlightGear-devel] amazing FDM initialization bug

John Denker wrote: > I've always thought the 200-ft business was a weird optimization, > especially since other properties such as gear-extension-norm > are recomputed at frame rate at all altitudes. And that is > the solution for retractable-gear airplanes: forget about wow > and just look at g

Re: [Flightgear-devel] X-15 update

Sounds good. However, on the topic of the rockets (and if you are referring to the existing JSBSim X-15 FDM), I just reworked the rocket engine code shortly ago. Don't use the external_forces section for rocket control. I've got tons of information on the X-15, some of which was gained using FOI

Re: [Flightgear-devel] a few more bugs

> In the code FuelFlow_gph is the canonical property, FuelFlow_pph is > only > calculated when we actually consume fuel. Slamming the mixture to 0 at > a high fuel flow rate causes consumption to stop leaving the > FuelFlow_pph value unable to update and stuck indicating a high value. > > If you'

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Jsbsim-devel] X-15 issue identified

> There was an issue some time ago when we had control-fdm-atmosphere set > to false by default. I don't know if this has been resolved by now. > Here is the thread from 2007: > http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear- > devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg13065.html > > Torsten It's an interesting q

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Jsbsim-devel] X-15 issue identified

> Also note that the FlightGear model, whether or not extended > in height, is a one-parameter model which (to put it politely) > does not adhere to the laws of physics. It puts out wrong > answers whenever the temperature differs significantly from > ISA standard day. JSBSim has, for a long time

[Flightgear-devel] The [Re-]Initialization Process in FlightGear: A Specification Proposal

In order for the FDMs to consistently and completely handle a reset request from FlightGear, there ought to be a specification that describes what is supposed to happen. Here's a first cut at what a specification for the reset function might say: 1) There MUST be separate functions to a) initial

Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching miracle ... or not

> Hi Folks -- > > I suppose you've heard about the Airbus A320 that ditched > in the Hudson river, in the shadow of downtown Manhattan, on > Thursday. As crashes go, it must be considered a success, > since there were no fatalities and almost no serious > injuries. > > Around here it has receive

Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching miracle ... or not

> All these crews are lucky, if you want to call it that. > They're lucky because there's a lot of crashworthiness > and even ditchworthiness built into the airframe, and > because the crews train like crazy, far in excess of > the already-strict FAA requirements. Yes, the entire flight crew was

Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching miracle ... or not

Jon wrote: > > With that said, I'd be careful about claiming "ditchworthiness". > John Denker replied: > It *is* something they design for. It's required by the FARs. In words, sure. In designing for efficiency, revenue, robustness, etc. and "ditchworthiness", I don't believe you can design fo

Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching miracle ... or not

> The above applies to everybody. There are additional requirements > if you want to be certified for extended overwater flight. > > And no, I'm not making that up, either. You you can read for > yourself at e.g. > > http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySect > Look

Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching miracle ... or not

Thanks. I do remember seeing the in-cabin movies of the unhappy dummies that were part of the study. JB From: Lee Duke [mailto:d...@rainmountainsystems.com] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:54 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Could not open file: Segmentation fault;

an alternative a/p if desired, but ignored if not referenced. Jon Jon S. Berndt Development Coordinator JSBSim Project www.JSBSim.org -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceFo

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Could not open file: Segmentation fault;

> Synchronizing FlightGear and JSBSim is already difficult enough without > the need to search each file for these kinds of things. Would it be an > idea to ignore these tags when running within FlightGear instead? > > Erik That would be one way to do it. I'm trying to come up with a better solut

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Could not open file: Segmentation fault;

> That would be one way to do it. I'm trying to come up with a better > solution. The problem is that then there may be properties that are > referenced which are not defined and you'd get unexpected behavior. > > Jon Another possible solution would be to create a C310x configuration that is not

[Flightgear-devel] Licensing and disclaimers for aircraft models

> Ah sorry, that slipped my attention, you are right. > I'll ask Jon about it. > > Erik We should discuss this, then, because the impacts may be more far reaching. I asked the Boeing licensing people some time ago about our flight models. They were OK with us creating models, but were not OK wi

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Licensing and disclaimers for aircraft models

> We may go on to keep our model and our code protected under GPL > license. > > Only an information regarding the copyright for such private Name: > Boeing..Lockheed.. and so on could be necessary. > > These addons won't be a restriction only an information. > > Cheers To be absolutely clea

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Licensing and disclaimers for aircraft models

> > However, if a situation > > arises in which the aircraft models are to be sold for a profit, > > please contact us to discuss implementation of a Trademark License > > Agreement for the sale of consumer products. > > ..no F-g way, they add a restriction beyond the GPL, > toss out all Boeing mo

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Licensing and disclaimers for aircraft models

> Or, as has been suggested before, do actually remove all occurrences > of the name Boeing and use a substitute: > > Bingo737 > > m. Boing 314? :-) Actually, David Slocombe had a good suggestion earlier. I'll formulate a letter to the Software Freedom Law Center and ask them for guidance.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Licensing and disclaimers for aircraft models

> From: Tim Moore [mailto:timo...@redhat.com] > Doubtful. > > We can't say that "all the models in the repository are covered by the GPL" and > have models in there that are not. This is a terrible trap for anyone wanting to > use FlightGear in any professional setting. > > We should consider wh

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Microsoft Shuts Down 'Flight Simulator' Game Studio

GWMobile wrote: > I just want to thank everyone here for the time and passion they've > poured into Flight Sim for so many years, and to let you all know that > every person at ACES is in awe of how much the community cares about > what we build." > > It seems unlikely that Flight Simulator wil

Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.9.1

> Given that we are taking this route now, FlightGear CVS is, I guess, cleared > again for major and somewhat more risky commits (JSBSim sync, etc etc). > > Cheers, > Durk I would hope that synching JSBSim would be seamless by now. Of course, it doesn't usually work like that. :-) Jon ---

Re: [Flightgear-devel] engine reconfiguration?

> From: Martin Spott [mailto:martin.sp...@mgras.net] > > Overall, I think some day "the crowd" should start making up their mind > about wether relying on an externally maintained FDM is still the way > to go. Developing a copy of the FDM _in_ FlightGear might return a much > higher benefit at red

Re: [Flightgear-devel] engine reconfiguration?

> From: LeeE [mailto:l...@spatial.plus.com] > How difficult would it be to make available multiple versions of > FDM, which could then be specified in the aircraft configuration? > The appropriate FDM (UIUC/JSBSim/YASim/Balloon) has to be loaded > after the aircraft config has been read, so why c

Re: [Flightgear-devel] initfile.xml file created with jsbsim aircraft

There is a fix for this in JSBSim CVS. It should not be getting called in FlightGear. It is used in the standalone version of JSBSim to generate a "reset" file at a particular time, so that the aircraft can start at that point in the same (roughly) state, later on in another run. Jon > -Orig

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug (+ ugly "fix")

> Yeah, why not JSBSim? Would be a fine alternative :-) > > Well, I noticed today that putting all ballast at one spot helps a lot. > Means: all ballast used has the same coordinates. I did try this on the > ec135 and ec130 and it seems to work good. But it don't work on the > bo105 due to the nam

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug (+ ugly "fix")

> Hi Melchior... and Andy > > I don't know about helos, but preventing an aicraft to slip on the > carrier > is *a real PITA*. The way to fix this leads to unrealistic smooth gear > struts, > not to talk about the time consumed. > Well it may not be a bug in YASim, but actually it's a real unfrien

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug (+ ugly "fix")

> In JSBSim we got around it differently by filtering the gear forces (and > other parameters) at the frame rate, which significantly reduces the jitter, > and by also attenuating gear forces (correctly) at low velocity. This > requires some tuning on a per-aircraft basis, but when given the proper

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug (+ ugly "fix")

> * Jon S. Berndt -- Tuesday 03 February 2009: > > It's a tough problem, [...[ > > Maybe we should hire a rocket scientist? :-] > > m. With our *huge* budget? :-) JB -- Create and Deploy

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug (+ ugly "fix")

> some time ago I dug into this problem and tried to fix it. My idea was, > to check, if the movement is smaller than a very small number > "epsilon", > and if yes, set the movement to zero. The movement need to be measured > against the ground, which could be the carrier. This should fix the > sli

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug

> Well, just very few years ago 'we' (TM) had a patch in our budget that > would have allowed JSBSim to do excellent simulation of a tire's > contact area. Some of us have seen with their own eyes that the guy > (the submitter of the respective patch) obviously knows about how to > properly deal wi

Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim & sliding helicopters bug

> To put it a bit provoking (no personal offense intended!) for the sake > of getting the status right, this looks to me that we're never going to > have this feature of proper tire/ground reaction simulation in > FlightGear simply because the involved folks prefer to play around with > smaller,

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >