... is out. Including support for menu driven python import/export scripts.
Just, for those who are curious.
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias Frhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I'm looking for good resources on flight simulations. For the
aerodynamics and flight dynamics it seems that Stevens, Aircraft Control
and Simulation, is (one of) the standard references. Things which
Stevens does not cover but which I need also are the modeling of:
- landing
Thankyou all,
I passed btw :-)
All the best,
Matt
On 17:07 Tue 03 Feb , David Luff wrote:
Good Luck!
(Although you probably should have set off by the time this hits your inbox
given the traffic in the UK these days!)
Cheers - Dave
___
Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
... I'm excited that there's more 3d cockpit work going
on these days.
What are the pros and cons of 3D and 2D instruments? I used them because
A. They seem to make the aircraft more pleasant and easier to fly. (Probably
my
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
We just need another calculation
in the update_helper for the /orientation/heading-magnetic-deg value.
Yes, I looked through update_helper, and the other error calculations are
compatable with inertial systems, so only the heading source need be
Roy Vegard Ovesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:10:07 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy Vegard Ovesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The obvious thing you missed is the fact that newauto.cxx is no longer
used, it has been removed from the makefile. So many of the
On 2/3/04 at 11:33 PM Matthew Law wrote:
I checked out the traffic at KEMT last weekend. Good job, Dave!
Thanks!
I went for a ride toward the mountains and came back a while later. It
was just like a busy Sunday at EGNF - I couldn't squeeze into the circuit
anywhere. In real life you
Jim Wilson wrote:
That sounds like it might be the right way to do it. Is it better to use a
general flag like that or to have one that is specific to indicated heading as
in the old autopilot code?
Does this work for the designers (Curt et al), using configuration properties
to manipulate the
- Original Message -
From: David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Voice Capability
On 2/3/04 at 3:13 PM Jon Stockill wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, David Luff wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:39:16 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerhard Wesp) wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for good resources on flight simulations. For the
aerodynamics and flight dynamics it seems that Stevens, Aircraft
Control and Simulation, is (one of) the standard references. Things which
Stevens
On 2/3/04 at 10:37 PM John Wojnaroski wrote:
Have you considerd the possibility of adding synthetic voice? If it's
just
too much for FG to handle send the text to a second machine and let it do
the conversion to sound. The quality may be less than ideal, but quick and
it's WYTIWYH...
I have,
Hi Dave,
thanks for the info - I'll mess with the density and see what that yields. Do the AI
aircraft appear at small UK airfields?
I was planning on doing a basic collision detection between the AI aircraft and the
user aircraft. Initially not between AI planes until you were finished
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
That sounds like it might be the right way to do it. Is it better to use a
general flag like that or to have one that is specific to indicated heading as
in the old autopilot code?
Does this work for the designers (Curt et
Jim Wilson wrote:
It is indeed! Is the altitude hold working for you? I'm finding that the
first stage is outputing values that ocilate from max to min and back in
probably 5 or 6 (not timed yet) cycles. Anyway, I haven't looked at the code
or adjusted any of the parameters yet. I just wanted
Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
That sounds like it might be the right way to do it. Is it better to use a
general flag like that or to have one that is specific to indicated heading as
in the old autopilot code?
Does this work for the designers
I have, yes, to the extent of downloading, compiling, and generally having
a play with Festival. I wasn't that impressed with the output to be quite
honest, and recorded and edited the ATIS voice shortly afterwards. I've
started writing the instructions for creating a new voice, and I'm
On Monday 02 February 2004 18:22, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I've been amusing myself for the last couple of months creating a 3d
model of the Hawker Hunter. It's as accurate as I can make it, with a few
minor fudges for YASIM. Some views are at:
Hi,
I am currently in the process of implementing the Bendix/King KAP 140
autopilot. This is a rate based autopilot, it uses the turn rate and rate
of climb as its primary inputs. The turn indicator instrument implements a
low-pass filter so that the indicated turn rate output from this
Yes, that leaves the options open. May I suggest this then? (I'm trying
to get the 747 a/p together :-))
Beat me to it :) Here are two other calculations you'll need, vertical speed
error and mach error.
// Calculate vertical speed error
static SGPropertyNode *target_vert_speed
Somehow I need to incorporate distance (from the transmitter) into the the
nav1 heading control, or find another way to solve the same problem. As you
get closer to the target, the cone gets narrower, but more important is that
the size of adjustments to correct for a give angle error become
One idea I had was to base the error not on an angle from the radial but on
the distance from the center of the cone. The required response to correct
this value would be consistant all the way down the cone.
I agree, cross-track error is the way to go.
cross_track_error =
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:28:39 -0600, David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Beat me to it :) Here are two other calculations you'll need, vertical
speed
error and mach error.
// Calculate vertical speed error
static SGPropertyNode *target_vert_speed
= fgGetNode(
I think this is taking it one step too far. We don't need to calculate
vertical speed error, that is done inside the controller (when you use
/velocities/vertical-speed-fps ans input and
/autopilot/settings/vert-speed-fps as reference).
I see. Thanks.
Dave
--
Hi everybody,
I'm having the following problem getting SimGear compiled on a Windows XP
system, using cygwin:
Compilation halts in simgear/scene/sky/clouds3d with a ton of errors about
OpenGL functions being redefined elsewhere (see error msgs below). I'm using
gcc 3.3.1 (cygming special),
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 02:23, Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For everyone: I've integrated this into a larger document which attempts
to explain the basic ideas behind control theory and then describes the
specific PID algorithm we have implimented for
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 22:01:55 +0100, Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm having the following problem getting SimGear compiled on a Windows XP
system, using cygwin:
Compilation halts in simgear/scene/sky/clouds3d with a ton of errors
about
OpenGL functions being redefined
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
1) Increase the responsiveness of the turn indicator. I'm not a pilot
and I've never seen a turn indicator in action so I don't know how
resposive these instruments are, so maybe increasing the responsiveness
isn't a good idea.
Originally, the TC responded instantly --
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 02:23, Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For everyone: I've integrated this into a larger document which attempts
to explain the basic ideas behind control theory and then describes the
specific
From: Roy Vegard Ovesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am currently in the process of implementing the Bendix/King KAP 140
autopilot. This is a rate based autopilot, it uses the turn rate and rate
of climb as its primary inputs. The turn indicator instrument implements a
low-pass filter so that the
Matthew Law wrote:
Thanks! - it was my practical. I got 97% in the written :-D
Ironically, I almost failed for not requesting SVFR before the required 15 miles/5 mins to the zone boundary. Which was the subject of the original comment!
So you have your PPL, then? If so, then double congrats
On 2/4/04 at 4:40 PM Matthew Law wrote:
Hi Dave,
thanks for the info - I'll mess with the density and see what that yields.
Do the AI aircraft appear at small UK airfields?
They appear at anything with a tower listed in the DAFIF (which is pretty
comprehensive re. the UK I think). So
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:39:23 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curt fixed that today. It even works pretty well with the 747. With
the one
he commited, the gain is higher than what you have (Kp=1.0), a little
longer
intergration period (Ti=25.0) and the derivator is way down to almost
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:48:00 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
!-- Altitude hold. 2 stage cascade controller. --
!-- Stage #1 sets target rate of climb based on diff between current
alt
--
!-- and target altitude. --
pid-controller
nameAltitude Hold (Altimeter based)
I just got back from taking my Commercial Pilot, Airplane Multiengine
Land checkride, and I am happy to say that I passed! Doing a single
engine ILS down to minimums is lots of fun! I took the test in a Piper
Aztec (PA23-250).
The hardest part of the checkride was trying to get the aircraft
Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:39:23 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curt fixed that today. It even works pretty well with the 747. With
the one
he commited, the gain is higher than what you have (Kp=1.0), a little
longer
intergration period
Roy Vegard Ovesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:37:49 -0500, David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
1) Increase the responsiveness of the turn indicator. I'm not a pilot
and I've never seen a turn indicator in action so I don't know how
Aaah yes, looks like that does the trick...
I temporarily renamed the entire X11R6 directory, so ./configure wouldn't
recognize it, then reran ./autogen, etc etc. and the SimGear compilation
finished without a hitch. I'd like to keep X11 around to use for work-related
stuff, but if it's in
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:48:37 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Roy Vegard Ovesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am currently in the process of implementing the Bendix/King KAP 140
autopilot. This is a rate based autopilot, it uses the turn rate and
rate
of climb as its primary inputs.
Hello folks,
I have been interested in working on a multiplayer server for
FlightGear. Apparently there is a huge amount of interest in such
a thing, but I haven't found anything functional yet. I did a little
bit of research on what is out there. here's a summary of what I
found, let me
Hello Curt,
I've been trying to customise the AP pitch hold controller so that I can use
it for take-offs - helps a lot with consistancy when I'm working on the fdms.
I've got something working for the TSR2 but it starts oscillating at around
210kias. I can also tune it so that it doesn't
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 21:39, Jim Wilson wrote:
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 02:23, Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For everyone: I've integrated this into a larger document which
attempts to explain the basic ideas
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 21:52, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:48:00 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
!-- Altitude hold. 2 stage cascade controller. --
!-- Stage #1 sets target rate of climb based on diff between current
alt
--
!-- and target
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 22:03, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:44:15 -0600, Jon S Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if a PID controller is only marginally better than a PI
controller. What if you remove the D control altogether?
That would crash the
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 17:40, Matthew Law wrote:
The simplest, very crude way I imagine
would be to calculate a bounding box around each model and look for overlap
of two or more boxes each frame.
I don't like such a solution Microsoft uses such thing in their MS Flight
Simulator and
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
So I shouldn't touch the responsiveness then?!. But rather add a new
property with better responsiveness.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the responsiveness should be better?
I've flown briefly behind two small-plane autopilots (one newer, one
older) and they
Ryan Larson wrote:
I just got back from taking my Commercial Pilot, Airplane Multiengine
Land checkride, and I am happy to say that I passed! Doing a single
engine ILS down to minimums is lots of fun! I took the test in a Piper
Aztec (PA23-250).
Congrats!
On a related note, I'd like to
Matthew Law wrote:
I was planning on doing a basic collision detection between the AI
aircraft and the user aircraft. Initially not between AI planes until
you were finished working on them, hopefully to prevent it causing you
problems :-)
[...]
What are people's thoughts on this? Do we
Jim Wilson wrote:
Hmmm...does the KAP140 run right off the gyro? And is the lag in the
realworld turn coordinator by design for smoother indication?
I remember reading that it was, but I no longer remember the source. It
might have been an article about gyros on AvWeb (but then again, it might
Here's a screenshot of an autoland with the new XML Autopilot:
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/737-autoland.jpg
I took the picture at about 300 feet to get a nice shot prior to the fireball,
but it surprised me by making a nice landing. Some notes on the autopilot
and airplane:
1) I had
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Originally, the TC responded instantly -- I had to do a fair bit of
work adding the slight lag to make it work like a real TC. The lag
smooths out the indication a bit.
So I shouldn't touch the responsiveness then?!. But rather add a new
On a related note, I'd like to figure out how to make FlightGear more
useful
for ME practice -- I don't think either of the main FDM's does a very good
job on single-engine, but I don't have any real experience to
compare them with.
?? This is confusing on several fronts. You don't have any
Arguably, it
should be the FDM that provides vertical speed in fps but if that doesn't
happen in the near term, then I don't see a problem with the autopilot
doing a quick conversion for it's own use.
Regards,
Curt.
JSBSim has this:
velocities/v-down-fps
But, we also have this:
On 2/4/04 at 8:24 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Also, speaking of FDM's. The current JSBSim C172 in cvs seems to have an
engine that can break 3000 rpm in level cruise (150-160kts). That's
clearly way too high for C172. I'm guessing from the engine rpm's that
this is an engine or prop
Jon Berndt wrote:
for ME practice -- I don't think either of the main FDM's does a very good
job on single-engine, but I don't have any real experience to
compare them with.
?? This is confusing on several fronts. You don't have any single engine
experience?
Not in the context of ME
Jon Berndt wrote:
On a related note, I'd like to figure out how to make FlightGear more
useful
for ME practice -- I don't think either of the main FDM's does a very good
job on single-engine, but I don't have any real experience to
compare them with.
?? This is confusing on several fronts. You
It appears that the derivative time value is performing opposite of what is
exepcted. Increasing value seems to increase overshoot. Rather than hitting
zero beneath the target (and applying the brakes so to speak), it hits zero
after passing the target causing overshoot. This situation gets
The main one that comes to mind is that with an engine out there is a
minimum speed you must maintain, or else the torque of the good engine
will
overcome the ability of the rudder to hold heading and you end up
spiraling
until you can get the nose down enough to pick up some speed. Not fun
?? This is confusing on several fronts. You don't have any single engine
experience?
Not in the context of ME (multi-engine) flying.
Aha! OK, I would call that engine-out experience.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
for ME practice -- I don't think either of the main FDM's does a very
good job on single-engine, ...
I think JSBSim does a good job of modeling single engine operation. The big
problem is with these cheesy twist-grip rudder controls on the joysticks.
They make the engine-out work harder
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The real fun comes from practicing with only one engine running
[...] There are some real world effects that are important for
training which I don't think we model well on existing twins.
The main one that comes to mind is that with an engine out there is
a minimum
Here's a very nice tutorial on PID control:
http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/PID/PID.html
A picture is worth a thousand words :)
Dave
--
David Culp
davidculp2[at]comcast.net
___
Andy Ross wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The real fun comes from practicing with only one engine running
[...] There are some real world effects that are important for
training which I don't think we model well on existing twins.
The main one that comes to mind is that with an engine out there is
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 19:54, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The real fun comes from practicing with only one engine running
[...] There are some real world effects that are important for
training which I don't think we model well on existing twins.
The
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It very well could be a model setup issue at which point it's probably
beyond my ability to debug, but with the JSBSim c310, I took off,
climbed to a comfortable altitude and speed, and chopped the throttle
on my right engine. Then I slowly pitched up to bleed off speed
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:07:29 -0600,
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
HOw do we get the console messages to scroll past (for debugging
purposes)?
..tail -f /path/to/log/file
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:54:41 -0600,
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andy Ross wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The real fun comes from practicing with only one engine running
[...] There are some real world effects that are important for
training
BTW, does FG currently simulate P-factor?
JSBSim does, and IIRC YASim does as well. JSBSim does it with a tweak that
offsets the point of force application. It could probably be done better if
we set our minds to it, and it is a factor that needs to be set from testing
and experience - i.e.
Here's a very nice tutorial on PID control:
http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/PID/PID.html
A picture is worth a thousand words :)
Saw that one today, too. I found about three others that were exceptionally
good.
I've got the links at work, though.
Jon
I'm sure this is just a matter of tweaking the configuration file. But
this is an important behavior to have reasonably correct in small twins.
Yes, it would most certainly be a setup issue in the config file. I've got
a book of aero data for a twin around here somewhere. I'll see if I can
69 matches
Mail list logo
