Dave Culp wrote:
Just checked in a JSBSim.hxx and JSBSim.cxx to JSBSim CVS that makes crash
handling user-configurable. The default behavior is the current
"subterranean flying" behavior. If the user sets the property
"/sim/pause-on-crash" to true, then the sim will pause on crash, which is t
Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 à 20:52 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
>
> As for the "/fdm/jsbsim" property cloning problem, this has been around for
> some time now. Any reset of FlightGear while using a JSBSim aircraft will
> cause another "/fdm/jsbsim" node to be created. I've tried stopping that but
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 12:33 +0200, Gerard ROBIN a écrit :
> Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 à 20:52 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
>
> >
> > As for the "/fdm/jsbsim" property cloning problem, this has been around for
> > some time now. Any reset of FlightGear while using a JSBSim aircraft will
> > cau
* Andy Ross -- Monday 06 June 2005 18:10:
> Alternatively, the whole subsystem API could get a "post_init()"
> method, which is called on all subsystems after the system
> initialization phase but before update() is called on any of them.
> Maybe this is an even cleaner solution...
That's now impl
> From: Melchior FRANZ
>
> * Josh Babcock -- Thursday 09 June 2005 05:39:
> > It looks like rotate animations require an coord for tags
> > even though you can get away without or . What's worse, it
> > not only fails silently, it grabs the value for and then
> > uses the value for . Here co
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 10 June 2005 14:34:
> For points in space it doesn't make any more sense to default
> them to zero than anything else.
You miss the point. The patch is not about initializing anything. I just
added that to make clear that this will be zero if it's uninitialized. Or
does rea
* Jim Wilson -- Friday 10 June 2005 14:34:
> I'm not sure right off how best to do this, but I do think that
> Flightgear and Simgear would benifit by having a smart parser [...]
Alternatively, one could simply set "insane" values by default. If you
get something near infinity for unset properti
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Dave Culp wrote:
> > If the user sets the property "/sim/pause-on-crash" to true, then
> > the sim will pause on crash, which is the same behavior Yasim has,
> > so this should be the default for FlightGear. If the user sets the
> > property "/sim/reset-on-crash" to true, then
> From: Melchior FRANZ
>
> * Jim Wilson -- Friday 10 June 2005 14:34:
> > For points in space it doesn't make any more sense to default
> > them to zero than anything else.
>
> You miss the point. The patch is not about initializing anything. I just
> added that to make clear that this will be z
Hi Melchior,
There was one thing I forgot to mention. In that animation.diff patch file you
also have an unrelated change that does some clamping in the material
animation. I understand the logic behind this, but the typical behavior (the
way the translationn values are handled further down
are there any references to use time delay in functions. i am trying to
delay speedbrake for 1.5 scnds everytime activated or deactivated in
larcsim . i tried to use sleep() functions in msvc71 but makes the whole
sim sleep:)
i am looking for example time delays in fg source and would be
Could some of you help me out and test this solution to the JSBSim property
cloning-after-reset problem? In the file
source/src/FDM/JSBSim/FGFDMExec.cpp, line 137, just comment out the FDM
counter, like this:
//FDMctr++;
It works well here, but I'd like to make sure it works for those who
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 12:20 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> Could some of you help me out and test this solution to the JSBSim property
> cloning-after-reset problem? In the file
> source/src/FDM/JSBSim/FGFDMExec.cpp, line 137, just comment out the FDM
> counter, like this:
>
> //FDMctr++;
> > //FDMctr++;
>
> Tested with my own "carrier landing patched" release :
> IT IS OK ==> no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset.
Thanks Gerard,
I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. Note that this will not
allow multiple instances of JSBSim, which nobody is u
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Dave Culp wrote:
> This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
>
> If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
>
> Dave
>
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing
eagle monart wrote:
>
>
> are there any references to use time delay in functions. i am trying to
> delay speedbrake for 1.5 scnds everytime activated or deactivated in
> larcsim . i tried to use sleep() functions in msvc71 but makes the
> whole sim sleep:)
>
> i am looking for example time d
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> > > //FDMctr++;
> >
> > Tested with my own "carrier landing patched" release :
> > IT IS OK ==> no clone now, JSB specific Functions working after reset.
>
> Thanks Gerard,
>
> I've commited the fix to the JSBSim CVS branches. No
Dave Culp wrote:
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-d
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 13:27 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
>
> If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
>
> Dave
>
That is a good question:-)
OK Air
Dave Culp wrote:
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems
pretty non-sensical
Dave Culp a écrit :
This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
Fly under terrain : no
Fly under bridges : yes
Taxi under hangars : yes
-Fred
_
hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 14:19 -0500, Curtis L. Olson a écrit :
> Dave Culp wrote:
>
> >This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying under the
> >terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
> >
> >If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
> >
> >
>
> I a
I know I'm new to this, but:
if (PlaneHitsWater()){
if (planesLandingGear == Floats){
checkIfLandingOrAugeringIn();
}
elseif (planesLandingGear == Wheels){
crash == true;
}
}
seems like a reasonable way to do things.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Culp" <[
Do you have a ref for a function definition for NASAL's settimer() please?
I am working on a red_headed_stepchild_of_a_hard_to_work_with_joystick.xml
that might require it also :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Josh Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
S
On Friday 10 Jun 2005 21:20, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
>
>
>
> Ampere
That's an interesting idea:)
Relative viscosity of water must be a bit like super/hyper-sonic
in air but the relative speed-of-sound for the mediums won't
match at al
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:38:55 +0200, Gerard wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> > > > //FDMctr++;
> > >
> > > Tested with my own "carrier landing patched" release :
> > > IT IS OK ==> no clone now, JSB specific Functions workin
Which version of AC3D gave compatible model files for FlightGear? I
have found references to the crease funtion not working with FG.
Thanks,
Stacie
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/lis
Message transféré
De: Gerard Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet: Re: [Jsbsim-devel] crash handling options for JSBSim in
FlightGear
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:13:21 +0200
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 14:59 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> It seems like I misunderstood s
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 22:59 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:38:55 +0200, Gerard wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp a écrit :
> > > > > //FDMctr++;
> > > >
> > > > Tested with my own "carrier landing patche
Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper, that
wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with fuel. The
actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet into the water,
perhaps more if landing in 'seas'. There absolutely must be some code to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I'm new to this, but:
if (PlaneHitsWater()){
if (planesLandingGear == Floats){
checkIfLandingOrAugeringIn();
}
elseif (planesLandingGear == Wheels){
crash == true;
}
}
seems like a reasonable way to do things.
I just found a way to sim
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 16:08 -0500, Corrubia, Stacie K a écrit :
> Which version of AC3D gave compatible model files for FlightGear? I
> have found references to the crease funtion not working with FG.
>
> Thanks,
> Stacie
>
If you Fly with fgfs 9.8 it is not any difficulties with AC3D rel
theoreticle wrote:
> Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper,
> that wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with
> fuel. The actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet
> into the water, perhaps more if landing in 'seas'. There absolutel
Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 17:27 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Let's say someone comes up with a model for the old Pan Am Clipper, that
> wants to land fully loaded with passengers and half loaded with fuel. The
> actual aircraft will sink it's fuselage as far as 5 feet into the water,
>
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:36:35 -0400, Josh wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dave Culp wrote:
> > This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying
> > under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
> >
> > If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallowed.
>
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:53:23 +0200, Frederic wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dave Culp a écrit :
>
> >This is a poll. Does anyone really want the FDM to allow flying
> >under the terrain, or was that a misunderstanding by me?
> >
> >If nobody wants it then I think it should be disallow
>
> > Nobody wants subterranean flying. This will make the crash handling much
> > cleaner. We can make "pause" the default behavior and "reset" the optional
> > behavior, based on a property .
> >
> > Everyone agreed on this?
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
>
> In that case the float are c
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:16:06 +0200, Gerard wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 22:59 +0200, Arnt Karlsen a écrit :
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:38:55 +0200, Gerard wrote in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 10 juin 2005 à 13:21 -0500, Dave Culp
By flying under the terrain you means like flying in a tunnel under a
montain ? I think it's improbable.
And how would you manage landing on ground or water if one can fly under
them ?
What happens when the FDM system is used for ground based vehicles that
_could_ enter a tunnel?
g.
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
>
> hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
>
Nope ... they just float a bit lower down than surface ships. Hydrofoils
fly.
Regards,
Vivian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.or
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 01:44:39 +0100, Vivian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ampere K. Hardraade wrote
>
> >
> > hmm... flying undersea. Isn't that what submarines do?
> >
>
> Nope ... they just float a bit lower down than surface ships.
> Hydrofoils fly.
..let's qualify "fly"; both s
>I don't think any other FDM allows flight
Well most of them fly through buildings, but that's a different issue. ;)
As far as models go, ground interactions should be aircraft specific,
IMHO, and each aircraft model should create its own instance of
landing gear models and collision points (win
> I am surprised to hear that JSBsim allows flying underground. It seems
> pretty non-sensical to me. I don't think any other FDM allows flight
> through material that is denser than air. I've had to put my earth-worm
> simulator on the backburner for now anyway so I don't see this as a very
> u
45 matches
Mail list logo
