Lee Elliott wrote
Sent: 28 July 2004 21:32
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Taildragger takeoff and landing
On Wednesday 28 July 2004 01:45, Andy Ross wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Have I had this backwards all along? I knew of the
incidence angle
David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
Uh... YASim doesn't model wash effects, so there really isn't any
process by which a pure control input would generate force. Are you
sure you weren't just sitting in a stiff wind? Can anyone else
replicate this?
I cannot reproduce it on my system:
fgfs
Dave Perry wrote:
Sent: 29 July 2004 01:48
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Taildragger takeoffs and landings
David Megginson wrote:
This problem has little effect on normal flight, but it
matters a lot
for
the landing and takeoff rolls of taildraggers --
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:55:09 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
That's because it's _mostly_ (or entirely) the sucking action above
the wing that contributes the most to lift.
No, that is the *result* of lift, not the *cause*.
No, you're mixing up
Jim Wilson wrote:
There are no pre-release tags, but you could probably do a cvs checkout by
date if you wanted to be sure.
yes, thanks for that - actually, that's also what I've come up with in
the meantime, just checked the 1.11 revision out ... but a compressed
download of the entire
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight ball. How do those
things
curve?
I wouldn't know. I haven't thought about that one yet. My first
impression would be that of the cohesive and adhesive forces again.
Erik
Tony Peden wrote:
I hope you guys realize that this is an ages old debate that still goes
on in the relevant academic circles.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with fixing this for once and for all isn't
there? :-D
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson said:
Sounds fine, I wasn't planning on rolling out the official release today
anyway. Tomorrow is probably the earliest ... more likely friday.
Just a heads up: there is a minor (as in easy to fix) issue with building
SimGear using gcc 2.96 that was
Chris Metzler wrote:
Josh sent me along a few screenshots to illustrate the ground poly
bugginess he's seeing near airports. They can be found at:
http://www.speakeasy.net/~cmetzler/fgfs-screen-002.jpg
http://www.speakeasy.net/~cmetzler/fgfs-screen-003.jpg
CHANDRASEKHAR ACHALLA wrote:
I was also wondering if flightgear already has the fire and smoke effects.
Regarding my last reply on that topic I had a quick look at sourceforge
for the specific name of the project that I mentioned.
It's named FlightGear CombatZone - but, well that specific
project
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:08:31 -0400
Josh Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moving just a few inches any direction or changing the view angle makes
these things change wildly, or even go away. In fact, in the right spot
they will flicker on and off. They only seem to appear when I am over an
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:08:31 -0400
Josh Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moving just a few inches any direction or changing the view angle makes
these things change wildly, or even go away. In fact, in the right spot
they will flicker on and off. They only seem to appear when
Erik Hofman said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson said:
Sounds fine, I wasn't planning on rolling out the official release today
anyway. Tomorrow is probably the earliest ... more likely friday.
Just a heads up: there is a minor (as in easy to fix) issue with building
SimGear
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:08:31 -0400
And I don't see any problem with the DC-3. I want to say that this
is something odd about your drivers, but I'm too ignorant
of this stuff to be sure. Is it only ATI people
that see this stuff? Do all ATI people see this stuff
Boris Koenig said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
There are no pre-release tags, but you could probably do a cvs checkout by
date if you wanted to be sure.
yes, thanks for that - actually, that's also what I've come up with in
the meantime, just checked the 1.11 revision out ... but a compressed
Boris Koenig writes:
That would at least make sense if I don't
find _any_ plib app where I achieve more than 10-15 FPS with the
nvidia card ;-)
I have many PLib applications that run at a rock steady 70hz, my
screen refresh rate, on a NVIDIA GeForce 2 in a PIII 733
On the other hand I had
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:04:57 +0100
Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem at EGNM I mentioned is on several NVidia based systems. As
I said though - it's nowhere near as severe as in those screenshots.
I'll try and grab an example tonight.
I'm on an Nvidia card (finally), and
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:04:57 +0100
Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem at EGNM I mentioned is on several NVidia based systems. As
I said though - it's nowhere near as severe as in those screenshots.
I'll try and grab an example tonight.
I'm on an Nvidia card
Erik Hofman said:
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight ball. How
do those things
curve?
I wouldn't know. I haven't thought about that one yet. My first
impression would be that of the cohesive and adhesive forces again.
Well Jim's make
Jim Wilson wrote:
Boris Koenig said:
But then, also not to have to rely on cvs-specific files which would not
necessarily be available in a release version and hence won't be
suitable to determine the base package version in general.
That's true. You are probably just too late this time around.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:01:28 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight
ball. How do those things curve?
Well Jim's make it up as you go along Physics manual says that there is
greater pressure against the air
Jon Stockill wrote:
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:04:57 +0100
Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem at EGNM I mentioned is on several NVidia based systems. As
I said though - it's nowhere near as severe as in those screenshots.
I'll try and grab an example tonight.
I'm
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:01:28 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight
ball. How do those things curve?
Well Jim's make it up as you go along Physics manual says that
there is
greater
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way, even
though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the coriolis effect in your explanation (now that it
is implimented
Jon Stockill wrote
Sent: 29 July 2004 14:05
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] lights flaring on runways in FG
Chris Metzler wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:08:31 -0400
Josh Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moving just a few inches any direction
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way, even
though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And please
include the coriolis effect in your explanation (now that
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way,
even though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the coriolis effect in your
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way,
even though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way,
even though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:37:08 +0200
Boris Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like it when people share their valuable experiences ... :-)
So, the next time I'm there I'll be careful !
Why? You won't hit anything! :-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:38:44 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Now I start to wonder why we always smash our probes on the surface
of Mars).
NASA does it by design.
(Well ... except for the Mars Polar Lander.)
:-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel
Hmm, I hate to spoil the party, but I did get a segmentation fault in
FlightGear today (running 0.9.5-pre3). I'm not sure when it happened, since I
started FlightGear this morning and letting it fly between KSFO and EHAM
(which appears to become my favorite test route :-)), while I went off to
On Thursday 29 July 2004 03:06, Chris Metzler wrote:
cc'ing this to make sure you see the reply . . .
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:07:55 +0200
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lee Elliott replying to Josh Babcock:
I get the same ground poly problems that you seem to be getting with
On Thursday 29 July 2004 05:08, Josh Babcock wrote:
Chris Metzler wrote:
cc'ing this to make sure you see the reply . . .
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:07:55 +0200
Frederic Bouvier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lee Elliott replying to Josh Babcock:
I get the same ground poly problems that you
Durk Talsma wrote:
Hmm, I hate to spoil the party, but I did get a segmentation fault in
FlightGear today (running 0.9.5-pre3). I'm not sure when it happened, since I
started FlightGear this morning and letting it fly between KSFO and EHAM
(which appears to become my favorite test route :-)),
Yes, the following files were missing. Curt wrote me yesterday that he had
missed them somehow while updating from cvs, but that he has them now and
thus be in the final release. The segfault I'm getting is not related to
these missing files though, because that would only give a problem
Jim Wilson wrote:
Run with --log-level=debug to see which SubSystem that occurs in. Could be an
xml bug.
I did. Here is where it aborts:
Finally initializing fdm
Start common FDM init
...initializing position...
...initializing ground elevation to -2.67116ft...
...initializing sea-level
Dave Perry wrote:
End common FDM init
Aborted
Here is how I launched it.
XML parse errors in YASim files become aborts. I'd look very
carefully at your dc3.xml file and make sure it doesn't contain
extraneous information (cvs collision warnings, etc...)
Andy
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:47:19 -0700
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Perry wrote:
End common FDM init
Aborted
Here is how I launched it.
XML parse errors in YASim files become aborts. I'd look very
carefully at your dc3.xml file and make sure it doesn't contain
extraneous
Vivian Meazza wrote;
/Have you tried the Spitfire yet?
//
//I would be grateful for any comments you might have.
//
//
//
/I had flown it for the first time last night, but mostly at altitude.
Very maneuverable and feels like a high performance ac wrt aileron -
rudder coordination.
Since
40 matches
Mail list logo