Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
> Sorry, I should have been more clear. My original comment was about > airliners and that's what I was still referring to. I fly the SenecaII > quite frequently and have indeed never had any problems with its AP. Ah - ok. I obviously missed you were mentioning airliners. Glad, that it's working for you. Thanks, Torsten -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
> I spent several hours in RL flights measuring the behaviour and timing > of the CENTURYIII and several days to implement the measured values in > it's digital counterpart in the SenecaII. > I am confident that the SenecaII has an autopilot capable handling all > published procedures including flying an ILS down to the minimum with a > close-to-reality experience. Sorry, I should have been more clear. My original comment was about airliners and that's what I was still referring to. I fly the SenecaII quite frequently and have indeed never had any problems with its AP. * Thorsten -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Am 06.07.2011 08:56, schrieb thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi: > I keep asking in the forum if anyone knows a plane that reliably > intercepts glideslope when under AP control - so far no one has been able > to come up with one. If someone here knows a plane, please let me know and > I give it a try. > I spent several hours in RL flights measuring the behaviour and timing of the CENTURYIII and several days to implement the measured values in it's digital counterpart in the SenecaII. I am confident that the SenecaII has an autopilot capable handling all published procedures including flying an ILS down to the minimum with a close-to-reality experience. As in real life, you have to follow the procedure closely or the logic will most likely try to kill you (that's a feature I have not yet tried in RL, though). Torsten -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
> Rest assured, the Concorde has its share of oddities :) > See the "known problems" part in the ReadmeConcorde-jbsim.txt. Yes, it sure does. But I guess I mean something slightly different. I have tried to fly AP-controlled IFR approaches in a number of planes (since I can do really good-looking bad weather now) - the Concorde has been the only plane that has ever tracked the localizer correctly and then intercepted the glideslope for me under full AP control and brought me right down to the runway (I haven't ever tried to let the AP touch down, but apparently the Concorde does that as well if the NAV info is correct). In other planes (I tried various...), the reactions of the AP system to my request for an IFR approach have been mixed. At best, I have managed to get a shared-work approach where the AP tracks the localizer and I follow the glideslope. At worst, the AP has tried to kill me by making a sharp turn somewhere else (at low altitudes close to stall speed, that's not funny!). I keep asking in the forum if anyone knows a plane that reliably intercepts glideslope when under AP control - so far no one has been able to come up with one. If someone here knows a plane, please let me know and I give it a try. In many planes, IFR flight is not fun at all - several planes have the nasty habit to reset frequency or radial from the value I entered in the menu, so I now always triple-check if radial and beacon appear correctly on the instruments, in the menu and on the moving map. Some AP's have the habit of changing the set altitude or speed to some value I didn't set. Often the systems seem confused if no flightplan is entered into the route manager, or are in an undefined state between route manager control, GPS control and nav beacon control. I don't know how others deal with it - in most planes, I nowadays not even try to use NAV mode but just use the heading bug to track the radial myself and then fly my approaches manually. Which is fine except when the weather is really bad and you don't have a visual on the runway for a long time - then the workload for me is just a bit high and I tend to miss the approach (I'm a glider pilot - I know IFR in theory, but I'm not overly attached to it, so I don't practice excessively...). Compared with sharing the cockpit with a potentially homicidal psychopath who sometimes doesn't pay attention and sometimes changes your plans to suit his own agenda, the oddities in the Concorde AP are definitely minor issues. Cheers, * Thorsten -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Hi, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 19:53 +0200, Durk Talsma wrote: > > Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in the > > base package of the next release (2.4.0). > > > > We currently have CRJ700-family? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Hi Torsten et al., As mentioned by others, I do believe that this is quite a nice selection. But, I think that we should consider our original intentions for rotating the aircraft selection. By changing the selection, we have a nice platform to showcase some of the recent development and highlight some recent development work that clearly stands out from the rest. Also, IIRC, we should try to find aircraft that provide a good, intuitive initial experience. As such, the selection should consist of overall high-quality aircraft, that are realistic, yet at the same time should be relatively easy to use (i.e., no requirement for reading lenghty manuals on engine startup, but having an auto-start feature, etc etc). With the above in mind, let me quickly comment on the current selection, and see if I can come up with some suggestions. On 03 Jul 2011, at 17:08, Torsten Dreyer wrote: > Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in the > base package of the next release (2.4.0). > > We currently have > - 777-200 As far as I can tell, the 777 is still the best in it's class. Compared to a couple of years ago, the Airliners category has changed considerably, however, and this year I would say that for the first time the 777 actually has serious competition (The ATR, CRJ, Airbus A320 family, and the entire Boeing 7?7 series to name but a few). After the most recent update, I believe that the 777 is still the best in it's class thought. > - A6M2 Possibly one candidate we could replace. I like the the A6M2, but I don't recall that it has seen much development recently. In terms of graphics, the IAR-80 (as mentioned by others) is just insane (and I mean this in a very positive affectionate way). I would consider replacing the A6M2 with the IAR-80, although I still need to check whether it would qualify as a beginners level aircraft. > - b1900d Still one of our better crafted aircraft. I currently don't have a suggestion for a replacement. > - bo105 This is an interesting case. As our original helicopter, it's famed for it's accurate FDM. But, considering how long the bo105 has been part of the standard fleet, and given that I've not seen much development for quite some time (correct me if I'm wrong), I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to replace it by another helicopter. The ec130, and ec135 have excellent graphical qualities. Swapping the bo105 with one of the eurocopters might result in trading in some accuracy for improved graphics, but my understanding it that the eurocopter FDM's are still very good and close to the originals. > - c172p No chance of replacing this unless somebody volunteers to rewrite the manual. > - CitationX A nice aircraft, and actually it's been one of my favorites for some time. But, compared to some other more recently developed aircraft, I'm beginning to find it a little unremarkable these days. I also find that it's class (small commuter jet) has considerable overlap with some other aircraft (airliner, twin prop). Maybe we can replace this with a historic aircraft. The Lockheed 1049H constellation by Gary Neely comes to mind, but I have to check whether I could find another candidate). > - Dragonfly A nice ultralight, but also one that hasn't undergone substantial changes in the last few years. Would the dromador be an interesting replacement candidate? > - dhc2 Nice rugged bushplance. Float and wheels version. Very complete and aerotowing compatible. Not sure whether there would be a replacement candidate that satisfies all these criteria. But, I'll have a look later. > - f-14b The MiG-15 comes to mind in terms of completeness, but I'm not sure whether it is carrier compatible. As far as I know, the f-14b is still our top jet fighter. > - Cub Very nice and recently very accurately remodelled aircraft. I would certainly vote to keep this. > - SenecaII One of the very few aircraft that has nearly every switch modelled and working like the reallife counterpart. I wonder who made modelled it so carefully. On the downside, the visual model hasn't been touched appreciately in the last few years. With regard to the latter, the Aerostar could be a candidate. > - sopwithCamel Still one of the best historic aircraft. Very detailed modeling. I can't say much about systems and FDM thought. > - ufo We need this as a gadget and as a modeling tool > - ZLT-NT Probably still the best in it's class. There's also a historic (1930's0 zeppelin (the Nordstern), which I personally like very much, but I don't think that model is as advanced of the of the ZLT-NT. > > Should we change this setup? > In addition to the list mentioned by Torsten, I do believe that we have a glider. IIRC, we included the Bocian in previous releases. I replacing the bocian as suggested in an earlier mail would be okay by me. Cheers, Durk --
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, wrote: > > The AP has some trouble following a VOR radial or intercepting a > glideslope, but then I don't really know any airliner (with the exception > of the Concorde) which doesn't have any oddity in the AP. Rest assured, the Concorde has its share of oddities :) See the "known problems" part in the ReadmeConcorde-jbsim.txt. -- Csaba/Jester -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
On Monday, July 04, 2011 13:16:33 TDO_Brandano - wrote: > If the scope is to show off the capabilities, I'd really consider the > IAR-80 too. > > Alessandro > I agree, the Mig-15b and IAR-80 are really well done and the ASK13 is the best glider imo. Adrian -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
If the scope is to show off the capabilities, I'd really consider the IAR-80 too. Alessandro > Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 12:50:57 +0300 > From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0 > > > We currently have > > - 777-200 > > I have been trying the CRJ700 lately, and I think this might be an option > for an airliner as well - the cockpit has a nice visual quality, it comes > with engine start procedure, the AP seems to be well-tuned and free of > oscillatory behaviour and the night lights in the cockpit are simply a > beauty. > > The AP has some trouble following a VOR radial or intercepting a > glideslope, but then I don't really know any airliner (with the exception > of the Concorde) which doesn't have any oddity in the AP. > > Just a thought... > > > > > - b1900d > > - CitationX > > In my opinion, these are fairly similar planes, and if we could have > something different and just use one of them, I'd prefer that. I'd go with > Vivian about a glider - the ASK-13 comes to my mind, while the FDM isn't > perfect at low speeds or in high bank turns, it gives a fair impression of > how the original is like, and otherwise (visuals, sounds, > instrumentation,...) it is rather well done. > > Or the MiG-15bis would be something - in my opinion, that's a really > well-done job (and it even comes with documentation...). > > > * Thorsten > > > -- > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
> We currently have > - 777-200 I have been trying the CRJ700 lately, and I think this might be an option for an airliner as well - the cockpit has a nice visual quality, it comes with engine start procedure, the AP seems to be well-tuned and free of oscillatory behaviour and the night lights in the cockpit are simply a beauty. The AP has some trouble following a VOR radial or intercepting a glideslope, but then I don't really know any airliner (with the exception of the Concorde) which doesn't have any oddity in the AP. Just a thought... > - b1900d > - CitationX In my opinion, these are fairly similar planes, and if we could have something different and just use one of them, I'd prefer that. I'd go with Vivian about a glider - the ASK-13 comes to my mind, while the FDM isn't perfect at low speeds or in high bank turns, it gives a fair impression of how the original is like, and otherwise (visuals, sounds, instrumentation,...) it is rather well done. Or the MiG-15bis would be something - in my opinion, that's a really well-done job (and it even comes with documentation...). * Thorsten -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Torsten Dreyer wrote: > Should we change this setup? I'm in favour of leaving the selection as-is - simply for the practical purpose of saving us from the usual flame war :-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Torsten > Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in > the > base package of the next release (2.4.0). > > We currently have > - 777-200 > - A6M2 > - b1900d > - bo105 > - c172p > - CitationX > - Dragonfly > - dhc2 > - f-14b > - Cub > - SenecaII > - sopwithCamel > - ufo > - ZLT-NT > It's as good a selection as any and I would go with this, but ISTR a "decision" in the context of the last, abortive, release to include only the default aircraft. If this is the case, I would be more than happy to go back to the principle of a small selection that shows off FG's capabilities. Perhaps we should add a glider? That seems an obvious omission. Vivian -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in the base package of the next release (2.4.0). We currently have - 777-200 - A6M2 - b1900d - bo105 - c172p - CitationX - Dragonfly - dhc2 - f-14b - Cub - SenecaII - sopwithCamel - ufo - ZLT-NT Should we change this setup? Torsten -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
