Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
David Megginson wrote: On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:39:49 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North American market, Is that out yet? I don't know if it already made its maiden flight, but the engines are already mounted and running. The Rotax engine originally used in Diamond's Katanas was an unmitigated disaster (we had yet another Katana forced landing at the Ottawa airport a month or two ago), and left the North American market very nervous about any non-Lycoming/Continental engines -- Diamond finally started making the Katana available with a Continental engine (I think). The Thielert diesel engine has nothing to do with the Rotax, of course, but Diamand will have to do a lot of work to win back North American buyers' trust about non-standard engines. People doing business in North America usually share the impression that people 'over there' are commonly a lot more conservative when it comes to aircraft engines. And they have a strong lobby: One of the major reasons why Porsche stopped its aircraft engine project was that the US lobby (Lycoming, Continental and so) were predicting the possibility of difficulties with future (spare part) delivery to European customers Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:57:54 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People doing business in North America usually share the impression that people 'over there' are commonly a lot more conservative when it comes to aircraft engines. And they have a strong lobby: One of the major reasons why Porsche stopped its aircraft engine project was that the US lobby (Lycoming, Continental and so) were predicting the possibility of difficulties with future (spare part) delivery to European customers I don't know if the lobby would make a big difference -- after all, if the Textron/Cessna lobby wasn't strong enough to keep out the new composite planes, how could the Textron/Lycoming lobby keep out engines? In fact, neither engine company has much of a reputation right now: many private aircraft owners refuse to use Lycoming or Continental cylinders when they overhaul their engines now because the two companies (especially Continental) have let quality control slip so far. Eventually, we'll have some new piston engines that work well and put Lycoming and Continental to shame. The problem so far, I think, is just that North Americans fly differently. From what I understand, most European private pilots with piston aircraft fly short distances, at low altitudes, in VMC, because of all kinds of airspace restrictions, fees, etc. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, North American private pilots fly enormous distances at a much bigger range of altitudes and temperatures, often in IMC. I often cruise at 10,000 ft, and people with turbonormalized engines routinely cruise in the mid-teens with oxygen or up in the flight levels with pressurization. I think that's why engines that do fine in Europe, like the Rotax, fail over here once they're widely used. I'm hoping that the Thielert will be different. The main impediment is the cost of installation in existing aircraft -- in many cases, it's more than the entire resale price of the plane, and you could never make it up with fuel savings (our fuel isn't that expensive). When they can manage an upgrade for USD 20-30K (including engine), and the engine has been proven effective, you'll see people lining up. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
David Megginson wrote: Eventually, we'll have some new piston engines that work well and put Lycoming and Continental to shame. The problem so far, I think, is just that North Americans fly differently. From what I understand, most European private pilots with piston aircraft fly short distances, at low altitudes, in VMC, because of all kinds of airspace restrictions, fees, etc. The case is correct, I think the reason is partially a bit different: 1.) Yes, lots of restrictions over here, not many airfields where you really would like to have them, 2.) I suppose flying is more expensive here, for an IFR rating you have to raise about 130 % of the costs of a regular PPL-A without IFR, fuel is probably more expensive, 3.) people often stay within the borders of their country - and our countries are very small compared to what's common in Nort America [...] As I mentioned in an earlier posting, North American private pilots fly enormous distances at a much bigger range of altitudes and temperatures, often in IMC. I often cruise at 10,000 ft, and people with turbonormalized engines routinely cruise in the mid-teens with oxygen or up in the flight levels with pressurization. Then the Thielert engine is for you. Those who know 'our' Thielert C172 told me that the climb rate below 5.000 ft is not that inspiring but at altitues in the 5.000 - 10.000 ft range it's really great. Air temperatures are supposed not to have much of an impact, as water cooling and turbocharger easily compensate much of this. Unfortunately the conversion produces horrible costs this might lower in the future because the way the engine is being assembled is going to be changed, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:02:22 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the conversion produces horrible costs this might lower in the future because the way the engine is being assembled is going to be changed, Lowering the conversion costs will help. Another point might be marketing position: right now, I can install a 135 hp Thielert in my Warrior that will give me more-or-less the same performance as the 160 hp Lycoming currently in it, only burning about 35% less fuel. Most North American owners would be more interesting in performance -- selling a 180 hp engine that makes my Warrior fly like a Cherokee 236 (20 kt faster, much bigger useful load) with the same amount of fuel I'm currently burning would be much more interesting. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Wednesday 05 Jan 2005 15:12, David Megginson wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:02:22 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the conversion produces horrible costs this might lower in the future because the way the engine is being assembled is going to be changed, Lowering the conversion costs will help. Another point might be marketing position: right now, I can install a 135 hp Thielert in my Warrior that will give me more-or-less the same performance as the 160 hp Lycoming currently in it, only burning about 35% less fuel. Most North American owners would be more interesting in performance -- selling a 180 hp engine that makes my Warrior fly like a Cherokee 236 (20 kt faster, much bigger useful load) with the same amount of fuel I'm currently burning would be much more interesting. All the best, David Thielert have recently had their 4.0 V8 Turbodiesel certified and it will be coming to market soon. The 4.0 V8 is aimed at the market of the Continental TSIO 550 (Think Cessna T210 etc) and will have 310HP; as with the TAE-125 there will be additional performance over the TSIO 550 due to the extra torque available. Apparently this engine runs *strictly* on JET-A1; something that may happen with the TAE-125s which have been cracking cylinder-heads when used with automotive diesel and flown regularly in the circuit. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
David Megginson wrote: Lowering the conversion costs will help. Another point might be marketing position: right now, I can install a 135 hp Thielert in my Warrior that will give me more-or-less the same performance as the 160 hp Lycoming currently in it, only burning about 35% less fuel. Most North American owners would be more interesting in performance -- I was told the Thielert performs a lot better at higher altitudes than the conventional, non-turbocharged 160 hp engine. selling a 180 hp engine that makes my Warrior fly like a Cherokee 236 (20 kt faster, much bigger useful load) The Warrior will never have a load like the 'bigger' ones because it lacks the reinfoced airframe, not matter which engine you mount, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:24:20 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Warrior will never have a load like the 'bigger' ones because it lacks the reinfoced airframe, not matter which engine you mount, Is the Warrior's airframe weaker than the Archer's or Arrow's? All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
David Megginson wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:24:20 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Warrior will never have a load like the 'bigger' ones because it lacks the reinfoced airframe, not matter which engine you mount, Is the Warrior's airframe weaker than the Archer's or Arrow's? Yes, in order to enable it to carry higher loads (by using more powerful engines) the Archer and presumably all bigger Cherokees have at least reinforced wing-mountings and probably the wings itselves as well, but I'm not shure about the latter, just guessing, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
David Megginson said: On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:44:35 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_high .jpg.html The visual model is easy enough but the panel is a different matter. We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some day. That kind of complexity of systems is probably impossible for a 3d cockpit (lack of usable font system?). The 3D part is easy -- there are relatively few moving parts to animate. The challenge will be creating dynamic textures to show on the displays, and that's going to require rolling up our sleeves and doing a lot of C++ OpenGL coding. Wouldn't it make sense to start with something like the atlas generated data? I mean, we'd probably want to cache it to disk anyway...dynamic updating of that data could be added later. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote: We can probably manage the left display. Maybe ... That left PFD will probably turn out to be a MFD with lots of display modes besides just the PFD mode. Most of the glass cockpits nowdays allow you to direct info to just about any display on the panel. The entire cockpit is one integrated system. For instance the Avidyne Entegra PFD has a spilt screen mode that allows you to display navigation data in the lower half. The displays in the cockpit are nearly impossible to recreate without the required info. I hunted all over the Net for G1000 information for 2 weeks last month and came up with nothing usable. There is a Garmin G1000 simulator that runs on workstations. Cessna have such a simulators but they are only available at select Cessna Pilot Centers and Cessna Sales Team Authorized Representative locations. Cessna's G1000 orientation program spans two days. Each customer is assigned an individual workstation and a computer equipped with a sophisticated, Garmin G1000 simulator program. but it's appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some day. Even new, single engine, piston powered aircraft are using glass cockpits now. Piper 6X, Cessna 182, Diamond DA40, Cirrus SR22, etc We will have to bite the bullet before FG ends up being a VINTAGE aircraft simulator. :P The 3D part is easy -- there are relatively few moving parts to animate. The challenge will be creating dynamic textures to show on the displays, and that's going to require rolling up our sleeves and doing a lot of C++ OpenGL coding. I discussed this with Melchior a couple of weeks back. We don't have to use OpenGL to generate the textures. We could possibly use a powerful 2D rendering library like libagg to generate the dynamic textures and just get OpenGL to render the textures. That way panel designers don't need to learn the complexities of OpenGL. It's a lot easier to use a feature filled 2D rendering library that is built for rendering vector and text graphics than messing around with low level OpenGL calls. If you haven't looked at libagg I suggest you take a look. http://www.antigrain.com/ Download the source, compile and check out the examples - they are jaw droppingly fast and pretty. Sub-pixel accuracy, anti-aliasing, free type fonts, b-splines, color gradients, image transformations and distortions, lense effects, alpha masks, perspective correction ... It's software rendered but may be fast enough. Most moving map/GPS units only update every couple of seconds so we don't need to render new textures for every frame. That is just the graphics side - how are we going to route data between instruments that are physically separated but share common data? Not simple data like autopilot data but complex stuff like weather overlays. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 07:04:53PM -0500, David Megginson wrote: increase the useful load by a couple of hundred pounds and make the plane fly faster, to offset that. Yes. I understand that you come close to Vne in best economy cruise :-) Cheers -Gerhard -- Gerhard Wesp o o Tel.: +41 (0) 43 5347636 Bachtobelstrasse 56 | http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~gwesp/ CH-8045 Zuerich \_/ See homepage for email address! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sunday 02 Jan 2005 08:59, Paul Surgeon wrote: That left PFD will probably turn out to be a MFD with lots of display modes besides just the PFD mode. Most of the glass cockpits nowdays allow you to direct info to just about any display on the panel. The entire cockpit is one integrated system. For instance the Avidyne Entegra PFD has a spilt screen mode that allows you to display navigation data in the lower half. I also notice that the left PFD has a 'flight-director'. That is something that would be nice to see working in FG :-) The displays in the cockpit are nearly impossible to recreate without the required info. I hunted all over the Net for G1000 information for 2 weeks last month and came up with nothing usable. There is a Garmin G1000 simulator that runs on workstations. Cessna have such a simulators but they are only available at select Cessna Pilot Centers and Cessna Sales Team Authorized Representative locations. Cessna's G1000 orientation program spans two days. Each customer is assigned an individual workstation and a computer equipped with a sophisticated, Garmin G1000 simulator program. but it's appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some day. Rather than making an *exact* copy of the Garmin equipment, why not create our own simmilar design; it might even be better that way. We know what to data we need to display and what form it needs to take; I have already made some 'classic' instruments which have an 'FG' brand rather than a real-world proprietary make. If you haven't looked at libagg I suggest you take a look. http://www.antigrain.com/ That looks promising :-) - Its beyond my ability to comprehend the code but I appreciate the method. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 05:13:14PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the
turbodiesel
engines (includes autopitch etc).
That, I think, would be a much easier problem.
The FADEC is easy as long as everything works normally. Things get more
complex if you want to model failures.
Moreover, one wants to model the automatic engine check sequence.
FWIW, I have a performance table derived from a chart in the Thielert OMM.
The chart (not the OMM, I think) is also available from their web site.
P_max = 99e3 // Max power [W]
M_max = 410 // Max torque [Nm]
//
// Desired RPM as a function of power lever position.
//
RPM_desired = {
{ 0.2 .75 1}
{ 2175 1750 2000 2300 }
}
//
// Mapping of power lever position (normalized) and air density [kg/m^3]
// to power output (ratio to P_max).
//
// Cf. Thielert OMM, Section 3.6 Power curve.
//
// Model valid up to 18000ft density altitude.
//
// Power output is constant below 6000ft.
//
P_out = {
{
// Power lever
{ 0 .25 .5 .65 .75 .91 }
// Rho (density altitude in feet: { 6000 8800 14300 18000 })
{ 1.0239 .9392 .7885 .6958 }
}
{
{ 0 .33 .54 .69 .74 .93 1 }
{ 0 .33 .54 .69 .74 .92 .94 }
{ 0 .34 .54 .69 .74 .92 .94 }
{ 0 .43 .52 .62 .66 .69 .7 }
}
}
Cheers
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp o o Tel.: +41 (0) 43 5347636
Bachtobelstrasse 56 | http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~gwesp/
CH-8045 Zuerich \_/ See homepage for email address!
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote: We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some day. I forgot to add : If we manage to create a G1000 display system we automatically have a display system that works in scores of other aircraft thus enabling us to create lots of cool and modern aircraft fairly easily. Here is an incomplete list : Beechcraft Bonanza A36 (intention) Beechcraft Baron 58 (intention) Cessna 182 Skylane Cessna 206H Stationair Cessna Citation Mustang Diamond DA40 Diamond DA42 TwinStar Mooney Ovation2 GX Mooney Bravo GX Also FlightGear would be the only publicly available simulator that I know of that includes a G1000 cockpit. I know a lot of hardcore MSFS users are complaining about the lack of glass cockpits and MSFS will also become a vintage simulator (out of the box) if they don't do some serious work in this area. BTW : I just did a libagg test and it renders 375000 (true type font) glyphs per second on my Athlon XP2000+ So if an instrument used 1000 glyphs it would manage 375 frames/second excluding any other overheads like creating and destroying textures, OpenGL calls, etc. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:03:00 +0200, Paul wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:13, David Megginson wrote: We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some day. I forgot to add : If we manage to create a G1000 display system we automatically have a display system that works in scores of other aircraft thus enabling us to create lots of cool and modern aircraft fairly easily. Here is an incomplete list : Beechcraft Bonanza A36 (intention) Beechcraft Baron 58 (intention) Cessna 182 Skylane Cessna 206H Stationair Cessna Citation Mustang Diamond DA40 Diamond DA42 TwinStar Mooney Ovation2 GX Mooney Bravo GX Also FlightGear would be the only publicly available simulator that I know of that includes a G1000 cockpit. I know a lot of hardcore MSFS users are complaining about the lack of glass cockpits and MSFS will also become a vintage simulator (out of the box) if they don't do some serious work in this area. ..don't forget that the fact there is no standard, also means we can set it. ;-) BTW : I just did a libagg test and it renders 375000 (true type font) glyphs per second on my Athlon XP2000+ So if an instrument used 1000 glyphs it would manage 375 frames/second excluding any other overheads like creating and destroying textures, OpenGL calls, etc. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Surgeon schrieb: |The 3D part is easy -- there are relatively few moving parts to |animate. The challenge will be creating dynamic textures to show on |the displays, and that's going to require rolling up our sleeves and |doing a lot of C++ OpenGL coding. | | | I discussed this with Melchior a couple of weeks back. | We don't have to use OpenGL to generate the textures. | We could possibly use a powerful 2D rendering library like libagg to generate | the dynamic textures and just get OpenGL to render the textures. That way | panel designers don't need to learn the complexities of OpenGL. | It's a lot easier to use a feature filled 2D rendering library that is built | for rendering vector and text graphics than messing around with low level | OpenGL calls. The stuff that is displayed looks simple enough to be easily drawn with OpenGL. I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software. If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function. An glass cockpit can be implemented by rendering the display content to an texture and using that dynamic texture in the 3D cockpit. CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB2Bs2lhWtxOxWNFcRAnhDAKCRnzXppxPEZUx+5owds/kufeTWZgCgno80 JzrU5GQRitoQwwKzTS+CJJ8= =ZRY/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Megginson schrieb: | On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:39:49 + (UTC), Martin Spott | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | |They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North |American market, | | | Is that out yet? I'd heard that they were working on one because | there's no repair network for the Thielert diesel engine in North | America; I'd also heard that they were working on setting up such a | network. The Thielert engine certainly accounts for a lot of the | savings -- I'd expect two IO-360's to burn at least 20 gallons per | hour, vs 10 gph for the Thielert engines, but they'd probably also | increase the useful load by a couple of hundred pounds and make the | plane fly faster, to offset that. | [...] | | The Thielert diesel engine has nothing to do with the | Rotax, of course, but Diamand will have to do a lot of work to win | back North American buyers' trust about non-standard engines. We fly | planes hard and far in North America, often with multiple 3-5 hour | legs through some pretty extreme climates (from about 45 degC in the | American southwest to -40 degC in northern Alaska and the Canadian | arctic), so engines that perform nicely for occasional recreational | use for local flights in a moderate Europe climate don't always cut it | over here after a few years of use. I'm hoping that the Thielert will | make it, because the fuel savings sound fantastic. It's time that Diesel engines get into the air. The Diesel engine market for cars had a drastic increase over the past 5 years (it started even earlier). Over 50% of new cars in Germany are Diesel engine powered and you have real trouble in selling your used, non-Diesel car... This is due to their high fuel efficiency (a principle advantage) and the very high torque they produce (much more drving fun...) I dunno how the engine copes with the drastic change in the climate you are describing - but the internet pages tell me that the whole engine gets replaced after 1000h with a new/serviced one. (They are designed for 2400h. But they'll increase the service intervall slowly over the time as they get the results of the wear of the currently used engines) CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB2B2klhWtxOxWNFcRAmIzAJ9TTOqxZWqY7kKqrNCTErU7QVgVFACePxA9 dDGEU5KKI4QRWQ8hFYkThQE= =7MbN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dave Martin schrieb: | On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 22:36, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: | |Interesting aircraft. | |On January 1, 2005 04:44 pm, Dave Martin wrote: | |The visual model is easy enough | |Provided that there are enough data to do an accurate model. Is there any |technical document available for references? If you look at the different press releases and articles that are linked from their page everywhere, you can get quite a few perfomance numbers. Esp. the american version of their homepage has quite a few numbers... | Even a good diagram of a DA40 would be useful as I believe they share the same | fusealage aft of the firewall. http://www.diamondair.com/PDFs/DA42UpdateAPR.pdf - this has at least a diagram. CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB2CMTlhWtxOxWNFcRAl/wAKC7/ld1wiMt4StsguaVvDqbYaLA3wCfWaJu TwLsrv/lun+GufuRgNVgUTo= =270f -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:09:09 +0100, Gerhard Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FADEC is easy as long as everything works normally. Things get more complex if you want to model failures. Right, but that's true of our piston engine models in general -- we're not modelling stuck valves, fouled plugs, burned-out starter solenoids (like mine on Thursday), mistimed magnetos, uneven fuel/air distribution, clogged injectors, carb ice, leaky crankcases, oil starvation, contaminated fuel, broken fuel lines, and tons of other stuff. Lack of FADEC failure modes would be just one more item on that list. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:03:02 +0100, Christian Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software. If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function. Agreed -- we're going to have to redraw the displays at least once per second, so we'll need any hardware acceleration we can get. A software-only 2D graphic library isn't going to cut it. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
Here is an alternate idea: instead of writing our own animation class, may be we can think about making the displays capable of rendering *small* external OpenGL applications; such as the OpenGC Project. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb: | Here is an alternate idea: instead of writing our own animation class, may be | we can think about making the displays capable of rendering *small* external | OpenGL applications; such as the OpenGC Project. When we can convince the other application to render to a texture that should be easy. CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB2FuClhWtxOxWNFcRAmKGAJ9/zkQcblHz9Opama2pTGFlOo4vKQCeN65s Ddbc9QH5KF3CJMMCFclX3Fc= =1cGP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:03, Christian Mayer wrote: I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software. The difference is a powerful text and vector library vs OpenGL primitives. Have you ever tried rendering true type fonts in OpenGL? It's a pain in the ass! Under windows you have to use wiggle functions and I can't remember how it's done under other OS's. If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function. I think that would be a good option. I think a panel designer should be given a canvas/texture that they can paint on with easy to use text and vector functions. The canvas and painting should be defined in 2D pixel co-ords. MSFS actually do it this way using GDI+ (software rendered canvas) and although I don't feel we need to be copycats this method works well and keeps it simple for panel designers. An glass cockpit can be implemented by rendering the display content to an texture and using that dynamic texture in the 3D cockpit. Yeah I know about off screen rendering to textures but I don't know of anyone who is willing to implement it for us. There are several ways of doing it which nvidia have documented here : http://developer.nvidia.com/object/gdc_oglrtt.html Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sunday, 2 January 2005 19:07, David Megginson wrote: A software-only 2D graphic library isn't going to cut it. I bet you didn't know that FS2004 uses software rendering to draw all the complex gauges. :) They use GDI+ http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/gdicpp/GDIPlus/GDIPlus.asp I did a text of libagg and it's extremely fast. 375000 true type glyphs per second on my system. Personally I prefer hardware acceleration but I don't know of any half decent OpenGL vector and text libraries that we can use. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
Paul Surgeon writes: Yeah I know about off screen rendering to textures but I don't know of anyone who is willing to implement it for us. There are at least two places this is already done in FGFS that can be used as examples of different ways of doing this 3D Clouds and the jpeg server. Someone who wants fancy Panels just needs the itch :-) Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Surgeon schrieb: | On Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:03, Christian Mayer wrote: | |I see no benefit in adding an dependancy to a library that effectively |can do the same as OpenGL - but only in software. | | | The difference is a powerful text and vector library vs OpenGL primitives. | Have you ever tried rendering true type fonts in OpenGL? | It's a pain in the ass! No, but when I need renderd text I use PLIB's fnt library. Although it uses bitmaped and not true type glyphs it will be (more than) good enough. We only need one (or just very few) different font sizes. |If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the |necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function. | | I think that would be a good option. | I think a panel designer should be given a canvas/texture that they can | paint on with easy to use text and vector functions. | The canvas and painting should be defined in 2D pixel co-ords. OpenGL knows the orthogaphic projection - so you have ordinary 2D coordinates. Rendered to an texture you've got everything you need. (Actually you've got the same technique that the next Windows version will have) CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB2GodlhWtxOxWNFcRAo+zAJ9AoHNtbfUP0Xkfvg+Pp8Pi6XuPjACfYR/U Etogg0o+umEWyBrlF//h5Yc= =8QTW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
If OpenGL is too complicated for some cases, we can encapsulate the necessary functions in C/C++ code and offer that function. I think that would be a good option. I think a panel designer should be given a canvas/texture that they can paint on with easy to use text and vector functions. The canvas and painting should be defined in 2D pixel co-ords. MSFS actually do it this way using GDI+ (software rendered canvas) and although I don't feel we need to be copycats this method works well and keeps it simple for panel designers. An glass cockpit can be implemented by rendering the display content to an texture and using that dynamic texture in the 3D cockpit. Paul Sounds good here; keeping it simple for modellers / designers means they will churn out more quality stuff much faster and there will be more designers willing to pitch-in :-) Dave Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
Happy 2005 to everyone in the FlightGear community! Here's a high-resolution picture of the Garmin-1000-based panel on the new Diamond TwinStar, one of my dream aircraft (it rececently crossed the Atlantic non-stop from Canada to Spain burning less than USD 200.00 worth of fuel). Anyone aircraft model designers ready to take this one on? http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_high.jpg.html All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On 1 Jan 2005, at 17:38, David Megginson wrote: Here's a high-resolution picture of the Garmin-1000-based panel on the new Diamond TwinStar, one of my dream aircraft (it rececently crossed the Atlantic non-stop from Canada to Spain burning less than USD 200.00 worth of fuel). Anyone aircraft model designers ready to take this one on? http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/ DA42panel_high.jpg.html That's a beautiful airplane, and an amazingly clean panel. I want one. HH James -- The lack of planning on your part does not constitute to an emergency on mine ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 17:38, David Megginson wrote: Happy 2005 to everyone in the FlightGear community! Here's a high-resolution picture of the Garmin-1000-based panel on the new Diamond TwinStar, one of my dream aircraft (it rececently crossed the Atlantic non-stop from Canada to Spain burning less than USD 200.00 worth of fuel). Anyone aircraft model designers ready to take this one on? http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_high .jpg.html All the best, David I think that would be an extremely hard aircraft to produce. The visual model is easy enough but the panel is a different matter. That kind of complexity of systems is probably impossible for a 3d cockpit (lack of usable font system?). Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the turbodiesel engines (includes autopitch etc). I'm by no means saying its not doable; it'd just be stinking hard to do *well* ;-) Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:44:35 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_high .jpg.html The visual model is easy enough but the panel is a different matter. We can probably manage the left display. The right display (moving map with elevation shading) would be extremely difficult, but it's appearing in so many planes that we'll have to bite the bullet some day. That kind of complexity of systems is probably impossible for a 3d cockpit (lack of usable font system?). The 3D part is easy -- there are relatively few moving parts to animate. The challenge will be creating dynamic textures to show on the displays, and that's going to require rolling up our sleeves and doing a lot of C++ OpenGL coding. Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the turbodiesel engines (includes autopitch etc). That, I think, would be a much easier problem. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 22:13, David Megginson wrote: On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:44:35 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.diamond-air.at/Pressebilder/DA42TwinStar/Panel/tn/DA42panel_ high .jpg.html Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the turbodiesel engines (includes autopitch etc). That, I think, would be a much easier problem. All the best, David The Engine (a TAE125 Turbodiesel) would certainly be useful to have; there are already STC's for this engine to go into the PA28 and 172 in real-life, the DA40 also has it from the factory as an option. - All the variants use the same single-lever FADEC control. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
Interesting aircraft. On January 1, 2005 04:44 pm, Dave Martin wrote: The visual model is easy enough Provided that there are enough data to do an accurate model. Is there any technical document available for references? Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Saturday 01 Jan 2005 22:36, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Interesting aircraft. On January 1, 2005 04:44 pm, Dave Martin wrote: The visual model is easy enough Provided that there are enough data to do an accurate model. Is there any technical document available for references? Ampere A good point; I've made a quick search but came up with nothing. Even a good diagram of a DA40 would be useful as I believe they share the same fusealage aft of the firewall. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
Dave Martin wrote: Also, it would need someone to model the gearbox and FADEC for the turbodiesel engines (includes autopitch etc). They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North American market, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
Dave Martin wrote: Even a good diagram of a DA40 would be useful as I believe they share the same fusealage aft of the firewall. To my knowledge they share even the wing but I'm not sure about, never seen the TwinStar in real life. Getting papers on the engine control might not be that difficult: Our flight school's C172 has recently been converted to the Thielert engine and I'll visit the shool quite often in the next months :-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Diamond TwinStar Panel
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:39:49 + (UTC), Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They also have a version with two Lycoming IO-360 for the North American market, Is that out yet? I'd heard that they were working on one because there's no repair network for the Thielert diesel engine in North America; I'd also heard that they were working on setting up such a network. The Thielert engine certainly accounts for a lot of the savings -- I'd expect two IO-360's to burn at least 20 gallons per hour, vs 10 gph for the Thielert engines, but they'd probably also increase the useful load by a couple of hundred pounds and make the plane fly faster, to offset that. The Rotax engine originally used in Diamond's Katanas was an unmitigated disaster (we had yet another Katana forced landing at the Ottawa airport a month or two ago), and left the North American market very nervous about any non-Lycoming/Continental engines -- Diamond finally started making the Katana available with a Continental engine (I think). The Thielert diesel engine has nothing to do with the Rotax, of course, but Diamand will have to do a lot of work to win back North American buyers' trust about non-standard engines. We fly planes hard and far in North America, often with multiple 3-5 hour legs through some pretty extreme climates (from about 45 degC in the American southwest to -40 degC in northern Alaska and the Canadian arctic), so engines that perform nicely for occasional recreational use for local flights in a moderate Europe climate don't always cut it over here after a few years of use. I'm hoping that the Thielert will make it, because the fuel savings sound fantastic. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
