Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> After my opinion, this increases reality fealing a lot - not only for a
> rotary wing but also for coordinated flight, sidewind, slipping in a
> fixed wing plane. (As they say, a Cessna pilot has to give up his lazy
> pedal manners when coming back to an UL-plane)
Wel
Maik Justus schrieb:
>
> Thank you very much. I bought an USB-gameport adapter, configured
> flightgear as you described, and everything work fine.
>
> Maik
>
>
>
Nice to hear, Maik!
After my opinion, this increases reality fealing a lot - not only for a
rotary wing but also for coordinated
Hi Georg,
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> Maik Justus schrieb:
>
>> Hi Georg,
>> Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If your notebook has got 2 USB ports you might use an USB gameport
>>> adaptor for the pedals like the one sold by Conrad Electronics for about
>>> 15 EUR.
>>>
>> Yes it h
Maik Justus schrieb:
> Hi Georg,
> Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>
>> If your notebook has got 2 USB ports you might use an USB gameport
>> adaptor for the pedals like the one sold by Conrad Electronics for about
>> 15 EUR.
>>
>>
> Yes it has. Do you know, if flightgear supports two joysticks
Maik Justus wrote:
> I think, the most important thing is a joystick without springs. Maybe
> some friction would help as well. It must not be an expensive one. My
I agree. I cut down the centering spring on my Cyborg-3D and it feels
much nicer now.
Josh
--
* Maik Justus -- Friday 11 August 2006 21:37:
> Do you know, if flightgear supports two joysticks at one time?
Up to 2 on Windows, and up to 10 everywhere else. But this is
a FlightGear definition -- I'm not sure if plib can't do more now.
#ifdef WIN32
MAX_JOYSTICKS = 2,
#else
MAX_JOY
Hi Georg,
Georg Vollnhals wrote:
> If your notebook has got 2 USB ports you might use an USB gameport
> adaptor for the pedals like the one sold by Conrad Electronics for about
> 15 EUR.
>
Yes it has. Do you know, if flightgear supports two joysticks at one time?
Maik
--
Hi,
Martin Spott schrieb:
> Andy Ross wrote:
>
>
>> real helicopters are flown (well, hovered at least) with very small
>> control motions [...]
>>
>
> Absolutely. In fact, flying an aircraft with fixed wings doesn't make
> significant difference in these terms - the fixed-wing aircraft is
Martin Spott schrieb:
Hi,
> When dreams come true [...].
> The last helicopter with reasonable sink rate was my model heli I had
> at school time. It had a _very_ reasonable sink rate for a
> helicopter, where the engine stops turning due to - as I guess - snow in
> the carburator ;-)
> I've
Maik Justus schrieb:
>
> I have good pedals, but I don't use them since 3 years, because my
> notebook has no gameport. I am using a sidewinder, its "pedals" are not
> very accurate, but it's ok.
>
> Maik
>
>
If your notebook has got 2 USB ports you might use an USB gameport
adaptor for the p
Hi,
Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Well...h I'm thinking about if this is the
> right way.
>
>
I think, the most important thing is a joystick without springs. Maybe
some friction would help as well. It must not be an expensive one. My
aim is a Flight model, which is as realistic as p
Hi,
Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> Well, you need a good card and a high RAM - no low
> cost.
>
Hm, I am using a 3 year old notebook and have a framerate of about 30
frames/s at 1280x1024, with all details on (I think). I don't think,
that you need a very expensive card.
> And, Justus said it before:
Hi,
Melchior FRANZ schrieb:
> * Maik Justus -- Thursday 10 August 2006 21:51:
> * > Heiko Schulz schrieb:
>
>>> Is the new flightmodel more precise to fly?
>>>
>> Depends on the definition of "precise". It is more real, but it is not
>> easier to fly precise.
>>
>
> Not easier, bu
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> [...] Because
> of the faster sink rate, it's IMHO easier to land precisely -- you
> don't have to fly in circles just to come down.
When dreams come true [...].
The last helicopter with reasonable sink rate was my model heli I had
at school time. It had a _very_ reasonabl
Andy Ross wrote:
> real helicopters are flown (well, hovered at least) with very small
> control motions [...]
Absolutely. In fact, flying an aircraft with fixed wings doesn't make
significant difference in these terms - the fixed-wing aircraft is just
a bit more forgiving if you make mistakes wh
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Yes, and quote:"
> > The only relation that I can think of is when frame rates drop soo low
> > that you update the controls more often than you see a new frame
> > but in this case controlling _every_ aircraft becomes difficult ;-)"
> Well, you need a good card and a
Hi,
sounds great!
O.k. not harder sounds so good like nothing else!
Greetings
HHS
--- Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Maik Justus -- Thursday 10 August 2006 21:51:
> * > Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> > > Is the new flightmodel more precise to fly?
> > Depends on the definition of "
Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> You have a point there. Perhaps one could augment the Bo 105 with an
> optional supporting autopilot/regulator for the tail rotor (regardless of
> whether the real thing has such a thing or not, and sort of like the
> auto-coordination option for fixed wing aircraft), [
On Friday 11 August 2006 17:17, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Well, you need a good card and a high RAM - no low
> cost.
You need a _reasonable_ card and _reasonable_ amount of RAM. We're not
talking supercomputers here...
> And, Justus said it before: a good stick and pedals...
> And they aren't cheap
* Maik Justus -- Thursday 10 August 2006 21:51:
* > Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> > Is the new flightmodel more precise to fly?
> Depends on the definition of "precise". It is more real, but it is not
> easier to fly precise.
Not easier, but IMHO not harder either. The first patch releases made
it *a
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> It should be possible learning to fly a realistic
> flightmodel of a helicopter with the mouse.
>
Well it is already. When I first tried the bo105 it was on my notebook
with mouse and keyboard. It ain't easy, but it's certainly possible.
Of course it's much more fun on
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> It should be possible learning to fly a realistic flightmodel of a
> helicopter with the mouse.
If that were true, wouldn't helicopters have, y'know, mice?
Sorry, but there is a natural tension between "realism" and "ease of
use". For the case of helicopters specifically, i
Hi,
Yes, and quote:"> The only relation that I can think
of is when frame
> rates drop soo low
> that you update the controls more often than you see
> a new frame
> but in this case controlling _every_ aircraft
> becomes difficult ;-)"
Well, you need a good card and a high RAM - no low
co
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> By the way: the advantages of helicopters is to land
> on small faces - you need training but in the real
> world are thousends of pilots who are doing this every
> day, hours for hours.
>
> I think it should be possible for users to do this
> without expensive hardware or i
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well...h I'm thinking about if this is the
> right way.
>
> More realism is good, very good. But too much realism,
> so that you can't fly without very expensive hardware,
> is probably damaging the "Project Flightgear"
>
> It's now really
Hi,
Well...h I'm thinking about if this is the
right way.
More realism is good, very good. But too much realism,
so that you can't fly without very expensive hardware,
is probably damaging the "Project Flightgear"
It's now really hard to fly the Bo 105 and that's
something which new user
Hi,
Heiko Schulz schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> O.k. I understand now slowly...
>
> Is the new flightmodel more precise to fly?
Depends on the definition of "precise". It is more real, but it is not
easier to fly precise. Just a question of training and hardware. Using
pedals and a very good Stick should he
Hi,
O.k. I understand now slowly...
Is the new flightmodel more precise to fly? Still with
some training its too difficult to fly - a precise
landing is a real lucky thing!
Thanx
Greetings
HHS
--- Maik Justus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi Heiko
> Heiko Schulz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are yo
Hi Heiko
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are you sure?
>
> If I'm flying, the fuselage rotate in the same
> direction like the rotor. I have to push the right
> virtuel pedal in the Bo 105, but in the real world it
> has to be the left.
>
> If I'm not doing anything, the fuslage is turning with
> r
Hi,
Are you sure?
If I'm flying, the fuselage rotate in the same
direction like the rotor. I have to push the right
virtuel pedal in the Bo 105, but in the real world it
has to be the left.
If I'm not doing anything, the fuslage is turning with
rotor - that it shoulden't be!
Greetings
HHS
Hi
* Heiko Schulz -- Thursday 10 August 2006 18:28:
> The rotor on the Bo 105 is rotating anti-clockwise -
> so the fuselage has to rotate clockwise. Right?
Yes. And that's what it does. Just comment out the tail rotor
in $FG_ROOT/Aircraft/bo105/bo105.xml and see.
> But why is the Bo 105 rotating
Hi,
I have a question, maybe a very stupid one:
The rotor on the Bo 105 is rotating anti-clockwise -
so the fuselage has to rotate clockwise. Right?
But why is the Bo 105 rotating in the same direction
the rotor is rotating?
A bug? Or is there anything which I didn't understand?
Greetings
HHS
32 matches
Mail list logo
